args

The U.S. ought to guarantee Universal Healthcare to its citizenry

I’ll defend my own case, then go onto Pros. Pro disputes that he actually has to provide solvency. This is ridiculous. Ought does connate morality, which is why we need to discuss what actually happens if we implement UHC and if those are moral outcomes. Blankly asserting that having health insurance is good doesn’t come anywhere near justifying a radical change in the status quo. My case I. Timing a) Pro accuses me of not drawing a direct link to UHC when it comes to the importance of fiscal discipline. It’s pretty obvious that taking on a behemoth welfare institution when we can’t afford the ones we have doesn’t count as the fiscal tightening S&P advised. b) Pro misunderstands the probability argument. In the status quo even with Obama’s superior plan in place US finances are so incredibly bad that there’s a 33% chance of a further downgrade. Implementing a massive spending program is going to increase this by a huge margin and is opposite to what S&P suggests. c) Pro drops the rising number of seniors and the meltdown occurring in the current US welfare system. The US government is so gridlocked and incompetent it can’t even handle something as simple as social security, let alone extensive UHC. d) Pro drops the impact of US losing hegemony and how this hurts autonomy. He can lose the debate here alone, because his value is undermined by spending enough to cause a further downgrade. e) Pro’s supposed boons to the economy are all flawed and don’t outweigh. He gives no empirical evidence (and hence no way to weigh) the impact of job lock, and I could flatly deny his 3.8 million number for lack of documentation. As it stands, he explains no methodology and no impact for why self employment will save the economy. His ER response is flatly wrong. 89% of people who visit the ER have some kind of insurance, ER visits represent only 2% of total health spending[4], and ER’s are not more expensive because they’re inefficient, it’s because they involve emergency care. Average doctor visits involve things like check ups and medicine for the common cold. II. Empirics a) Pro drops literally every statistic I cited. Prefer my statistics to his since he doesn’t have any, and extend them all. Extend the waiting times, deaths, corruption, and waste/abuse. This is highly significant, better outcomes don’t occur under UHC systems. b) Pro argues that WHO ranks nations with UHC higher, as if that proves anything. WHO rankings are bunk[5] and rank factors irrelevant to quality such as inequality and life expectancy, which is effected by homicide rates, accidents and other factors . If Pro wants to argue that systems of UHC are good, he needs to provide his own stats and refute mine; remember that the US is number 1 in survival rates. c) Pro argues the reason the Canadian health care system is bad is because it isn’t getting enough funding, yet somehow believes a system in the US, who’s finances and welfare system are in vastly worse shape than Canada’s, won’t also suffer a lack of funding. Recall also that part of Canadas issue is a doctor shortage, a problem that will exist in the US under UHC. d) Pro argues that the wealthy in the US get better treatment. No doubt, but our system also doesn’t assign people onto waiting lists and then allow the rich to jump ship on them, leaving the middle class to die. Canadians desperate for care come to the US where they can pay for their medicine in cash [6]. Better to have some treatment than none due to the rationing of care under UHC. unequal care is better than no care, as poor people on waiting lists get. e) Pro’s final, extensive card is simply arguing once again that being uninsured is bad. Some of these impacts are solved by lowering drug costs by decreasing patent lengths, and remember that Obamacare is helping the poor with insurance. Pros numbers are outweighed by the horrible results of countries that actually have UHC; recall also that Pro has never justified why people should be obligated to pay for the care of others. Opponents case a) Pro argues against my statistics showing how many uninsured are uninsured by their own choice by exaggerating the costs of healthcare. However, nothing approaching the entire costs of healthcare are not pushed upon the populace. The average cost for a family under employer coverage (which is how most people in the US get coverage) is $4,316[1]. Compare this to the cost that could occur under UHC, by some estimates as high as $17,200 a year in taxation for a median income household[2]. Moreover even for Americans buying insurance on the market, a 4 person household with an income of $50,000 would only pay around $3-3,500[3] after government subsidies and tax credits. Obamas private sector solution is superior, as it allows people who don’t want insurance to opt out by paying a tax and provides increased subsidies to help the poor buy health insurance on the market. b) Pro tries to argue that I “only” mentioned 4 diseases where the US leads in survival rates (compared to 0 in UHC countries), unfortunately for Pro Cancer and Heart disease are the top two reasons of death[7] and Pneumonia is also in the top 10. The 15% difference in cancer survival rates between the US and UK, for example, amount to nearly 90k lives annually—far greater than my opponents stats. c) Pros arguments about uninsruance under Obamacare are bunk--not only are they unverifiable estimates, but most of the people would be unisnured by choice. d) Pro basically drops my survey--he argues falsely that the company comissioning it surveyed southern doctors, and argues that since that group was against UHC clearly the survey is baised. Logic doesnt work this way, Pro needs to prove some methodological flaw. UHC would lead to doctor shortages and consequently waiting lists and death. Sources: 1. http://tinyurl.com...; 2. http://tinyurl.com... 3. http://tinyurl.com... 4. http://tinyurl.com... 5. http://tinyurl.com...; 6. http://tinyurl.com... 7. http://tinyurl.com...