args

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

A few observations: Pros argument really falls apart when applying it to his burden under the resolution--he lists problems in the current system but offers us no mechanism to repair these flaws; he presumes UHC will solve these issues, but really his advocacy amounts to "health care is good, lack of health care is bad". From where does it follow that a UHC system is the solution? I understand that my opponent doesn't want to defend a very specific system so the debate doesn't get into technicalities, but he needs to at least argue how a system of UHC would solve the problem. Government isn't the answer to everything, my opponent must prove that it is in this case. Case On principle? My opponent didn't rush to define what on principle meant--I argue that a fundamental principle of government is to act in it's citizens best interest, and if implementing UHC is contrary to that goal it ought not, on principle, be implemented. I. Worst possible time My opponent is advocating government run insurance at the absolute worst possible time. The US government is already reaching un-real levels of debt, inducing panic among the population and political gridlock that has crippled the US government. UHC would only increase the fiscal burden. Moreover the number of seniors (who need care the most) is currently rising[1] and the existing US safety net is on the verge of a complete meltdown. Worse still, while debt is ever increasing, the US credit horizon is looking increasingly gloomy. ForexLive reports[2] S&P's position on US credit: “U.S. sovereign credit risks, primarily political and fiscal, could build to the point of leading us to lower our ‘AA+’ long-term rating by 2014.”. S&P thinks there's about a 1-in 3 chance they'll have to downgrade the US credit rating even after the 2011 budget control act, and that probability will vastly increase if the government takes on a huge entitlement program while failing to maintain the ones it has. S&P explains that unless the US implements: “a credible, medium-term fiscal consolidation plan that represents significant (even if gradual) fiscal tightening”, they will probably downgrade it further. The impact of a downgrade is horrible. Economics professor Charles Rowley warns that if S&P or Moodys further downgrade U.S. credit ratings [3]: "[This would] throw into question the privileged status of U.S. Treasury securities as a safe haven for global investors. Any significant flight from Treasuries would raise Treasury bond rates, with crippling consequences for the economy. A 1-percentage point increase in rates would raise Treasury debt payments by $1 trillion over the next decade, wiping out the benefits of all the budget cuts enacted by Congress last year." The US government serves it's citizens best and secures their autonomy most by remaining the hegemon able to secure it's interests, but UHC will deter this. The perception is that the US is in a state of decline, as Mark Steyn argues in an article posted yesterday[4] "The assumption that we are in the early stages of “the post-American world” is now shared by everyone from General Sisi to Vladimir Putin." As the US and its allies continue to wallow in their debt and budget/trade deficits, China and Russia are becoming increasingly more aggressive and imperialistic. Much of Africa, the untapped gem of the world, is under Chinese economic hegemony[5]. The US faces the loss of it's position in the world, and consequently an inability to secure it's citizens interests abroad, if it does not tighten it's fiscal belt. The US's coercive power is just as much determined by its economic might as it is it's military muscle, and UHC will weaken the economy. Moreover even if these impacts are proven false by my opponent, the fact of gridlock remains. In order to pass UHC, Obama and Congressional democrats would have to sacrifice all the political capital they have. This means that sensible pieces of the democratic agenda such as tightening gun laws so that terrorists can't buy guns[6] and immigration reform are less likely to pass, along with other legislation that's vital to national objectives. To advocate such a massive change in such a tumultuous time is absurd. II. Empirical results I'll get more into this when addressing my opponents arguments, but experiences of UHC from other nations have been nothing short of disastrous. Waiting times for care are vast, in England 21% of curable lung cancer patients become incurable while waiting for health care[7]. In Canada, nearly 900,000 people are on the waiting list of care at any time[8]. People will use up all health care resources available since they do not have to pay for them; also in Canada[9]: "Only half of ER patients are treated in a timely manner by national and international standards". This is bad since ER patients usually need help immediately (compare the US, with a mean emergency room waiting time of 58 minutes[10] to Canada's mean time of four hours[11]). Since ambulances are free, the British use them as Taxis with 91% of ambulance visits being for non emergency purposes[12]. Moreover waiting lists for care in countries with UHC are incredibly corrupt, with the rich and influential often jumping places ahead of others in Japan[12] and Canada[13] where "research reveals that cardiovascular surgery queues are routinely jumped by the famous and politically-connected". Pro needs to provide some safeguards against these abuses or explain how the US wouldn't suffer from them. Until then, you negate. My opponent argues in the abstract, I argue actual results. 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... 9. http://tinyurl.com... 10. http://tinyurl.com... 11. http://tinyurl.com... 12. http://tinyurl.com... 13. http://tinyurl.com...