args

The United States should design a universal health care system.

First off, I would like to thank my opponent for a good debate. It helps when opponents post :D 1. Alright, this kind of goes into my the new point I brought up in Round 2 (Competitive Policy Options). This has turned into (in purpose, rather than name) a policy debate. This kind of debate is basically arguing about which is the best policy to go with. The Pro has already stated several things: A. The current system is not working. B. We need a new one. He listed several alternatives to Universal Health Care, but there are two problems here. First off, he brought them up in his last post. Kind of ridiculous to expect me to cover them all if he never brought them up before. Secondly, he just stated them. He never gave any guarentee they could work. This is important, because without presenting each of them as a policy, it leaves Universal Health Care as the only POLICY to have been presented. Taking into account that even my opponent says we need a new system, the voters should vote for Universal Health Care, as it is the only policy with a chance of solving that was presented. 2. Well the argument about "the burden would be spread to everyone" was a later point, so why negate the same point twice? You haven't presented any logic to back up how this would destroy privacy, and therefore I simply asked you to. You never really did, and thus I should win this point. 3. As for the link, I believe I cited it before but here it is: http://www.citizen.org... The link, if you read it, specifically says we could save $286 billion if we switched to a Universal Health Care policy. So therefore, your point is moot. Universal Health Care is beneficial to the tax payers. Additionally, taxation isn't the only way to fund Universal Health Care: http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. Well, that is a good link, but the problem is... it sort of helps me. If you read one of the first paragraphs, it is stated: "Over all, the survey shows that most doctors adhere to strict standards of professionalism regarding medical mistakes, patient privacy and appropriate patient relationships." Anyway, this link doesn't really answer the question. It just says that IF mistakes are made, some doctors won't report it. It never says that mistakes would happen in a Universal Health Care system because doctor's would have no benefits. I should win this, because it is a moot point. His link: Doesn't answer the question, Doesn't 100% advocate his stance. 5. Alright, finally your reasoning comes out. Basically, you operate on the assumption that the only research comes out of the government. Simply not true. A lot of research comes out of private companies and investors, i.e. ones with which the government has no real control over. Also, you never responded to this link: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com...... It argues that a universal system would give incentives for investment in health-care (i.e. drugs). Therefore turning this argument into an advantage. 6. Just saying "it's old" doesn't negate it unless you bring up evidence from a closer period. As the Pro, you have the burden of proof, and I have the burden of rejoinder. I have refuted your argument with that link, and you haven't prooved that I'm wrong. Just stated that my evidence isn't current. Additionally, you asked whether those contries ahead of us had Universal Health Care. Actually, a great majority of them two. The top two (France and Italy) "have publicly sponsored and regulated health care" which is Universal Health Care, for lack of a better term. Other countries ahead of us that do: San Marino, Singapore, Spain, Austria, Japan, Norway, Portugal, Greece, Iceland, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, The UK, Ireland, Switzerland, Belgium, Sweden, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Canada, Finland, Australia, and Costa Rica. 26 of the 36 countries that have better health care than us have Univeral Heath Care. This in itself proves that Universal Health Care is successful. 7. My point was not: "The democracy and everyone has a right to health care", but rather: This is a democracy and majority chooses. If the majority of America wants Universal Health Care, then they should have it. As for it not representing all of America, that may be true. However, it's the best indicator of what America wants, and therefore, I have preferential evidence. 8. Ah, but 26 out of 36 countries that have better Health Care than us HAVE Universal Health Care. If you argue that America can't solve uniquely, it doesn't matter, because Universal Health Care doesn't uniquely affect the problem (it wouldn't increase America's implied ineptness). Anyway, I don't think America's government is inept at handling things. Two examples doesn't mean anything. 9. Honestly? I have no idea what paperwork we would save on, should we switch. And my ignornce doesn't matter at all. The link talks about how we could save money, and I'm guessing you haven't read it. Basic ignorance on either side shouldn't be a factor either way for a vote. Rather you should look at my evidence that backs up my statements. Sound logic is only needed behind analytical arguments. 10. I responded to this in point 1. I would like to say that "talking very little" and "talking a lot" means nothing. It's the arguments themselves, not the length. I should win on preferential evidence alone, but also because I won on all points. Even if you disagree with me there, the job of the Con is to disprove one contention of the Pro. I have, at the very least, done that. Thank you for your time, thanks for educating me on this subject more, and good luck in future debates. I look forward to seeing future debates!