args

The United States Government ought to provide Universal Healthcare for its Citizens

First off, I would like to say that even before Thaddeus posted any of his rounds, I posted in the comments section (I forgot to include in my R1) that it has to be in LD format. Go check if you want. I would like to say AGAIN, that Thaddeus has not presented a case himself. I had given him another opportunity if I hadn't made myself clear enough the last round. One last note I would like to make is that my opponent hasn't made a single argument on all of Contention 1 itself. It is just too late now. Now I will begin with my case. The United States should support it's moral obligation by supporting morality. The word ought stated in the resolution denotes a undeniable moral obligation. Therefore to not take up the policy of universal health care would be amoral and would be unjust. This also means that by not supporting the policy of universal health care we are not promoting morality which is what the nation is about. In the end it's a matter of people living longer and healthier lives meanwhile being equal in health care. Or using a old system which continues to perpetuate the disparity in which the rich receive health care at a higher quality than those who work hard every single day who cannot afford it. Think about the people who have genetic, hereditary, and unavoidable diseases. They can't do anything about that fact, and their health deteriorates. When this happens, they are unable to work and provide themselves with any money for the doctors. When Thaddeus states that he is correct to concede my debate, he is inadvertently saying that he agrees with my debate. Keep this in mind, Judge. Some people have less opportunity to acquire health care. In this system, those with the best opportunity to get jobs with adequate benefits (or be able to afford them themselves) are those who can afford a college education and have access to transportation and child care. Cycles of poverty arguably mean that individuals that are structurally disadvantaged will be unable to access adequate care. Slowly, over time, leading to the down fall of society. Other people have less opportunity to be healthy than others. Those born with congenital illnesses or who acquire ill health via circumstances outside their control may not be able to access affordable care because they are costlier to insure (insurers know they’ll likely need lots of expensive care so they charge them more or refuse to cover them). Inability to sacrifice for the common good is destructive to society and community. Institutionalinzing the principle of sacrificing for the good of others and the community, according to some scholars, breeds solidarity which enhances the ethical foundations of a society. Unhealthy people harm everyone because they drain emergency resources and lower productivity. Without access to health care, people will get sicker, faster. These individuals will then show up at emergency rooms to receive routine care (increasing wait times for everyone) or only once their condition has deteriorated to a point where it can no longer be treated. They will also miss work or drop out of the workforce at higher rates. These are the major reasons why the United States Government ought to provide Universal Health Care for its Citizens. All in all, If health care is not provided, the citizens will get sicker and as a result the economy will suffer. I hope I have made myself clear enough Thaddeus. It cannot get clearer than this from a 14-year old. My opponent has not given me a straight answer to my first question. I would like to say that it is NOT in any way moral for many millions of Americans to die simply because they have genetic and untreatable diseases and are too ill to work and make money. More working citizens equals a better and healthier society; UHC will also help get us out of this recession we are currently in. It is not their fault that they are contracting the certain disease, and they can't do anything to avoid it. For my second question, he states that as long as there is a readily available doctor, he is fine. In other words, if there are more doctors, we all will get our treatments faster. By saying this, he is agreeing with me. In the Universal Health Care System, there will be more doctors to treat the patients who are suffering. Now I will go on to defend whatever he has said about my case: Contention 1: At the time that the United States was formed, everyone helped each other. And this is what set the bases of the US Goverment. His arguments about cars is irrelevant because we are talking about the basic neccesity of life. While having one's own car would be nice, it is not a neccesity like life is. When he talks about UHC in the UK, that is also irrelevant. Because as you see, the topic, listed many many times, is about the United States. Not UK. And as for his link. That was dated in 2009, and several things in the economy have changed from that time. So I deem that link, once again, irrelevant. Contention 2: Okay, I see where my opponent is headed. But in this link, http://www.phoenix.edu..., a bussinessman and doctor explain why they think that a free-market economy is not anti-capitalist. Take a look at it for yourself. Read paragraphs 2-5, 7, and 9. It has all the answers as to why a free-market is not at all anti-capitalist Contention 3: Again, con is trying to prove say he is right by arguing with items that most humans WANT. Key word; want. A car, PS3, and the need for prostitutes (on a side note; why??) are all wants, however weird they may be. Getting health care is the difference between life and death. And the more working class citizens the United States has, the easier and earlier that we will get out of this recession we are currently in. I have refuted all my opponents arguments on my case. On basis of the proof above, affirm the resolution that The United States Government ought to provide Universal Healthcare for its Citizens. The ball is now in Con's court. Thank you.