DDO Tier Tournament: The United States ought to guarantee universal health care for
its citizens.
Argument 1: Economic My opponent"s argument here is that the life expectancy and infant
mortality rates are high in the U.S., despite the fact that the U.S. spends more money.
Rebuttal: The problem here is that my opponent is automatically assuming that low
life expectancy and high mortality rates equate to having a bad health care system.
While a good health care system may, by intervention, extend the life of a small percentage
of a population, it has very little to do with the average life spans of the whole
population. The number of years a person will live is primarily a result of genetic
and social factors, including lifestyle, environment and education. [1] Argument 2:
A Viable Alternative In this argument, my opponent states that Universal Healthcare
is a viable alternative because by charging less money, the people will have more
money, and the U.S. Economy would grow Rebuttal: the problem with universal health
care is that it does not guarantee equal quality and treatment. [refer back to my
3rd contention sub-point A]. This causes more patients to get severely sick or die
while just waiting to receive their medical treatment. Rebuttal 2: Raising other tax
increases to fund reform could place a drag on GDP.[6] If that happens, that will
make it far more difficult to escape the debt trap Rebuttl 3: Furthermore, universal Health Care will lead to a moral hazard. The idea of a moral hazard is explained
by Mr.Hoffman, who works for the Indiana law journal: "The term "moral hazard" refers
to the concern that the acquisition of insurance itself leads to a change in individuals'
behavior. Those who have health insurance are more likely to use medical facilities
than those who are uninsured, because their use of medical services is subsidized.
Thus, health insurance can increase the cost of health care through unnecessary doctor
visits." [7] So as we can see, this will only hurt the economy further. Argument 3:
Health Care is a right Here, my opponent tries to state that health care is a right
Rebuttal 1: My opponent uses the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, to state
that Healthcare is a right. However, since the resolution states "The United States",
this means that we must look at only United States rights. Rebuttal 2: My opponent
also states that the constitution states the clause, "promote general welfare". This
clause, nor any other clause in the constitution gives congress the power to create
a Universal Healthcare System. The "General Welfare" clause gives Congress the power "To lay
and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for
the common defense and general welfare of the United States." [2] This clause is not a grant of power to congress " it is a limit to a power given
to Congress, limiting the purpose for which Congress can lay and collect taxes. [3] If the "General Welfare" clause gives Congress the power to promote the general
welfare, then why specifically list the other powers in Article I, such as the power
to establish post offices and post roads, or to coin money? Wouldn't it be redundant
to list them? James Madison, the "Father of The Constitution", argued that Congress
derives no power from the general welfare clause, which merely serves to limit Congress"s
power to lay andcollect taxes.[4] If the "General Welfare" clause doesn"t give congress
any power, we can conclude that it doesn"t give congress the power to create a Universal Health Care System. Rebuttal 3: In order for something to be a right in the U.S.,
it must be in the constitution. The constitution has had changes over the course of
time [these changes are known as amendments], and any rights that are guaranteed under
these amendments are also rights under the constitution. If we take in everything
I have stated here into consideration, my opponent"s argument that the Health Care
is a right fails because: Universal Health Care is not a constitutional guarantee, because Congress has tried to pass
Universal Health Care as an amendment before, and FAILED. [5] I have a key question for my
opponent: If congress has tried to pass an amendment about Universal Health Care, and it failed to pass, then how is it a right? Argument 4: Benefits
to society Rebuttal 1: First my opponent states, "Having greater access to cheap health
care." As I have already stated before " Universal Health Care doesn"t guarantee access to health care. [Read: contention 3 sub"point
A, of my original case] Rebuttal 2: My opponent states that Universal Health Care will decrease medical expenses. There are some major problems with this
argument: 1. As the perceived price decreases, demand will increase. In other words,
when people believe that they won"t have to pay for their healthcare, they will use
more health services. Allow me to explain this more clearly: As demand increases to
exceed the available supply of health services, the government will have to take action.
The government will have to limit the amount of services to keep the cost of the healthcare
system from exploding. There are several ways to do this. First, they might impose
rationing and limit the availability of services, which would completely undermine
the purpose of Universal Health Care in the first place. A second option would be increase the amount that
patients pay for their health care. This could be similar to the health insurance
premiums and co"payments that many health insurance policies contain now. 2. Government
Health Care will likely create a shortage of healthcare professionals. The government
will undoubtedly attempt to rein in costs by imposing price controls. It has already
followed this strategy in government healthcare programs that have already been enacted
such as Medicare. Medical training, especially for doctors, is a long and expensive
process. The motivating factor for many doctors is the financial reward at the end
of the process. When the government removes the financial incentive for becoming a
doctor, fewer people will choose to become doctors and shortages will result. If there
is low supply and high demand, prices must go up. 3. The money used to pay health
professionals, medicines and facilities has to come from somewhere. If consumers don"t
pay for these services directly, then they will pay for it indirectly with high taxes.
Rebuttal 3: my opponent tries to state that there will be an increase in jobs. As
I stated before, doctors and many people in the medical industry won't have an incentive
to work anymore. Sources: Sources: [1] John C. Goodman, et al., President National
Center for Policy Analysis, 2004, Lives at Risk: Single Payer National Health Insurance
Around the World, p. 51 [2] and [4] http://dailysignal.com... [3] http://www.heritage.org...
"it"possible"to"restore"constitutionalism [5] Lunder, Erika K. et al. "NFIB v. Sebelius:
Constitutionality of the Individual Mandate" CRS. September 3, 2012. 2. [6] http://money.cnn.com..., S. "Unmanaged Care Towards Moral Fairness in Health Care Coverage"Indiana Law Journal. 2003. Pg 670
Debate.org
Pro vs. con view
Topic space view
