args

The United States ought to guarantee universal healthcare for it citizens

Contention 1- The State must provide HC Turn his argument against him, I do agree with the fact that the United States has a Constitution, however this works in the affirmatives favor, "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" (Article 1, Section 8) SCOTUS affirmed the fact that it is within the government's constitutional powers to tax people in order to provide healthcare. As a single payer tax system would be funded by taxes, which are within the power of the Federal government, and as it would provide for the 'explicitly stated' general welfare, it is within the fed's power and his argument falls. Extend the Jones card explaining that the State must protect its citizens from threats to life and points out the inconstancy by stating “It is flatly inconsistent to publicly fund protection by police and fire agencies of not only life but trivial forms of property, and yet place medical treatment in emergency cases on a fee for service basis" He did not respond to these points. Contention 2 a.The US TRAILS IN MULTIPLE HEALTH INDICATORS-My opponent makes the claim that our system is flawed due the government intervention. As it was previously agreed upon that all claims must have warrants, which he has failed to provide, his point is moot. Moreover extend the Lobowsky card analyzing the WHO's (World Health Organization) study. This study clearly shows that the United States’ current system is detrimental to its citizens and that the countries that have the best health indicators have Universal Health Care and my opponent has not provided any actual warrants to show otherwise. b. US HEALTH SYSTEM BROKEN, SPENDS MORE FOR A LOT LESS-My opponent misinterprets this point, Handler rather explains the fact that the United States is spending more per person than any other country currently but our results are a lot worse. Universal Health care systems are cheaper than our current system (Handler and AMSA) and result in better health indicators therefore his point is moot. His point in regard to the cancer patient is moot as as UHC provides for comprehensive preventative care therefore cancer patients are going to be identified in stage one as opposed to stage four and therefore more likely to survive which is shown by the better health indicators in the WHO study provided in subpoint a. c.Approximately 100,000 people die prematurely annually due to no healthcare-Con brings up the point of lifestyle issues that UHC doesn’t solve for. However, conceivably, all countries have people like that yet those countries still consistently outrank the US in regard to Health Indicators (WHO and Handler) and have significantly less preventable deaths (Boyd). He states that he doesn’t want to have to pay for these people, however turn that argument on him as according to the American Medical Student Association in regard to UHC, “each of these four options [referring to implementing UHC] would save money over 10 years. The first two options would save $320.5 billion over 10 years, the third option would save $369.8 billion over 10 years, and the fourth option would save $1.1 trillion over 10 years.” Meaning that the United States would be saving money. You can also just ignore con’s warrantless points. d. Uninsured Americans continue to grow-con did not negate this so extend the Derickson evidence Contention 3 a. Health is a prerequisite to achieving ends and exercising rights-Con brings up a good point in regard to dependency, however he doesn’t address the main point of it which was that health is a prerequisite to achieving ends and exercising rights therefore even if UHC resulted in more ‘dependence’ on the government, the end result, health results in more liberty, freedom, and being able to exercise your other rights because rights of no use when one is dead. b. THE ADVANTAGES OF UNIVERSAL COVERAGE ACCRUE TO EVERYONE, NOT JUST THOSE WHO USE THEIR INSURANCE- Con posed a question, asking how people will be more efficient in the workforce when they know, regardless of their work, they will get healthcare. Well that is due to the fact, that because of the extensive preventative care, the workers will be more productive and there will be less absenteeism due to health care being available therefore the workers will be more reliable. Additionally I will pose a question back to you, is the only reason your parents and family work hard in their jobs is to get healthcare? Is that truthfully the sole driving force you believe people have to work? Regardless, con has not presented any actual warrant in this, as we had agreed upon, therefore his rebuttal can be ignored and you can extend the Murray evidence and see that UHC leads to advantages for the entire society. Con makes the point that people will have to be responsible for the really sick person and pay more. However, due to the fact that UHC provides extensive preventative care, less people are getting sick. Kao-Ping Chua explains “Lack of preventive care and adequate care of chronic diseases: Because the uninsured do not get the preventive and chronic disease care they need, they are more likely to develop complications and advanced stage disease, both of which are expensive to treat.” As UHC provides this preventative care people aren’t going to be getting as sick in the first place and therefore they will be less expensive to treat. Additionally note the fact that Con still has yet to provide any warrents throught this entire debate. Con notes that some people are naturally stronger and healthier ans so they shouldn't have to pay, however all that medical care would still be available for them because even the healthiest people get sick, additionally it still is beneficial for that person to have a healthy productive society, something that UHC results in therefore the healthy person still reaps the benefits of the system c. Upholding life is the ultimate moral standard-Con states this is irrelevant because it’s about philosophy, however I explicitly stated in the opening round that we are talking about moral obligations of the government therefore this is entirely topical. As he did not respond to this extend the Rasmussen evidence and we, knowing that affirming upholds life better, can affirm the resolution on this point alone. Do not allow Con to make new arguments in regard to this next round as that does not allow me to respond to them as he could have very well made the argument last round. Aspects of it, not its entirety No, and single payer system is not socialized medicine, see No, also a State with UHC is not communistic, look to almost every other industrialized nation in the world, they have UHC but are not communistic. Don’t know much about it Health care and k-12 education should be run by the state, aside from that sure The resolution was phrased as ought defined as moral obligation, so yes for this resolution Sure, but remember that the constitution has been and will continue to be amended Taxes Single Payer System Voters: My opponent has not provided any actual warrants throughout any of his rebuttals, not a single citation nor source, as we agreed upon at the beginning. I followed the outline I proposed which was claim, warrant, and impact where it applied. I have shown the fact that it is a part of the State’s obligation to provide HC through my Jones evidence and even Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. Then I showed clearly that the US trailed in regard to health indicators compared to other countries, in our current system, is spending far more, 100,000 people are dying prematurely every year due to lack of UHC, and that the problem is getting worse. Then I showed that HC is a prerequisite to achieving ends and exercising rights, that UHC is beneficial to everyone, not just those who require medical care, and the state’s ultimate goal is to preserve life. Affirm :)