args

The United States Ought to Establish a Universal Healthcare

"I proved that FFC was better in my R2:..to enjoy it " Once again , Ask many people and they can tell you that illness causes physical enslavement as well as mental. So in essense , the "freedom" you are refering to is the false freedom that is brought from being ill , knowing you cannot do whatever you want and in some situations , make your own decisions. " My opponent's response to my VC... " My opponent has not proven that a free sick person is happier than an enslaved healthy one. He has no data simply because there is not just one side to that arguement. There are many who are sick and absolutely HATE it! there are many who are healthy and are so pleased with their help they do more to retain it. With that health they are free to do whatever they want. Plus my opponent did not pose it as a question , and if he did , it was posed in a rhetorical right of way. "He's not comparing anything.." I have and even refuted the same comparision twice. And have refuted him several times on these comparisons , Hence there was no conceding. "Certainly a response, but not a refutation." Let it be known that the statement was data to support my claim , please note that my opponent has attacked something that is undesputable , numbers and statistics. "...D�j� vu?" Extending from his R1, he states. ""His justification for the HE VC is that it makes people healthier and increases their lifespan... FFC is a direct link to SocW that supersedes HE." That was my refutation to that in the simplest form and also addressed the concern of mental health as well. " PRO continually compares the free healthy and the enslaved sick. It is maddening.." Contradiction to the previous statement of not stating comparison , Extend this [ across the flow. ] "...You will HAVE to petition. Or in less euphemistic terms, beg. Not exactly FFC. Not even close" But since people are in control of the governments in the world it is THEIR job to PETITION THEM , FOR ANYTHING they want. In addition , the comparison of using a drill isn't a very good one because in the end you are stating there are options , You then go ahead to state there isn't , contradiction. Even more you also state about hoping that a crowd will gather, If so many are discontent about it , WHY DO THEY NOT DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT COLLECTIVELY. 9.9/10 working towards a cause in number gets the job done. "No government agency does its job efficiently..." What leads you to believe that private agencies do it's job efficiently. AIG , for example , is a private agency that has been dumping money into CEO pockets , and declaring bankruptcy only to be bailed out. The following day an insider proclaims that there is a 400,000 trip to a resort in California, and this isn't a government agency , this is a private one. So in the end it is a horrible generalization. The reason to believe that there will be a difference is that if the UHC doesn't do it's job , people will make it do it's job by telling the government what they need to do to fix this mess on a collective level. "Again, he compares free and healthy to enslaved and sick." Yet you've stated the same and I could possibly extend the comparison [ across the flow ] several times from my opponents [ side of the flow ] , And once again , you have created a contradiction which was previously extended. "Sorry, I meant..." A convenient declaration that my opponent mispoke. However it has already been extended [across the flow] twice. Plus once again , it seems as if you have confused the statement. Let it be known. "Sigh. So, let's recap.." No refutation for data , My opponent , due to the lack of a response concedes to this and hence , there is no dispute. "Not a response." Yes it was , With data and documentation to show it was a response. Extending from my R1. "When a third fail to meet the rule...This is undenyable. Read this article and it explains alot more http://www.msnbc.msn.com...... and then looking at this http://www.blogcdn.com...... ..." In the end I did prove it by way of maps and articles to show that Higher LE <----> UHC. It is undenyable because of the fact there is statistics that are availiable to support my claim and previous refutations. And I'm tired of repeating the fact that my opponent has decided try to attack something that is beyond denial. "Not in Constitution." Not in the constitution per say , however with modern concepts involved , It is heavily and boldly implied. To my opponents case. "If I told you ... Y." This is a horrible comparison due to the fact that my side , the affirmative , is prepared to blow someon's head off over a want. Plus why would the people keep on asking for something they know they have the freedom to purchase , that makes no sense and is against the means of capitalism , however I digress again. 'Now as defined in R2, terrorism is "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes". Basically, the limiting of freedom for political purposes.' Note: With the implementation of UHC , we have no reason to shove people into hospitals at gun point. At that juncture it is their freedom to go if they please. Therefore , once again terrorism is irrelevant at this point in the debate. "US does not yet have UHC. UHC requires taxes. Taxation is terrorism. Ergo, UHC requires terrorism. ..." Taxation however is not a violent process in the United States of America cheifly because no one is holding a knife to your throat telling you to pay up. No one is holding a firearm to your head and telling to pay up. People just pay up because they are required to in a modern society. UHC is also part of an advanced and modern society , hence , by having UHC , we are using those taxes to supplement the advancement of society , in forward relation , a increase in societal welfare. [ 2nd Connection from VC to VP ]. Based off of this alone , using terrorism denotes violent action. By you comparing UHC to requiring terrorism you have voided your rebuttal. By promoting societal welfare we are also allowing room for more FFC. So in essence , by not affirming you are not achieveing the goal of FFC. Due to all of these reasons stated prior we urge you in the name of societal societal welfare to societal advancement and the societal advancement allowing for more FFC achieved by implementing UHC , the PRO strongly urges that you affirm the resolution.