DDO Tier Tournament: The United States ought to guarantee universal health care for
its citizens.
This is my first ever tournament! I look forward to fun and exciting debate. May the
best debater advance. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Let’s examine the BoP. In order for Pro to win, he must prove both of the following:
1. That universal health care leads to better outcomes (whether in financial or well-being
aspects) 2. That the government is obligated to provide for health care I only need
to negate one of these points in order to ensure victory, and the first 2 contentions
of my case will be adressing the second point. [To further streghnthen my argument],
my last contention will adress the first point. Contention 1: Kant's Categorical Imperatives
Kant's Categorical Imperatives have two parts. The First Formulation and The Second
Formulation. Sub-Point A: First Formulation "Kant's first formulation of the CI states
that you are to “act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the
same time will that it become a universal law... Perfect duties come in the form ‘One mustnever (or always) φ to the fullest
extent possible in C’, while imperfect duties, since they enjoin the pursuit of an
end, come in the form ‘One must sometimes and to some extent φ in C’ (Pg. 1)" [1]
In the first formulation, Kant tries to draw the distinction between Perfect Duties
and Imperfect Duties. Perfect Duties (not to kill, not to steal, etc.) must always
be followed in order for social order to be preserved. On the other hand, Imperfect
Duties are left for individuals to pursue. Even while Imperfect Duties may present
a benefit to society, they cannot be mandated. Otherwise, individual autonomy would
be violated. Health Care is an Imperfect Duty, because it is not needed to preserve
social order, and thus should not be mandated. Sub-Point B: Second Formulation "We should never act in such a way that we treat Humanity, whether in ourselves or in others,
as a means only but always as an end in itself."[2] If the government were to disregard
an individual’s autonomy and enforce and Imperfect Duty for the benefit of others,
the government would have then undermined the humanity of that individual and abused
them as a mere tool to achieve its ends. Although the impact on liberties may be less tangible and more difficult to measure,
they are, of course, still very important. The Imperfect Duty falls to individuals to take care of their own health and decide
for themselves whether they wish to purchase insurance. Thusly, the societal aims
of the general good as well as individual liberties are balanced. Syllogism for this
contention: 1.The Government should only act to enforce the imperatives of Perfect Duties. 2.Universal health care does not meet the standard of a Perfect Duty. Conclusion: Thus, the Government
should not act to enforce universal health care. Contention 2: Nozick's Entitlement Theory Sub-Point A: "Essentially,
what Nozick says is that if a person originally obtained a resource without violating
anyone else’s rights, or from another person voluntarily, then he or she is entitled
to it.... “everyone has some entitlement or claim on the totality of natural assets...
with no one having differential claims. The distribution of natural abilities is viewed
as a ‘collective asset’” [3] Nozick believes that no one is entitled to another’s
holdings or goods that were acquired by that person. He argued that the government
should not be in the business of transferring someone’s holdings or goods (e.g. property,
wages, etc.) to another who did not acquire the holdings or goods in the first place.
From this, it is possible to conclude how he feels about health care that is provided
through taxation of citizens. Nozick argued that any taxation imposed by the state
in order to provide services or benefits to others is both unfair and unjust. Syllogism:
1. Individuals are entitled to the things they have (as long as they did not infringe
upon the rights of others to get there things) 2. Government should not be allowed take someone's things and give it to another person - since the person
has acquired his things rightfully Conclusion: If someone has healthcare, and is paying
for it by holding a job and working, it is unjust for the government to take money
from this person (in the form of taxes), just so that someone else can receive the
same benefits without working. Contention 3: Universal Healthcare is ineffective and lowers quality for all Sub-Point A: Having universal health insurance does not equate to receiving quality treatment "Britain's Department
of Health reported in 2006 that at any given time, nearly 900,000 Britons are waiting
for admission to National Health Service hospitals, and shortages force the cancellation
of more than 50,000 operations each year. In Sweden, the wait for heart surgery can
be as long as 25 weeks, and the average wait for hip replacement surgery is more than
a year. Many of these individuals suffer chronic pain, and judging by the numbers,
some will probably die awaiting treatment.”[4] Although universal health care systems may provide insurance coverage for all citizens, it does not
guarantee accessible and quality treatment. This can be attributed to factors such
as inefficiency in switching from free market operations to government determined
supply and price, often leading to shortages. As demonstrated by the figures above,
this can lead to unreasonably wait times or even denied procedures. Thus, a health
insurance system can actually hinder the true goal of providing health care. Sub-Point
B: Government-paid health care creates an incentive to abuse the system “The employee
is better off to charge a $50 doctor bill to the insurance company—even if the [insurance]
company spends $20 to process it—and have the employer pay the extra $70 in a higher
premium to cover the bill and the processing cost. The alternative—having the employer
pay [the employee] an extra $70 in cash– yields the employee only about $42 [because
of federal income, social security, and Medicare taxes] and costs the employer $75.36
($70 + $5.36, the employer’s portion of the social security and Medicare tax on $70).”
[5] This proves, with figures, just how the private market-public good interplay works
out in US tax code. The fact that government health care is tax-negative enough to
force action to the private sector, and then the actual cost of private sector action
on the employer shows the inefficiency of the cost of gov't provided health care.
Syllogism: 1. Universal health care does not gaurantee quality treatment for everyone. This means that there
is no net gain in well-being. 2. People that get free health care tend to abuse the
system. This only hurts the economy as a whole. Conclusion: We can conclude that there
is no benefit in terms of well-being or Finance ====================================================================
Sources: [1] Johnson, Robert. "Kant's Moral Philosophy.” The Stanford Encyclopedia
of Philosophy. 2012. URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu...;. [2] Johnson, Robert. "Kant's
Moral Philosophy.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2012. URL = <http: plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2012/entries/kant-moral/>.
[3] Rice, T. "Individual autonomy and state involvement in health care" Journal of
Medical Ethics. 2001. Pg 241-2 [4] Tanner, Michael, and Michael Cannon. “Universal Healthcare’s Dirty Little Secrets.” Los Angeles Times. 2007. Web.<http://www.latimes.com...; [5] Hsieh, P and Zinser, L. "Moral Health Care vs.
“Universal Health Care”" The Objective Standard. 2007. Pg.
Debate.org
Pro vs. con view
Topic space view
