args

The United States Ought to Establish a Universal Healthcare

My Opponent states that he does not think that Healthcare Equality isn't the best way to achieve that goal of Societal Welfare. But in the end what is good for society is in general good for the populace. So by providing high-standard medical welfare , we are improving the well-being of society because they will be healthier. And as a human being , would any person rather be healthy or ill. "I believe that it is the happy sick person, the free person close to death. I believe most people would agree with me. I believe my opponent is one of them." The enslaved person? A person is enslaved if they allow themselves to be slaves to a system. However that is in digression. Plus there are few people who I know who are ill and are happy about it. They have to suffer pain and in some instances die a painful death which is apparent in the way how they leave this world. Yet someone who is unhealthy and is saved by equal healthcare will be happy that their lives have been saved and will thank the higher powers of which they believe [ or what have you...] so in the end what my opponent states , it is a generalization that is made from a bias. "If a society's welfare is only as good as its worst member's welfare, and If a member's welfare is dependent on how free that person is, Then societal welfare is dependent on how free its most enslaved constituent " Which is pretty hard to calculate seeing as we live in the Society of the United States , Home to 303 million people. I will mark the homeless in this debate as those with the worst welfare. However by providing them with healthcare they will perhaps live longer lives and be healthier. They may also be able due to their health , to aquire a job and perhaps find a place to live. This one of the impacts for helping what we would consider aid of the worst members in relation to their welfare. "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." Mental Health also effects physical health , It goes hand in hand. Therefore is someone goes into the hospital with a physical problem and this person exhibits mental health defects , then the hospital , under the criterion of Health Equality , will recieve care in terms of mental as well as the physical to prevent the physical problem to happening again. They can also recommend that the person be sent to another facility if the person is considered dangerous. Which improves the overall standing on societal welfare by removing those who can cause danger to themselves and others by the means of their physican health and mental health. "A1: UHC increases taxes. More taxes means less money,... against the value of Societal Welfare" My opponent fails to admit however that by being ill it also limits freedom and therefore causes the person to lose money in the workforce and perhaps in certain cases , lose their job in the workforce. "A2: UHC forces the healthy to pay for the sick...reduction of freedom." And there are taxes today that people pay that they do not want to. Paying taxes to the state or government helps pay for people who are on SSI and State or Federal Welfare. And many state their discontent with this daily , yet they must do so. So in essence is that increasing or freedom? No , It is doing what must be done in a modern day society. And most modern day societies which are considered highly advanced , UHC exists. "B: If the government is providing UHC, ... reduction of freedoms." This is based off of evidence or sheer opinion? The fact of the matter is that if the government is making billions of dollars off of cigarettes , they will take the taxes from theose purchases to help pay for the healthcare. So in the end it may be the direct opposite , the government will just leave it alone and perhaps increase taxes on these products to either discourage it's use or gain more money off it. The freedom is there however , due to capitalism , to purchase this product. "An additional argument against the VC of Healthcare Equality: PRO never links ... connection." It was stated throughout my first contention. It was not directly stated , however it was very very , boldly implied. In simplicity , for the sake of the debate. Healthcare Equality provides to the value premise of Societal Welfare because by having high-standard healthcare that is universal to all citizens of the United States, Society will benefit because 1) There will be less people falling ill to diseases that strike those with a lower income at a disproportionate rate than people with a moderate to high income range. 2.) It will make people more content due to that fact that many people who have worked for years only to have no healthcare due to the economic downturn , will finally get care that will ensure that they remain healthy. Meaning a large portion of the US population will no longer be cut off to healthcare and an even large number not limited due to ability to pay [ in some instances thousands and thousands of dollars for life saving care. ] "I'm just going to insert an anecdote here – it will be a refutation against this entire contention. It'll be in the YouTube video to the right; watch from 6:14 to 8:46. He is a man that lives in Canada, and he explains how a government program doesn't only NOT provide education, but actively denies it. " There was a failure but the people failed to petition to fix it. Therefore the government didn't deny them education , they were unable to provide it efficiently , and the people refused to speak up in large number and ask for more. Because in the end people run the governments because they are the majority. Plus that arguement is mostly irrelevant because it is talking about education , not health as the primary subject. For the next three points my opponent states that FFC is not being served. But it is. When you are healthier you have the freedom to do whatever you want with your life. If you are severly ill , your normally bedbound. I'd rather be healthy to do whatever I want than be bedbound , ill , but so called "free" Plus I did state what the link is between HcE and Lifespan. In the current system the disparity due to income is increasing. By leveling the playing field by introducing high standards , we can improve lifespans and make people healthier which in terms gives them the freedom to do whatever they want as they get older and live to be older . > If it's a given that USA is the "only wealthy, industrialized nation ... hardly a solid generalization." When a third fail to meet the rule, Look at all the other countries and tell me do they have universal healthcare. A vast majority of nations that rank higher in LE have UHC. 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... It shows that many nations that have higher life expectancies have UHC. Alot of these nations are rate higher on the HDI as well especially if they are located in Europe. C2:Refutation Recover--> Iam proving that is an undenyable because even our constitution it says 'life....pursuit of happiness' and it is supported by the basis of UHC. "a old system which continues to perpetuate the disparity" > Not shown to be due to a lack of UHC. It has , refer to the warrant of the first contention and this article [ http://www.commonwealthfund.org... ] and look at tha bar graph illustration. "By supporting [UHC…]... " Lifespan is relevant , refer to earlier A: It is against societal welfare, However it isn't relavent to universal healthcare.