args

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

I’ll refute Pros case this round, defend mine in the next. Pro contends that in order to pursue our “desires” we need to be free from concerns over our health. First, UHC fails to satisfy this by actually making the health care situation worse, secondly Pro gives no warrant for this assertion-- it’s blatantly wrong. People do live fulfilling lives even in the face of adversity, and thirdly comparing a lack of insurance to starvation is nothing short of absurd. Uninsured a) Pro doesn’t tell you who these uninsured are. The fact is that the picture isn’t as bleak as he paints. According to Health and Human services[1] 37% of the uninsured have incomes over $50,000 and 40% are between the healthy ages of 18 and 34. Many of these people can afford insurance but do not have it because they don’t want and don’t need it. Thus Pros scare tactics of lots of uninsured people can’t be considered too impactful b) Pro has no solvency. We can see from my contention two that UHC delivers bad outcomes. Survival rates for most diseases are greater in the US as CATO reports[2]: “Whether the disease is cancer, pneumonia, heart disease, or AIDS, the chances of a patient surviving are far higher in the United States than in other countries. …the United States is at the top of the charts when it comes to surviving cancer… roughly 62.9 percent [of men] diagnosed with cancer survive for at least five years… 66.3 percent [for women]… Most countries with national health care fare far worse. For example, in Italy, 59.7 percent of men and 49.8 percent of women survive five years. In Spain, just 59 percent of men and 49.5 percent of women do. And in Great Britain, a dismal 44.8 percent of men and …52.7 percent of women .” Higher survival rates outweigh Pro’s 20,000 people stat. It makes sense that survival rates are lowered since people will use free health care on frivolous things like ambulance taxi cabs. c) The status quo solves. Obamacare mandates that individuals buy insurance from private corporations or face a special tax, and that large companies provide their employees with health care. This allows people who don’t want health insurance to pay a comparatively cheap fine and save the money they would’ve spent on insurance, while accomplishing the benefits of a largely insured population. Obamacare is not being fully implemented until after the 2014 elections, so there’s no reason to rush into a UHC system when we have a better system about to be put into place. d) You can turn this argument. 20% of doctors in the US would quit if we implemented UHC[3]. This means that the US would experience physician shortages like many places with UHC do such us Canada[4] or experience doctor strikes such as recent ones in the UK[5]. Thus the situation of care would become even worse as doctor shortages create waiting lists. See the UK for why waiting lists are bad. e) Pro still doesn’t explain how UHC would be better. Killing all uninsured people would also solve the issue, but would lead to obviously worse outcomes. UHC would keep people from being uninsured, but it would create worse outcomes. Pro has no evidence to dispute this. Security a) Pro is still arguing essentially that insurance is good and a lack of insurance is bad. He gives no analysis on outcomes from countries with UHC to see if they’re any better. I agree that health care is expensive and we should probably work on making vital drugs cheaper—starting by lessening patent lengths for medicines so that competition can emerge and make drugs vastly cheaper[6]. b) Pro argues no impact here. How much communicable disease spread would be lessened by UHC? How many lives would be saved? How much would local economies be revitalized? Secondly, even assuming these impacts exist, Obamacare solves. c) Pros only evidence on how UHC could save money comes from (read the comments) congressional testimony. No methodology, no sources, just the testimony of a man trying to convince congress of something. Again prefer actual outcomes and logic, UHC is bankrupting France[7] other European countries[8] and cross apply my logic on b) in the previous contention on why the costs will by inherently high. Pro gives no viable system. Self esteem a) Pro gives no warrant on why it’s someone else’s obligation to provide someone else help with their self esteem issues or any issue. Pro lists a lot of facts that people will find bad but gives no argument for why the cost of fixing them should fall onto tax payers unaffiliated with these uninsured people. b) The sick aren’t ostracized by society because they don’t have insurance, if they are “ostracized” because they’re ill and contagious. c) The bad experiences coming from being uninsured can be solved without UHC. The status quo is already solving them. d) Pro argues no quantifiable impact here. Prefer my arguments as they are backed by solid fact and determinable outcomes. e) It's unfair for Pro to argue the impact of a lack of insurance without explaining how he solves it. I can't refute a system Pro refuses to offer up, and to determine what the United States morally should do we need to determine the effects of any proposed system. It's also impossible to leap away from the status quo without any knowledge of the system you're going to be leaping into. Pros arguments rely upon vague assertions from a few people in favor of UHC, prefer my actual evidence and analysis of nations that already have UHC. You can see from my arguments that empirically the US system delivers better results, UHC fails, and the status quo is solving. We don't maximize autonomy by delivering bad otucomes. Next round I will tie together my case and my criticisms of my opponents case to explain why a Con ballot is in order. 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... 8. http://tinyurl.com...