args

Should universal health care be implemented in the US given current conditions

This debate has been full of miscommunication. The first and most obvious case was in the very titling of this debate; my opponent made a mistake by not saying we would be debating the probability of implementation. Then, despite this obvious error, he continued not to listen to me pointing this out, and simply asks why I don't want to debate that. Well, the answer is obvious: we never agreed to debate if a plan COULD be implemented, so why should I have to? But I have spoken on this issue enough already. Just because my opponent can't understand this doesn't mean the people reading this debate won't. Obviously my opponent isn't the only one who made mistakes. I cited the CEA study which was not SPECIFICALLY about Universal Healthcare (although the principles apply). However, my opponent keeps saying that I made a mistake and should not have cited it (which is more or less true), yet still continually points to that study throughout the debate. It should go without saying that this doesn't make much sense. These kinds of logical fallacies have run rampant in this debate, and I think we can both agree that this was not as productive a debate as we hoped. Here I will refute my opponent's final arguments: Most of what I say in the following paragraphs I have already stated, but as my opponent seems to have missed these points, I will restate them here for his benefit. My opponent says that I asked him to argue more about implementing this plan. This is simply not true. In round three I said I would like him to provide evidence as to why Universal Healthcare would be impossible as "he has made this accusation many times but never backed it up." My opponent tried, but his argument of course fell flat. And we have already argued enough about the topic of this debate; it should be obvious to people who is right as soon as they read the title. Not to get too deep into proper word usage, but my opponent seems to think his usage of "should" is justified just because this is a political debate. That just doesn't make sense. Again, you are confusing the words "should" and "could". My opponent should sit down with a dictionary and review his statements (if he refuses to just use common sense) (1). I never said I didn't read my own source; that is preposterous. My opponent really needs to read everything he quotes more carefully. In the quote he provided you can see that I did not say what my opponent thinks. But the fact that my opponent is still bringing up my source from round 2 in the final round should tell you something: my opponent has run out of valid arguments and has sunk to name calling. As for how much Universal Healthcare would slow the growth of healthcare costs (again, my opponent uses the CEA study as a crutch), the obvious answer would be almost 100%. The reason why is because nobody would directly have to pay for their own healthcare anymore. Of course this wouldn't be completely accurate because money would still be relocated from other areas of spending, but insurance would no longer have the leverage to charge nearly as much as they do now. Logically, a 1.5% decrease is easily achievable. And I already admitted that the CEA study shouldn't have been brought into this. That is more proof that my opponent doesn't read my arguments. About my opponent's plan: First of all, my opponent says he doesn't even support his own plan. If this is true, than he shouldn't have provided that plan in the first place, as both of us agree it is a horrible idea! And I have stated why it is worse, many times, in round 4. It is in no way better than Universal Healthcare. Anyone can see why my opponent's plan is bad. To recap, it denies coverage to many people, it forces people to pay extra taxes and get nothing in return, it is full of budgetary problems and couldn't be paid for the way it was outlined, and it is much more complicated and impractical than Universal Healthcare. I exposed many additional problems with my opponent's plan in Round 4. The fact is that in your plan, you are STILL forcing people to pay taxes for the healthcare for the poor, without getting anything back. And if they opt out, which seems likely, than your plan can't be paid for because there's no money going into it. Note on my opponent's closing statement: I don't want to argue about the implementation of this plan because that's not what we agreed to argue about, not because I can't. Would you want to turn this into a debate about whether or not the tooth fairy is real? Of course not, because that isn't what this debate is supposed to be about. Again, my opponent keeps saying that I have not addressed all of his arguments, but doesn't point out what he wants me to address. I believe I have addressed all of his points, and he is simply trying to distract from the overall debate. If he really wanted me to address specific points, he should clarify which ones. Closing statements: Universal Healthcare would increase the health, happiness, and lifespan of Americans. It would boost our economy, and encourage small businesses with the freedom to choose whatever career you want (without worrying about coverage benefits), helping to get money flowing. Healthcare should ethically be provided for everyone because of how essential it is. Almost every other major western country in the world has provided healthcare for all their citizens. Implementing Universal Healthcare would be very beneficial and have very few or no downsides, as my arguments throughout this debate prove. My opponent has continuously dragged this debate off topic and made false statements, provided little to no evidence, and doesn't even know what we are supposed to debate about. He has said virtually nothing about why implementing Universal Healthcare would be bad, only saying it would be unlikely. Please look at this, and decide for yourself who had the better argument. I look forward to debating my opponent again, and thank you to everyone who read through this. Vote for pro! (1) http://www.dictionary.com...