args

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

Recently my opponent's tone has become rather hostile, and it seems he refuses to read my responses. Am I concerned about what is relevant to my debate? Absolutely! And I should be. My opponent is continuously taking this debate off topic and discussing things such as legalities and how a plan COULD be implemented. Now, for those of you actually reading this debate, you will know that I have said this before: WE ARE DEBATING IF UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE UNITED STATES. WE ARE NOT DEBATING HOW OR IF IT COULD BE IMPLEMENTED. Unfortunately, my opponent has yet to learn the meanings of these two words. The word "should" is loosely defined as being "used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness" (1). "Could" is defined as being "used to indicate possibility" (2). My opponent seems to have made a mistake when titling this debate. He wants to debate how possible implementing Universal Healthcare is in the US, but in reality what we agreed to debate was whether or not it would be morally correct to implement Universal Healthcare because it would benefit our country. It is true that this is about a current political issue, but "given current conditions" just means everything would be like it is now. Nowhere in the title or opening statements does either of us say we would be debating if Universal Healthcare COULD be implemented. If we could stick to debating what we both agreed on, that would be fantastic. My opponent also accuses me of being overly technical with definitions; I would just like to say that I am only being "technical" about this particular definition because the topic of this debate depends on it. My opponent is trying to debate something entirely different from what we agreed on, and it is important that we get that straight. The reason I am dismissing some of my opponent's arguments is because they should be an entirely different debate, and the ARE irrelevant here. If I used the same logic as my opponent, I could all of a sudden start debating whether or not 911 was a conspiracy, and if my opponent said that was irrelevant (which it is), I could accuse him of ignoring an important issue. This is a logical fallacy. But if this is a debate using common sense, my opponent should already know that. Next I will address my opponent's healthcare plan: First of all, my opponent starts the argument for his plan by saying he doesn't even like it. If you don't even like your own plan, why would you support it? Now, there are dozens of problems with my opponent's plan: If, as in this plan, we only provided healthcare to the poor, do you really think that is fair to everyone else? How many people would actually support this kind of plan? If the government is helping to pay for healthcare for the poor, is that money coming from taxes? If so, that means the middle class and wealthy would be paying for healthcare for the poor and getting absolutely nothing in return. Does that not seem a little totalitarian to you? My opponent also says that his plan would save our budget a lot, but provides no studies or sources to support this argument. In addition to this, actual Universal Healthcare would actually benefit our economy and gain us money in the long run, as I proved in previous rounds. My opponent also says his plan is easier to implement and less corruptible, but again provides no proof. He says that we would "keep the market competitive" in order to lower prices... But the fact is that if we "keep the market competitive" at the level it is now, prices will not go down, and they will continue to rise. He says we could try to solve this by repealing "unnecessary laws", but does not specify which laws he is talking about or how that would help. He says that anyone who does not want to participate in his program would not have to and would instead be given tax credits. The problem with this, however, is that if enough people opt out, there will not be enough funding from taxes for the program to even work. And what about the wealthy who don't even have the opportunity of opting in? Would they still be paying taxes towards this, or would they get tax credits? If they do, who is paying for the homeless people's healthcare when they cannot afford to pay? The government? But where is THAT money coming from? Either way, there is a budget shortage because of the flawed logic of this plan. Unless of course, as my opponent says, we make "a lot of changes within our government"... yet he calls a simple Universal Healthcare plan impractical. His plan is infinitely more complicated and impractical than Universal Healthcare. But at the end of outlining his plan, he says, with NO support anywhere in the plan for this statement, that it would be better, safer and easier than Universal Healthcare. This statement is OBVIOUSLY false. My opponents' plan is heavily flawed, it has not been carefully thought out, it is immoral as it denies coverage to wealthy and working class citizens, there is no proof for any of his arguments, and, even though this is not supposed to be part of the debate, it would be much harder to implement than Universal Healthcare. Despite all this, my opponent still says Universal Healthcare should not be implemented just because it might be hard to implement. While what my opponent says about how Universal Healthcare could be vetoed is all true, the same applies to any other plan, and is amplified in regards to his own plan (think of trying to implement "a lot of changes within our government" instead of just passing one simple bill). Universal Healthcare would also provide the most coverage and benefits to our country, and it is quite simply our best option. About what my opponent says regarding the CEA study: my opponent was the one who pointed out that this study was not actually about Universal Healthcare. Universal Healthcare is exactly what this debate is about. Therefore, you in essence said the study was not relevant. If you admit that it IS relevant, than all of my statistics from Round 2 still hold true and your attacks in Round 3 were all false accusations. I believe I have addressed all your arguments, and I hope you think your plan out more carefully before calling it superior to Universal Healthcare. (1) https://www.google.com... (2) https://www.google.com...