Any source
Pro vs. con view
3026 arguments retrieved in 1.0 ms

PRO

  • PRO

    The most satisfied country, Austria, had 70% of the...

    Universal Health Care Would be Beneficial to the U.S.

    I thank bsh1 for accepting this debate; it'll definitely be a good one! By accepting this debate, Con also accepts that any arguments involving ObamaCare will be dismissed as irrelevant as outlined in Round 1. My Arguments History of Implementation If Obama chose to implement Universal Health Care, the U.S. would sure be in for a treat. However, people often associate Universal Health Care with longer hospital wait times, or lower quality of healthcare. But I'm here to explain that this is all false. Let me give you a brief history of attempted instances of Universal Health Care in the U.S. Franklin D. Roosevelt As you all you Americans know (and even myself as a Canadian), FDR was the first president to try to implement Universal Health Care(UHC). Throughout the Great Depression, a significant amount of people couldn't afford Health Care. Hence, FDR wanted to establish publicly funded Health Care accross the U.S. Unfortunately, these reforms were attacked by the American Medical Association as "Compulsory Health Insurance". Even today, many people object to UHC, because of phobia of "evil socialist ideals" (Just ask Fox News).[1] Harry Truman After WWII. Truman tried to implement UHC as part of the Fair Deal, but the U.S. was already starting to move towards the insurance system.[2] Why would we want to implement this today? Well let's see the benefits, which leads me to my next point. Social Benefits According to Harvard Medical School Researchers, nearly 45 000 Americans die each year, largely because of lack of medical service. Dr. David Himmelstein, a co-author of the study and an associate professor of medicine at Harvard stated, "We're losing more Americans every day because of inaction ... than drunk driving and homicide combined." The study also concluded that American adults age 64 or younger who are without health coverage have a 40% higher risk of dying than adults who are covered.[3] On the other hand, there's a correlation between countries that have Universal Health Care and Life Expectancy. Out of the top 15 countries for life expectancy, 12 of them had UHC. These countries include Japan, which has the largest life expectancy (86.5 overall). Ergo, we can conclude that countries with UHC live longer than countries without UHC.[4][5] Overall Satisfaction of Country's Health Care System The World Health Organization polled 21 countries in the European Union in 2003 about their overall satisfaction with their health care system. Out of the top 10 most satisfied countries with their health care system, 7 of them had UHC. The most satisfied country, Austria, had 70% of the people polled say that they were very satisfied with their Health Care system.[5][6] In North America, Canada is well-known for having UHC. According to Health Canada, "In 2009, 81% of Canadians who received health care services were satisfied with the service they received. Only 10% of Canadians were dissatisfied with this service." Here's the chart below:[7] We can conclude that generally countries with UHC, are more satisfied then countries without UHC. Even Americans want it; in a Washington News poll, Americans that want UHC contrary to Americans who prefer the employer based system is in a ratio of 2:1.[8] Economic Benefits In 2007, GM spent 4.6 billion on health care for its employees, with Ford and Chrysler spending around 2.2 billion as well. If these companies did move to Canada for whatever reason, they would save an estimated total of 9 billion, since health care is through citizen's taxes. In Japan, Toyota is a major car company that's world recognized. It is also estimated that "Toyota's production costs are $1,400 lower per vehicle than the cost for American manufacturers." This is because GM estimates that the cost of providing health care for their employees adds to between 1 500 and 2000 to the "price tag" of every vehicle it sells.[9] Put this into perspective; America's healthcare spending was 2.1 trillion or 16% of the GDP in 2008, with 54% of it being paid through company's insurance. This would add up to 1.13 trillion dollars of excess money being spent by companies, which was more than the budget's of Canada, the U.K. and France combined (which all have UHC).[9] According to a 2013 survey done by the Commenwealth Fund, American health care is significantly more expensive than other industrialized nations. Out of 1000 to 5400 people surveyed in 11 industrialized nations, the average American spends way more on health care. See chart below: The study concluded that Americans are far more likely to come across a cost-related issue when it comes to health care and spend more than $1000 American dollars than citizens in other countries.[10] Common Misconceptions about UHC UHC causes longer wait times The point is, the U.S. government is spending a huge chunk of their money on health care that could easily be covered by citizen's taxes. Many single-payer systems that spend way less on health care can easily get a same-day or next-day appointment conveniently. Even the U.K, in which all 4 countries have UHC, a higher percentage of their citizens can get in faster than the U.S. See yet another chart:[10] Even then, long wait times aren't necessarily bad. It's been speculated that waiting lists due to prioritization of medical urgency, and risks associated with procedures (in comparison with patient's affordability) can actually help. Why? A system of immediate care for patients can often be counter-productive for them. This is especially true when it comes to surgery, which can take months for clarification. In BC ( a Canadian Province), surgeon Dr. Lawrence Burr stated that, "15 heart patients died in 1990 while on a waiting list for heart surgery." However, according to Robin Hutchinson, senior medical consultant to the Health Ministry's heart program, the number of fatalities would be 22 if the waiting list were to have been expedited due to the operation mortality rate then.[11] UHC leads to lower health care quality This is absolutely false; countries like France (highest ranked health care system in the world) have a near perfect system which results in all citizens being covered, with good quality. If it really did lead to lower quality, how come 10 out of the top 15 ranked National health care systems in 2000 had UHC?[12] Why the U.S. should implement it? Implementation doesn't have to be immediate. It can easily be implemented in another decade or so. What the debate is about is whether or not it would be beneficial to the U.S. However, numberous sources conclude that UHC is a successful system that is proven to have social and economic benefits to the country. Really the U.S. has nothing to lose; it's far better than the current system that the U.S. has. I look forward to hearing bsh1's argument agaisnt UHC! Sources: 1.Coombs, Jan (2005). The rise and fall of HMOs: an American health care revolution. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. pp. 5–6.ISBN 0-299-20240-2. Retrieved May 31, 2009. 2.http://en.wikipedia.org... 3.http://www.reuters.com... 4.http://en.wikipedia.org... 5.http://truecostblog.com... 6.http://www.who.int... 7.http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca... 8.http://abcnews.go.com... 9.http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 10.http://www.theatlantic.com... 11. Schmitz, Anthony (January–February 1991). "Health Assurance". In Health 5 (1). pp. 39–47. 12.http://en.wikipedia.org...

  • PRO

    Without health care, the poor are more vulnerable and...

    Universal healthcare helps foster greater equality across classes.

    In the United States, the poor commonly cannot afford health care. Universal health care helps them get the care that they need. Without health care, the poor are more vulnerable and have a harder time achieving their goals. This violates their right to equal opportunity.

  • PRO

    Universal health care systems better encourage patients...

    Universal health care lowers long-term health costs

    Universal health care systems better encourage patients to seek preventive care. The result is a dramatic reduction in the long-term health care needs, and thus costs, of individuals citizens in a society.

  • PRO

    The uninsured are not the only concern when a society...

    The well insured also face risks without universal health care

    The uninsured are not the only concern when a society lacks universal health care. The insured are subject to major costs and risks, for instance when they are fired from a job and lose their employer-provide health insurance.

  • PRO

    A universal healthcare system would merely replace...

    Total costs for individuals would be reduced by universal health care:

    The current US system is already funded 64% by tax money with the remaining 36% split between private and employer spending. A universal healthcare system would merely replace private/employer spending with tax revenues. Total spending would go down for individuals and employers.

  • PRO

    Many free universal health care systems provide...

    Universal health care systems incentivize improving patient health.

    Many free universal health care systems provide incentives to doctors to improve the health of their patients. This contrasts with for-profit health care systems that do not provide financial incentives to doctors to improve the health of their patients, largely because healthier patients would mean lower profits.

  • PRO

    Universal health care encourages people to seek...

    Free universal health care motivates people to seek preventive care

    Preventing illnesses before they arise is a very important strategy in public health. Universal health care encourages people to seek preventive treatments because it is free. This cuts health care costs substantially down the line.

  • PRO

    Similarly, a RAND Corporation study found serious gaps in...

    The U.S. ought to guarantee Universal Healthcare to its citizenry

    For this Round I shall be defending my own case, in response to the Con"s rebuttal. The Con begins by claiming that I fail to warrant why UHC allows us greater freedom to engage in society. My Sub-point C, however, clearly explains the warrant for this. Furthermore, it stands to reason that healthy individuals, individuals who are not constantly afraid of becoming sick because they could not afford treatment, and individuals who are not forced by necessity into paying usurious private healthcare premiums will be more able to do the things they want to do, both physically, financially, and emotionally. I will now offer a point-by-point defense of my case. One: Uninsured (A) My opponent cites two statistics to lessen the impact of the number of uninsured. Firstly, I would point out that the $50,000 represents a household income that has to support all of the family members of that household. It is therefore possible that this income is stretched thin to provide for everyone. Additionally, that number says very little about where people are actually living"certain neighborhoods will cost more to live in than others. Consider that most Americans homes, according to the source she cites (Figure 3), make $75,000 or more. That"s a $25,000 spending difference, and indicates that the Con is not necessarily correct when she states "do not have [UHC] because they don"t want and don"t need it."In fact, it is very possible that many still can"t afford it, even at that income level. This seems even more plausible when you consider that, according to the Cato report she cites, the average cost of health insurance in the U.S. for a household is $12,106"24.2% of those families net income. Finally, even if we buy that 37% might be able to afford healthcare"which is a stretch"that still means that 63% are far less likely to be able to afford it. Then, the Con goes on to talk about how 40% of the uninsured are between 18-34. Yet, that means that 60% are not. Additionally, younger individuals tend to lack stable incomes, and, according to her source, tend to come from minority groups that historically and statistically have fewer resources. They may be "healthier" but they"re not impervious to illness"even the young need healthcare. (B) My opponent then claims that the U.S. has better care, and extrapolates from that that UHC delivers bad outcomes because it delivers poor care for "most diseases."Her own source states that this is a comparison of "specific diseases." In fact, she only mentions 4 diseases, which is hardly "most." Furthermore, her own Cato source states, "although the U.S. health care system can provide the world"s highest quality of care, that quality is often uneven. The Institute of Medicine estimates that some 44,000"90,000 annual deaths are due to medical errors, while a study in The New England Journal of Medicine suggests that only a little more than half of American hospital patients receive the clinical standard of care. Similarly, a RAND Corporation study found serious gaps in the quality of care received by American children." She claims higher survival rates outweigh my evidence, yet her survival rates are for very specific ailments, and are not indicative of the system in general, nor do they take into account the problems her own source observes in the U.S. system. Finally, I have yet to see a warrant for the taxi cab argument. (C) Firstly, I discussed the notion of solvency in my earlier remarks. Secondly, according to the Nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, 30 million people will remain uninsured under Obamacare. Therefore, all of the harms of uninsurance remain in existence. Also, the "comparatively cheap" fine will increase over time until it becomes a rather large one. Furthermore, the Con cannot solve because of the 50 million currently uninsured, Obamacare will still leave 60% of them uninsured. (D) Her evidence for her "20%" assertion is a study conducted by LocumTenens.com. This firm, lobbied Congress through the GA Chamber of Commerce to reject Obamacare because of what it called, "economically harmful" practices that would be emplaced. It seems then that this "20%" study could have been more a tool to save it from having to pay out additional funds, rather than a legitimate study. Furthermore, the survey polled doctors who practiced mostly in the South. This tends to be a more conservative area, which would bias the study and make it inapplicable to the nation as a whole. (E) My opponent seems to agree that uninsurance is a problem. She claims, nevertheless, that UHC is not the answer because it create worse outcomes, and that I have no evidence to prove otherwise. However, both in my round one and round two statements, I have providence evidence about the benefits of UHC, in particular citing how it would actually benefit the economy, how it would reduce emotional suffering, enable more people to receive care, etc. I have also shown that the Con"s plan of Obamacare would leave huge numbers uninsured"that it is not "universal." I have also demonstrated, through Kao-ping and Casoy specifically, how uninsurance actually produces the "worse outcomes." Ultimately, it is by eliminating uninsurance that UHC solves the problem. Two: Security (A) The WHO evidence I provided in round two is clearly analysis "on outcomes from countries with UHC to see if they"re any better." Furthermore, just making things cheaper doesn"t solve the problem. If I can"t afford a drug at $100, but still can"t afford it when the price is reduced to $75, then I haven"t been helped. Everyone still needs insurance. (B) Obamacare does not solve, as I discussed earlier. Additionally, I provided more information on the impacts of the economics argument at the close of my round two statements. It also stands to reason that communicable disease will spread if people can"t get care because they lack insurance. My opponent never attacks this line of reasoning. She merely claims that, while that might be true, I offer no concrete impacts. However, even without those impacts, it also stands to reason that the spread of disease is something that we should attempt to reduce, regardless of the extent of the threat. So, you can accept the logical warrant for why UHC (by enabling more care through providing insurance) would reduce the spread of disease, which provides a reason for why UHC is good. (C) The Murray evidence is not reliant of testimony, and shows clear economic benefits to UHC. Additionally, here is some more information on Thorpes study, as researched and reported by the CBO: "This study did not just focus on expanding access; it also assumed significant systemic changes including administrative simplification, computerized physician order entry, an automated patient safety/error reporting system, reduction in inappropriate clinical practice variation, and controls of provider payments and premiums to reach target goals in expenditure growth. According to Thorpe"s analysis"[universal healthcare] would save between $320.5 billion"and"$1.1 trillion." (D) The NPR source only lists concrete economic problems in France and the UK"two countries cannot be used to condemn UHC as a whole, especially when the NPR source notes that Germany, by making several reforms, is doing better. In fact, the report never states that any of these systems lack viability. Rather, it seems to point out that with some tweaking, UHC could work fine. Three: Self-esteem All address all the points as one. All of this information illustrates and emphasizes the harms of uninsurance"the major problems with the Con. Taken in conjunction with other evidence I have provided, it does show why UHC is needed, from a moral perspective. It is what we "ought" to do. It"s not just the contagiously ill, but the disabled and chronically ill who are ostracized, and that"s something we should seek to minimize in a democracy. Universal care and universal insurance will combat this, and solve the problem. Finally, I don"t need to offer a system because we agreed that we weren"t talking about particular systems or forms of UHC. With that, I look forward to Round Three.

  • PRO

    Those born with congenital illnesses or who acquire ill...

    The United States Government ought to provide Universal Healthcare for its Citizens

    First off, I would like to say that even before Thaddeus posted any of his rounds, I posted in the comments section (I forgot to include in my R1) that it has to be in LD format. Go check if you want. I would like to say AGAIN, that Thaddeus has not presented a case himself. I had given him another opportunity if I hadn't made myself clear enough the last round. One last note I would like to make is that my opponent hasn't made a single argument on all of Contention 1 itself. It is just too late now. Now I will begin with my case. The United States should support it's moral obligation by supporting morality. The word ought stated in the resolution denotes a undeniable moral obligation. Therefore to not take up the policy of universal health care would be amoral and would be unjust. This also means that by not supporting the policy of universal health care we are not promoting morality which is what the nation is about. In the end it's a matter of people living longer and healthier lives meanwhile being equal in health care. Or using a old system which continues to perpetuate the disparity in which the rich receive health care at a higher quality than those who work hard every single day who cannot afford it. Think about the people who have genetic, hereditary, and unavoidable diseases. They can't do anything about that fact, and their health deteriorates. When this happens, they are unable to work and provide themselves with any money for the doctors. When Thaddeus states that he is correct to concede my debate, he is inadvertently saying that he agrees with my debate. Keep this in mind, Judge. Some people have less opportunity to acquire health care. In this system, those with the best opportunity to get jobs with adequate benefits (or be able to afford them themselves) are those who can afford a college education and have access to transportation and child care. Cycles of poverty arguably mean that individuals that are structurally disadvantaged will be unable to access adequate care. Slowly, over time, leading to the down fall of society. Other people have less opportunity to be healthy than others. Those born with congenital illnesses or who acquire ill health via circumstances outside their control may not be able to access affordable care because they are costlier to insure (insurers know they’ll likely need lots of expensive care so they charge them more or refuse to cover them). Inability to sacrifice for the common good is destructive to society and community. Institutionalinzing the principle of sacrificing for the good of others and the community, according to some scholars, breeds solidarity which enhances the ethical foundations of a society. Unhealthy people harm everyone because they drain emergency resources and lower productivity. Without access to health care, people will get sicker, faster. These individuals will then show up at emergency rooms to receive routine care (increasing wait times for everyone) or only once their condition has deteriorated to a point where it can no longer be treated. They will also miss work or drop out of the workforce at higher rates. These are the major reasons why the United States Government ought to provide Universal Health Care for its Citizens. All in all, If health care is not provided, the citizens will get sicker and as a result the economy will suffer. I hope I have made myself clear enough Thaddeus. It cannot get clearer than this from a 14-year old. My opponent has not given me a straight answer to my first question. I would like to say that it is NOT in any way moral for many millions of Americans to die simply because they have genetic and untreatable diseases and are too ill to work and make money. More working citizens equals a better and healthier society; UHC will also help get us out of this recession we are currently in. It is not their fault that they are contracting the certain disease, and they can't do anything to avoid it. For my second question, he states that as long as there is a readily available doctor, he is fine. In other words, if there are more doctors, we all will get our treatments faster. By saying this, he is agreeing with me. In the Universal Health Care System, there will be more doctors to treat the patients who are suffering. Now I will go on to defend whatever he has said about my case: Contention 1: At the time that the United States was formed, everyone helped each other. And this is what set the bases of the US Goverment. His arguments about cars is irrelevant because we are talking about the basic neccesity of life. While having one's own car would be nice, it is not a neccesity like life is. When he talks about UHC in the UK, that is also irrelevant. Because as you see, the topic, listed many many times, is about the United States. Not UK. And as for his link. That was dated in 2009, and several things in the economy have changed from that time. So I deem that link, once again, irrelevant. Contention 2: Okay, I see where my opponent is headed. But in this link, http://www.phoenix.edu..., a bussinessman and doctor explain why they think that a free-market economy is not anti-capitalist. Take a look at it for yourself. Read paragraphs 2-5, 7, and 9. It has all the answers as to why a free-market is not at all anti-capitalist Contention 3: Again, con is trying to prove say he is right by arguing with items that most humans WANT. Key word; want. A car, PS3, and the need for prostitutes (on a side note; why??) are all wants, however weird they may be. Getting health care is the difference between life and death. And the more working class citizens the United States has, the easier and earlier that we will get out of this recession we are currently in. I have refuted all my opponents arguments on my case. On basis of the proof above, affirm the resolution that The United States Government ought to provide Universal Healthcare for its Citizens. The ball is now in Con's court. Thank you.

  • PRO

    This is because there are many different types of UHC,...

    The U.S. ought to guarantee Universal Healthcare to its citizenry

    My rebuttal of the Con"s Case: Con"s Observations: The Con begins by asserting that I must offer a means of repairing the flaws of the current system. This would seem to imply that, conversely, the Con must show that UHC fails to address these flaws, which the Con does not do. The Con merely talks about the viability of UHC"s implementation, but when discussing things "on principle," feasibility"s importance is reduced. In other words, what we should do is more important than what we can do. But in addition to this, there are two other reasons to reject the notion that I must offer a means of repairing the current problems. Firstly, the terms "on principle" and "ought" negate the need for solvency. According to Merriam Webster, "ought," in particular, connotes morality. Therefore, when discussing what we ought to do regarding UHC, we are really asking "is it morally right for the U.S. to guarantee UHC to its citizenry." Secondly, even if you don"t buy that solvency is unimportant, UHC does address the flaws of the status quo, primarily by eliminating uninsurance. By so doing, the myriad harms of uninsurance are alleviated, "solved." As Prof. Dale Murray notes, "Major advantages from universal"coverage of the population accrue to virtually everyone. In regard to efficiency, these include more accessible preventive care, lower inappropriate use of emergency rooms"freedom from financial and care-giving burdens placed on others by the uninsured and lower absenteeism and more reliable productivity from a workforce that can access basic health services." All of these are solutions to the problems of the status quo are discussed within my first statement. We both agree that we"re talking about UHC in general, not any particular system. Her final observation, regarding the phrase "on principle," was to note that the term was as yet undefined. However, instead of defining the phrase, she offers an individual principle that the U.S. should uphold. But, just as it would be incorrect to define the term "in general" by naming a specific generality, is incorrect to define the term "on principle" by naming a specific principle. In fact, I would characterize "on principle" as meaning "as a matter of morality in general." But even if you don"t buy this, I still meet the burden as stated by the Con. One: Time (1) Rowley categorically fails to justify why UHC will be detrimental to the economy. He talks about the need to maintain hegemony and to avoid lower credit ratings, but does not draw any direct connection to UHC. In fact, the only two times he mentions UHC are to say that "UHC will weaken the economy" and that UHC would be hard to pass. Nowhere does he explain UHC"s direct impact on the economy. I would go so far as to say that all of the evidence offered by my opponent about the precarious nature of our economy fails to show why UHC would add to the problem. Specifically, the Con fails to warrant why UHC would lead to any downgrading in our rating"UHC will not necessarily add to the deficit. This is because there are many different types of UHC, and the program could be funded in a variety of ways, including compelling private insurers to foot some of the bill. But, since we"re not debating any particular form of UHC, it is unfair to say that UHC will invariably cause added debt or fiscal expenditure. (2) Even if you accept the validity of the Rowley evidence, it can be turned to show how the cost-benefit calculus bolsters the Pro. The Rowley evidence relies on a 1-in-3 chance that the U.S. would have its credit downgraded. That"s about 33% odds that UHC would damage the economy. Given the vast potential for improvement I cited earlier (greater longevity, better quality of life, reduced bankruptcy, etc.), these odds are worth it. So, when my opponent asserts that the U.S. should do what is best for its people, the cost-benefit-analysis here clearly favors the Pro argument; namely, because if we don"t implement UHC, the harms of the status quo will perpetuate, but if we do implement UHC, there is a massive potential (and a high"67%"likelihood) for reward. (3) I can agree that the U.S. economy is presently not ideal. However, UHC would actually be a boon to the U.S. economy, not a burden as the Con tries to (and unsuccessfully) argue. My Sub-point B offers important economic analysis to back my claim (Thorpe and Murray.) But additionally, I can show how failure to guarantee UHC is detrimental to the economy. Kao-ping and Casoy note, "A lack of universal care leads to unnecessary use of the ER: [Use of the ER for common illness skyrockets when people are uninsured; namely, because the uninsured cannot afford to see a regular doctor.] The ER is an expensive place to receive care. An average visit to an emergency room costs $383.11 whereas the average physician"s office visit costs $60.12. It is estimated that 10.7% of ER visits in 2000 were for non-emergencies, costing the system billions of dollars. Additionally, "Job lock" ensues: Job lock refers to the idea that people stay with their jobs when they would rather work elsewhere because their current job offers health insurance. For example, many individuals opt to stay with their job instead of starting their own business"the number of people who would be self-employed if there were universal health care is close to 3.8 million. This loss of entrepreneurship is a real economic cost in a society that is relying on start-ups to offset the loss of jobs that are moving offshore." This evidence supports the notion that UHC would not only be beneficial to the economy, but that a lack of UHC actually harms the economy. Therefore, in hard economic times, the policy of UHC makes sense. Two: Empirics (1) According to the World Health Organization, some 27 of the world"s best healthcare systems (taking into account waits, quality of care, accessibility of services, etc.) are nations with UHC. It seems, consequently, that the empirics actually support UHC. (2) Con only offers a handful of specific examples, which fails to give a broad picture about UHC in general. Canada, specifically, is having trouble with its system not because UHC, but because the Canadian legislature would take money from the program to spend elsewhere, leaving the system bankrupt. (3)The famous will still get special treatment, regardless. In the U.S. they can pay for more exclusive hospitals, doctors, etc. In fact, the kind of corruption/economic imbalance the Con cites would be more prevalent in a non-UHC system. Prof. David Stuckler, et al, note "An over-reliance on partial"care appears to disproportionately benefit richer groups, reducing both efficacy and access to coverage." The observe that this imbalance results from the rich being able to afford better care, whilst those with fewer resources get progressively inadequate and sub-standard care as you go down the income bracket. They go on to state, "[A lack of UHC] also creates groups with strong vested interests in the status quo that can block further progress. Public financing is more equitable"and reflects the shared value of providing care based on need rather than ability to pay." (4) Finally, even if there were a delay, it would still be better than receiving no care or sub-standard care, which is often the case when individuals are permitted to go without insurance. Furthermore, delays can be too long in the U.S. system too. As Kao-ping and Casoy conclude: "(1) The uninsured are less likely to be able to fill prescriptions and more likely to pay much more of their money out-of-pocket for prescriptions. In a recent survey, one third of uninsured Americans reported that they were unable to fill a prescription drug in the last year because of the cost. (2) The uninsured are 3-4 times more likely than those with insurance to report problems getting needed medical care, even for serious conditions. In one study, more than half of the uninsured postponed needed medical care due to financial concerns, while over one third went without a physician-recommended medical test or treatment due to financial concerns. (3)The uninsured are less likely to have a regular source of health care. 40% of the uninsured do not have a regular place to go when they are sick or need medical advice, compared to less than 10% of the insured. As a result, 20% of the uninsured say their usual source of care is the emergency room. (4) The uninsured are less likely to get needed preventive care. When compared to the insured, uninsured, non-elderly adults are 50% less likely to receive preventive care such as pap smears, mammograms, etc. (5) The uninsured are more likely to be forced to delay medical services, affecting the timeline of diagnosis and thus the prognosis of the disease process"The uninsured patients were"1.5 times more likely to be diagnosed late for colorectal cancer, melanoma, breast cancer, and prostate cancer, respectively. (6) The uninsured are more likely to receive poor care for chronic diseases. Among nonelderly adult diabetics, a lack of insurance is associated with less glucose monitoring and fewer foot and eye exams, leading to an increased risk of hospitalization and disability"As a result of these myriad difficulties accessing health care, the non-partisan Institute of Medicine estimates that the uninsured have an excess annual mortality rate of 25%...which is of comparable magnitude to the number of people in this age group who die each year from diabetes, stroke, HIV, and homicide."

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-U.S.-ought-to-guarantee-Universal-Healthcare-to-its-citizenry/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 13.92
      universal: 11.51
      conclusion: 7.75 (boost 1.50, idf 5.84, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 2.91 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 0.70)
      sourceText: 0.86 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.80)
      basic: 1.43
      premises: 1.02 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.30)
      sourceText: 0.41 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.29)
      should: 0.98
      premises: 0.89 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.70)
      sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.86)

CON

  • CON

    However, from the same people that take Genesis...

    Last Universal Ancestor/Common Descent of ALL species.

    We"re gonna need more words! Since I have assumed the burden of showing that all species do NOT share a single common ancestor, I will focus primarily on your rebuttals to my main points. You are trying very hard to prove LCA, and It is creating a much bigger debate than we have room for. Speciation: In short, a salt-water fish adapting to become a fresh-water fish does not in any way suggest that a fish can become a mammal. I understand this is a matter of perspective and interpretation, and leave this one to the readers to decide. Truthfully, many of the speciation events we"vie observed were harmful, not helpful to the species (natural selection?). Also, most organisms seek healthy mates that are of their own species, naturally. This is counterproductive to evolutionary theory based in speciation. "You have no reason to think that this adaptation would stop. After speciation events animals would continue to diverge and change. Minor changes necessarily lead to large changes over time." So how many times does a fish have to become another type of fish before they become a mammal, because those are the types of changes you propose in favor of evolution, and have yet to substantiate an actual special transition. The truth is, scientists started renaming creatures every time they changed colors or something. "The Gal"pagos islands are particularly famous for their influence on Charles Darwin. During his five weeks there he heard that Gal"pagos tortoises could be identified by island, and noticed that Finches differed from one island to another, but it was only nine months later that he reflected that such facts could show that species were changeable. When he returned to England, his speculation on evolution deepened after experts informed him that these were separate species, not just varieties, and famously that other differing Gal"pagos birds were all species of finches." -- http://en.wikipedia.org... "Oh look, the finches are all pretty now like a bowl of fruit loops." --Whether or not there was justification for reclassifying the other finches as a different "species" is one thing we could debate, but they are still finches and not anything else. Does not explain at all how one species can become an entirely different species, which is what has to have happened to go from bacteria to our LCA to the world we live in now. The finches can change colors over and over and won"t change into hawks even, let alone a reptile or fish or human. Call me when you see a finch grow teeth and opposable thumbs" "I"ll concede that carbon dating is only useful for short term dating but there are many dating methods. They are used often together to converge on one result. I"ll elaborate on the age of the earth next round." Fair enough. Don"t forget my rebuttals from last round! It is a bit humerous to see you quoting AIG, but it is a relevant article so I won"t hound you. However, from the same people that take Genesis literally, I generally do not rely upon my information. That said, I guess I should respond to them too: "The amount of dust coming annually on to the earth/moon is much smaller than the amount estimated by (noncreationists) Pettersson, on which the argument is usually based." First of all, they (the "non-creationists") would need to have been WAY off to go from 50" to "". Secondly, if they started doing these tests in"1980, then that means they have only observed for 34 years --not exactly a definitive examination with regards to the timespan of the universe by any account. "You have in no way established the likelihood of a global flood or how this is relevant." Sorry, I didn"t think I had to at this point. "The stories go on and on, and scholars have noted similarities among accounts. While studying more than 200 flood myths, Creationist author James Perloff observed that a global flood was mentioned in 95 percent of the stories, people were saved in a boat in 70 percent and in 57 percent, the survivors found respite on a mountain" -- http://science.howstuffworks.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... Many evolutionists fight this idea, because it creates issues for them if accepted. Rapid burial leading to mass fossilizations and even extinctions in some cases. This explains many questions geologists are trying to answer right now, with regards to the breaking up of the continents and fossils being found on top of a mountain or half-way around the world from where they should be. Otherwise, the fossil record makes little sense, because creatures die and decompose or are eaten under normal circumstances. "According to the traditional evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record, man appears late ('late' is defined as in the upper strata of the geologic column) while trilobites and dinosaurs, appearing lower in the geologic column, died out many millions of years ago. Yet the coelacanth obviously still alive and well-appears nowhere in the fossil record for the last 70 million years. Fossil "men" have been discovered in strata in which nothing close to human is supposed to have existed. Other species thought to have been long-ago ancestors of the human race have been dated to quite recent years, much to the perplexity of scientists. For example, remains of Homo erectus-supposedly an evolutionary ancestor of modern man that lived 1.6 to .4 million years ago-have been found in Australia that have been dated to only a few hundred to a few thousand years ago. Although according to the evolutionary timetable the species is said to have died out several hundred thousand years ago, the remains of at least 62 individuals have been dated as less than 12,000 years old." -- http://www.ucgpdx.org... "That civilization culture and a written language took a long time to evolve does not discredit evolution." We base much of what we know about history on written record. Here you are telling me we can accurately guess things that happened 150 million years ago, but ignoring that recorded history ends about 10,000 years ago, and human civilization probably only existed for 10-20 thousand years prior to that, (using mathematical principles and the rate at which we multiply and consume). "There are many creatures that have survived in various forms since the time of dinosaurs so even if you could demonstrate their recent existence it wouldn"t really matter." "Again, I don"t think you fully read my statement. My point was not that dinosaurs may still be alive, my point was they were supposed to go extinct before we got here, and all signs show that we actually lived amongst them." "The eye is an excellent example of how complex features arose over time from simpler versions. If you can create a case that the eye is irreducibly complex I will respond." I did, and now it seems as if you are being dismissive, as I predicted. "You misunderstand evolution. Giraffes have the longest necks and birds fly the best. All animals have unique methods of survival. " Unique indeed, thanks for making my point. "Self destruction is an example of random failure not design." Free will distinguishes us from all other species, so my point was against common descent. This is not a debate on creationism. "No. Humans, other Apes and all modern primates share a common ancestor. Each species has evolved in different ways responding to different selection pressures. Ancient monkeys were very different from modern primates." Now you are just repeating yourself. I can tell you are smart, but at least fully read my arguments and think about them before you reply. It seems like you are used to having this debate in a certain fashion using certain lines of reasoning. I have already addressed your other points, except: "There are three basic building blocks for every cell, DNA, RNA and proteins, and they are found in all forms of life. This links all forms of life"" --I do not deny this, but rather our claimed understanding of how DNA and genetics fully work. To say all life shares DNA is like saying all life is alive. In Nascar, most of the cars are one of four models, with mostly the same engines under the hood. The customizations they are allowed are very minimal, but combined with the driver make a world of difference, even if it"s only a 1.2% difference in lap times. "there could just as easily have been different building blocks for all forms of life" An interesting theory I would be interested in studying, but this isn"t the case and it is speculative at best.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Last-Universal-Ancestor-Common-Descent-of-ALL-species./1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 10.97
      universal: 8.26
      conclusion: 7.75 (boost 1.50, idf 5.84, tfNorm 0.88)
      sourceText: 0.52 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.09)
      basic: 1.81
      premises: 1.27 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.37)
      sourceText: 0.54 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.72)
      should: 0.89
      premises: 0.80 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.63)
      sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.81)
  • CON

    All arguments extended. ... Pro forfeits.

    Same Sex Marriage is a Basic Civil Right, and Should be Allowed in All Countries

    All arguments extended. Pro forfeits.

  • CON

    A typical conversation involving that would be like,...

    High Schools should not require high-level math courses

    If purpose of High School is to prepare us for college and/ or work and living in a community, then courses beyond just Algebra I are essential to the success of anyone in this society. What my opponent fails to recognize is that math is a universal necessity for anyone aspiring for higher education, and Algebra I is inadequate for the future of all individuals life, even if they desire to be something non mathematical, such as a writer. In fact, I will use the course curriculum of an English Major to show that it is necessary for them to study past Algebra I in order to become qualified. One thing that is crucial to this discussion is the outline of concepts that are involved in Algebra I and what I would point out that it lacks. The course includes the following: Real Numbers, Intro to Algebra, writing and solving equations, using proportions, solving inequalities, graphs, and functions, graphing equations, solving system (equality and inequality), exponents and polynomials, factoring polynomials, quadratic equations, exponential functions, radical equations, & rational equations. My first argument is that the mathematical concepts in Algebra I are much more complicated and difficult than the simplest concept, and more practical concepts in Geometry. Geometries simplest concepts involve angles, and lines and planes. This is more applicable to the lives of individuals, and we use these things in normal everyday life. For example, one practice I have seen familiar in social behavior is the use of the time on a clock to tell someone to look at a particular direction. A typical conversation involving that would be like, "hey, check out that girl to my 3 o'clock" and this would correspond to a -90 degree. This is knowledge used in everyday trivial life that even mandates basic knowledge of concepts beyond Algebra I. If we look on a more professional level, it is a even greater necessity to know concepts beyond Algebra I. From finding the most economical way to arrange boxes in a storage, to finding out how much fencing you might need to build a fence around your farm, the applications of mathematics are inevitable in every station of life (notice how I did not use STEM centered jobs as my point is that even the most basic tasks benefit from an understanding of mathematical concepts). Both these situations mandate an understanding of geometrical principles, which is a 'higher math' than algebra I, but even a fool would pick to study that before solving quadratic equations any day. My opposition mentioned that it is a waste of time due to its lack of practicality, or that it is too difficult for students, but he has obviously not considered it with much detail because the course he has proposed has more complex maths than simpler concepts in more advanced courses which bear more general utility too. Therefore, we should mandate education beyond just Algebra I. My second point is that it better fulfills the purpose of high schools. The primary purpose as I have said before is to better prepare them for college, and if they do not pursue to do so, then to prepare them for functions of common occupations, and functioning in society. If the affirmative wants to dismiss this claim, they must prove why even the most complex lessons in Algebra I to qualify his claims, while the easiest of the 'high-level math' does not. My claim is that higher math classes better prepare students for college, even though they may not major in math related subjects. As I mentioned before, I will use an English major's requirements to support this. My first evidence is that even a mediocre university such as Arizona State University (ASU) requires all it's freshman applicants to take a mathematics placement test. This is not something for only math, or even math related majors, but for every single individual entering the university. This shows that the affirmative has falsely claimed that people not pursuing maths do not need to study math beyond Algebra, but this naivete is contrary to the reality present in the US. My second evidence is that even an English major going to ASU has to complete general math courses, which you did not deny, but that these courses involve the application of mathematics to real life situations, which is not thoroughly taught in Algebra I. Algebra I mostly deals with finding variables and solving them, but it does not pay attention to their practical as much, until Algebra II. Of course the equivalent of Algebra II in university is more difficult than in high school, so taking that class would not be redundant, but provide the basic understanding which is key to complete the class with ease. If we are truly concerned about math being too difficult for students, we need to better prepare them for their future in which math is inevitable. These are adequate reasons, I believe, to firmly say that high-level math classes are applicable to most people's lives, and a universal necessity for people to function properly in the national community of the US. I will provide the counter arguments to the proposition's arguments in round 3, if what I have already said does not convince you that what he is saying is not reason enough to not require high-level math classes. For a summary, my main two arguments is that helps the school fulfill its purpose, and that Algebra I contains more complex math than the simplest in the higher-level math classes and so the students are not facing an insurmountable challenge Sources: https://www.time4learning.com... https://students.asu.edu... https://catalog.asu.edu... https://webapp4.asu.edu...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/High-Schools-should-not-require-high-level-math-courses/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 10.87
      universal: 3.99
      premises: 3.45 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 0.83)
      sourceText: 0.54 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.14)
      basic: 4.17
      premises: 3.62 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 1.05)
      sourceText: 0.55 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.74)
      should: 2.71
      conclusion: 1.96 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 0.73)
      premises: 0.65 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.51)
      sourceText: 0.10 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 2.02)
  • CON

    Using various reasons as "making people live longer" or...

    The United States Government ought to provide Universal Healthcare for its Citizens

    This round will be used for conclusions and responses to my opponents final round. My opponent, in order to win, must demonstrate that the USG ought to provide Universal healthcare for its citizens. Hence, my opponent has the full burden of proof. All I was required to do was negate the resolution. I did so primarily contesting the use of "ought" in the resolution. Please note that this was not abusive semantics; my opponent fully recognized the moral requisites of upholding her burden of proof. I also provided a limited a response to the contentions my opponent made without going into too much detail because her contentions were totally irrelevent until she had demonstrated that anyone ought to do anything. Sadly my opponent has shown an incredibly weak offering, not only in this regard but also in what she had presumed where her primary contentions. I will not pretend to be too disappointed. I was challenged by an individual on a topic I care little for, however, despite these low expectations, my opponent was not able to offer the barest entertainment. First I will deal with the preamble, then her "contentions" and then finish by going over each voting catagory. She first claims that she had asked for it to be an LD-debate prior to my posting of a round. This is self-evidently false as the comment below it refers to her round 2, so it was clearly after my first round. I can't really find any other explanation for this other than willful deception. This should cost her the conduct points. I would then state that I am not required to make a case, only defeat yours. You took on the full burden of proof. My opponent, in a highly confused spiel about supporting moral obligation by supporting morality (I found this particularly amusing), still fails to make a philosophical argument as to why any body ought to do anything. Using various reasons as "making people live longer" or helping the poor do not constitute a moral philosophy. They are claims which already presume a moral philosophy. Her entire case on morality is an appeal to emotion, a logical fallacy. She then claims I concede her debate. Seriously? What the hell? She then asserts that this appeal to emotion is a reason for why the USG ought to provide healthcare. Archangel, you weren't hugely clear, but you were understandable. This works against you however, because you're total lack of an argument for morality existing is apparent. You came close when you touched on the good of society, but sadly you lacked the necessary argument to back it up. =( Then she makes another false claim. I gave the straightest answer possible to her first question; Moral neutrality. She then makes the bear assertion that my answer is wrong, with no reasoning to back it up. Saying society will be healthier does not constitute a moral argument. As for the second question, no I did not make any suggestion that more doctors is necessary better. Constant obvious miscontruals of my fairly clear case is highly irritating. 1. Failed to make an argument. Doesn't support resolution without proving morality. 2. Yes. I agree the free-market is not anti-capitalist. However, what you are suggesting is! State healthcare is by its definition anti-capitalist. Do you even know what the words you are using mean? 3. Does not justify dichotomy between needs and wants and does not support any reason to believe healthcare is one not the other. Furthermore, no demonstration of the right to life at the expense of another is shown. I will admit my responses to her "contentions" are short. However, the primary issue with her case, and the main reason why I refused to engage meaningfully on that side of the debate is because it illustrates a weak showing which can be refuted in less than three lines of argument. So in summary; Pro has failed to meet her Burden of proof in every conceivable way. She has not demonstrated that anyone ought to do anything, she has not proven that healthcare is a moral issue and she has not even demonstrated that UHC is a desirable institution. Arguments: She had full BoP. Failed to meet. 3 points to moi Conduct: Before this round, I would have understood if you had given them to her, as though I made my intentions very clear, I still did change the direction of the debate. However, her willful dishonesty regarding my case and attempt to change the rules post-framework should tip the balance in my favour here. Sources: No points. Her sources were decent, but irrelevent as they did not support her case without an argument for morality. S/G: Neither parties were horrendous. In conclusion to the debate: never challenge a lazy man without a good response to a lazy argument.

  • CON

    In each series, which lasts for around three months, a...

    why should big brother be banned

    I will use this round to go through my opponents arguments and while doing so will bring up some of m own. "Big Brother is a reality television series produced by Southern Star and shown on Network Ten. In each series, which lasts for around three months, a number of people (normally fewer than fifteen at any one time) live together full-time in the "Big Brother House", isolated from the outside world but under the continuous gaze of television cameras." This is a basic description of the television series and need not be argued because it gives my opponent no weight in the round. Use this as a reference as to what we are talking about but not to judge the round. This is the basic resolutional analysis. Any details my opponent brings up relating to the show in later rounds should not be considered. "Well now that is over, Why should this tv show be banned of Australian television because of the following reasons;" I don't really understand this point but will assume my opponent means the show is already over or canceled in which case banning would be unnecessary. Now I will move on to addresing each of my opponents points individually. "Doesn't set the right morals for children" In order to understand this point, the term morality ought be defined. My opponent fails to do so but I will ease his burden. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains, "What "morality" is taken to refer to plays a crucial, although often unacknowledged, role in formulating ethical theories. To take "morality" to refer to an actually existing code of conduct put forward by a society results in a denial that there is a In each series, which lasts for around three months, a number of people (normally fewer than fifteen at any one time) live together full-time in the "Big Brother House", isolated from the outside world but under the continuous gaze of television cameras." This is a basic description of the television series and need not be argued because it gives my opponent no weight in the round. Use this as a reference as to what we are talking about but not to judge the round. This is the basic resolutional analysis. Any details my opponent brings up relating to the show in later rounds should not be considered. "Well now that is over, Why should this tv show be banned of Australian television because of the following reasons;" I don't really understand this point but will assume my opponent means the show is already over or canceled in which case banning would be unnecessary. Now I will move on to addresing each of my opponents points individually. "Doesn't set the right morals for children" In order to understand this point, the term morality ought be defined. My opponent fails to do so but I will ease his burden. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains, "What "morality" is taken to refer to plays a crucial, although often unacknowledged, role in formulating ethical theories. To take "morality" to refer to an actually existing code of conduct put forward by a society results in a denial that there is a universal morality, one that applies to all human beings. Recently, some comparative and evolutionary psychologists (Haidt, Hauser, De Waal) have taken morality, or a close anticipation, to be present among groups of non-human animals, primarily other primates but not limited to them. "Morality" has also been taken to refer to any code of conduct that a person or group takes as most important. Among those who use "morality" normatively, different specifications of the conditions under which all rational persons would put forward a code of conduct result in different kinds of moral theories. Some of these moral theories claim to put forward an account of morality that provides a guide to all rational beings, independent of whether these beings have any characteristics of human beings. Other moral theories claim that morality applies only to rational beings that have what they regard as the essential features of human beings. To claim that "morality" in the normative sense does not have any referent is to claim that there is no code of conduct that, under any plausible specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons, and results in one form of moral skepticism. Thus, although not widely discussed, what morality is taken to refer to has great significance for moral theories. Dictionary definitions of referring terms are usually just descriptions of the important features of the referents of those terms. Insofar as the referents of a term share the features that account for why that term refers to those referents, the term is not regarded as ambiguous. "Morality" is an ambiguous term. What "morality" refers to when used in the descriptive sense does not have most of the important features of what "morality" refers to when used in the normative sense. Further, accepting a descriptive definition of morality need have no implications about how a person should behave. Accepting a normative definition of morality commits a person to regarding some behavior as immoral, perhaps even behavior that he is tempted to perform. Because accepting a normative definition of morality involves this commitment it is not surprising that there are serious disagreements about what normative definition to accept. This means that there are multiple conceptions of morality and that we cannot use one over the other. Since my opponent doesn't take the time to explain what morality is, this argument should be disregarded. Also, the choice of whether or not to watch the show rests upon the children so this bring me to my first argument, my keeping thw show, we are teacvhing children to be accountable for their actions. "Because it is a waste of space" This is completely vague and should not be used as a way to affirm the resolution. Just because something is a waste of space, does not in any way mean it should be banned. Ex. - 1. Sports stadiums around the world take a lot more space than the house in this television series but that doesn't mean it should be banned. 2. Poker tournaments which I would argue are a bad influence to kids, take up more space on television than this show but that doesn't mean that the tournaments should be banned. "Prime Minister wants it banned because of previous action in the house" Reject this argument for two reasons: 1. My opponent does not clarify the previous events so I will assume what the actionsare. In this house, there was a big game of football and a clean tackle led someone to get hurt. The prime ministers wanting of the banning of this show is unjustified. 2. By banning this show, we will be upsetting the balance of powers. If we do everything that a leader wants to do, that is the making of a dictatorship which I would argue is bad. Thus voting for this argument is the same as voting for a dictatorship. In this round, I have successfully shown that the pro advocacy is wrong.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/why-should-big-brother-be-banned/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 10.78
      universal: 2.65
      premises: 2.12 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 0.51)
      sourceText: 0.53 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.11)
      basic: 3.33
      premises: 2.87 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.83)
      sourceText: 0.47 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.47)
      should: 4.80
      conclusion: 2.71 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 1.01)
      premises: 1.99 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.56)
      sourceText: 0.10 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 2.02)
  • CON

    My first reason is why should other people have to pay...

    The United States should adopt a publicly funded health care system

    Some may argue that in the US health care costs are extremely inflated causing a substantial loss of money for the lower-class. I am personally against that for many reasons. You only have two rounds in this debate so you should use your arguments wisely. My first reason is why should other people have to pay for something that they will not be receiving directly. I am not personally responsible for other peoples health. The government is not responsible for giving their citizens health care. This is simply because health care is NOT a basic human right. As a citizen of the United States your basic human rights are food, water, freedom, and access to a basic education. If you are a strong pro-life supporter, it is simply not right to be forced to pay for someone else's abortion. Publicly funded health care is forcing people to pay something that is not a basic human right which is practically communism. My second argument is the terrible wait times from publicly funded health care. People in Canada have been known to have waited 10+ hours in the emergency room for a doctor. This is a strongly inefficient process. In my area and most other areas in the US I only have to wait 10 minutes in the emergency room to see a doctor. This is largely because some people would abuse health care being publicly funded and go every time they have a cold. Having health care cost more money forces people to only go to the emergency room when they absolutely need it. Not only the emergency rooms but peoples regular doctors offices can get very busy when people are abusing the system. I will give my next points in my second argument. Good luck to the challenger.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-United-States-should-adopt-a-publicly-funded-health-care-system/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 10.63
      universal: 0.78
      sourceText: 0.78 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.64)
      sum: 6.18 (product 5.56, product 0.62)
      sum: 2.36 (product 0.65, product 1.62, product 0.09)
      basic: 6.18
      premises: 5.56 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 1.61)
      sourceText: 0.62 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.97)
      should: 3.67
      conclusion: 1.96 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 0.73)
      premises: 1.62 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.27)
      sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 2.00)
  • CON

    There are a few reasons for the UHC's lack of apparent...

    My 101st Debate: Universal Health Care

    Thanks, Bsh! Since Pro's 'Just Society' framework is only being contested for the purposes of making my theft argument, and since this round is exclusively for rebuttals, I will hold off on addressing the issues regarding it that Pro has brought up this round. However, do keep in mind that Pro has yet to justify his utilitarian framework, and that if I successfully affirm my libertarian framework, I automatically win, since UHC would be an inherently unjust form of redistribution. R1) Saving Lives One important observation we must make is that *every* society has a population of unfortunate people who suffer as a result of their poverty; this is true of every society which has ever existed, be it a welfare state, nomadic tribe, or communistic regime. Thus, this argument's success depends on whether or not implementing UHC has a significantly beneficial effect on society's impoverished people. I will aim to show that, at best, the effect is neutral. Pro's argument here mainly consists of a bunch of scary stats showing the supposedly dire state of those who are uninsured, but he never really shows why UHC is necessarily going to fix it Besides the bare assertion of that it is 'intuitive', he presents a case study regarding how Massachusetts saw a whopping 2.6% decrease in death rates after the implementation of a universal healthcare program. However, this is obviously correlation/causation fallacy-- there is no reason for us to believe that the random (minuscule) drop in death rates is actually caused by the implementation of UHC there. This is especially evident when we notice that the change in death rate is almost negligible; in the United States, death rates easily fluctuate 0.5% to 1% per year, and that there has already been a long-term decline in death rates from the mid-20th century to 2010 [1]. Pro's noted correlation is highly unlikely to be indicative of anything significant. Thus, Pro has basically done nothing to show that UHC actually fixes the societal problems that he notes. Pro asserts that it is 'intuitive', yet the best empirical example he can come up with is a bare correlation which is so small that it can be considered trivial. No matter how compelling an idea might sound in theory, it is futile if it doesn't work out empirically. There are a few reasons for the UHC's lack of apparent efficacy-- 1. Pro's scary statistics aren't actually that scary. "Today, 88 percent of Americans already have health insurance, and of the remaining 12 percent, half are without insurance for less than four months per year due to job changes and so on. Of the remaining uninsured, only one percent of Americans under the age of sixty-five are uninsurable. [2] And most of those who are uninsured lack coverage not because they are poor, which they are not, but because they choose so, realizing that the price is too high for the benefits received. And as the healthy drop their coverage, the premiums rise ever more for those still covered." [3]. Thus, UHC generally doesn't actually help that many people, as most of the people who use it aren't really in dire need of it; this obviously reduces how much tangible benefit UHC is going to show in practice. 2. People tend to use free services to the fullest; this is quite uncontroversial. When healthcare is made free to people, they often do overspend on non-essential medical services, as shown by research done by the RAND corporation on the issue [4]. The effects of this UHC-induced resource overuse are very evident in all the examples I cited last round showing how inordinately long medical wait times and lower overall healthcare quality have become characteristics of UHC countries. Thus, UHC, due to it being free and egalitarian in nature, often fails to sufficiently help those who most need it, thereby mitigating much of its positive impact. R2) The Economy 1. In order to make this argument, Pro relies on the assumption of UHC having a significant positive impact. If we examine his sub-points, we see that each of them is basically composed of him naming some negative effects of an unhealthy population, and then assuming that UHC will fix this, thus leading to a substantial financial gain. However, the efficacy of UHC has been called into question quite a bit in my own opening argument as well as in my R1; we cannot assume that UHC will serve as an effective solution to any of the health-related economic problems Pro brings up. 2. Pro completely ignores the fact that UHC *costs* money as well. Obamacare, which isn't even a full-fledged UHC program, costed the United States 2.8 trillion dollars in 2012 alone [5] [6]. The "$1.1 trillion over 10 years" that UHC supposedly saves doesn't even come *close* to reimbursing the government for its expenditures. Pro's claims that UHC countries spend less on healthcare is simply false; France spends roughly 40% of its GDP on healthcare, which is over twice that of the figure provided by Pro for the pre-ACA United States [7]. Pro's mention of Oman is simply him cherry-picking his statistics-- Oman's relatively tiny population in conjunction with its booming oil economy ensure that its healthcare/GDP ratio would be low. If we look at more generic, applicable case-studies such as Canada, Great Britain, and France, we see that UHC's economic effects aren't nearly as pretty. 3. Even if we assume that all of the economic benefits of UHC mentioned by Pro are real, we see that most of them only benefit private companies and individuals; thus, they can do very little to balance out the incredible governmental expense of UHC, since only a fraction of private sector money actually goes to the government in the form of taxes. Meanwhile, the huge financial burden on the government can only serve to harm the general populace in the form of higher taxes, foreign debt, and inflation (see constructive case). With ten minutes left on my argument time limit, I'm going to have to abstain from addressing Pro's individual UHC economic benefits this round... I will try getting Pro's permission to do so next round. Regardless, I have shown that even if we assume that his benefits are for real, they still don't show that UHC creates a net gain for society. CONCLUSION: I have demonstrated that UHC isn't nearly as effective at saving lives and improving healthcare quality as Pro would like us to believe, and that the economic harms of UHC far outweigh whatever economic benefits it may have. [1] http://www.cdc.gov... [2] Jill D. Foley, Uninsured in the United States: The Nonelderly Population without Health Insurance (Washington, DC: Employee Benefits Research Institute, April 1991): 16. [3] http://www.independent.org... [4] http://www.rand.org... [5] http://www.pnhp.org... [6] http://www.forbes.com... [7] http://www.businessweek.com... [8] http://www.pnhp.org...

  • CON

    Furthermore, my opponent dropped my argument about the...

    Universal Background Checks, as recently proposed in the US Senate, would not mitigate crime

    Let me explain the justifcations I think the voters should have to give me the win: First: my opponent commits a rampant amount of fallacies, from bare assertion fallacies, to moving the goalposts on me, etc... Second: my argument concerning the colombine shooters and their relationship to the private sellers at gun shows. Those two shooters were known for asking if one was private, was completely dropped my by opponent. Furthermore, my opponent conceeds to several of my arguments of the effectiveness of the bill, it's legality (and the constitution), and the impacts of rampant gun ownership (he never actually refuted my study in which showed guns escallated arguments and leads to cases of manslaughter, while also conceeding to the fact that they are not aon inconvieience to the seller) Third: I have met my BOP, showing that logically, and empirically through studies, other countries, etc... That background checks would have correlated to a reduction of crime in the US, it's a crying shame that the Bill was struck down. Now on to refute the last of my opponents arguments. Hypothetical: " I must dutifully inform my opponent that there is nothing "Hypothetical" about the universal background checks we are debating" - Round 4 Quote from my opponent " Before I begin I must remind my opponent (again) to refrain from crediting me with things I did not say. I NEVER said our debate was not hypothetical." - Round 5 Quote from my opponent See what he did there? The question called for the recent striking down of the Manchin-Tooney Bill, (already done) coupled with the fact that the title says "would have" causes this debate to be about the consequences of implimenting the Bill, in fact my opponent indirectly consents to this, when he argues that it would have been an inconvienence to gun sellers. But it's struck down, and so I must argue to meet my BOP that it would have (should it have been implimented) correlate with a decrease in crime. I have, and my opponent only wants to shift my BOP in this debate as a result. I must insist it stay the same. "Suffice it to say I am very unhappy with your decorum thus far." <---- I ask for conduct due to this ad hominem my opponent launched against me. This was uncalled for. Crime Effects: "Therefore to prove the Pro side conclusively I only need to show that this law, AS WRITTEN, cannot be effectively enforced. (Anywhere in the world if this makes con happy)" -- Right, and we agree on everything thus far, however, my problem was with the enforcement mechanism position. I was very clear: enforcement is fine, but the argument my opponent puts fourth is logically flawed. Criminals can still get guns, but they don;t register their guns because their criminals, likewise, we have theft laws, and we keep them even though criminals break that law all the time as well. My opponent is in general correct though that correlation is not causation, however, correlation is still a form of evidence into seeing the impacts of a policy when implimented, and can be used as an excellent objective empirical unit to measure the success or failure of a policy, rather than offering an alternative study, my opponent simply pushes it away and asks for more evidence. (Moving the goal posts) I shouldn't have had to ask for the evidence, my opponent should have simply given it to me. Furthermore, my opponent dropped my argument about the colombine shooters again, and never addressed it! Even if gangs do get their hands on weapons, does that mean we should strike down the law? No! (See theft argument) and even as one study showed, it would still decrease crime with the decrease in guns avalible. As for the hypothetical, anyone working in retail knows that the serial numbers for every product is noted in their databases for inventory. The company would have it and could recall provided a warrent is given to the store. The memory of the storeclerk is not in question, it's technology. Furthermore in court this evidence is both direct (serial number of the gun) and circumstancial (footage/ witness of the account of purchasing) enough for a conviction. "How is this not totally obvious?" I agree, how obviously simple it is. How is it not obvious opponent? Even if they do hide the serial number, other forms of evidence can be found/used. Manufactures can trace the realitive positions of the guns. As for the bill, it was able to guide private transactions and enable a check on the emotional stability and the mental soundness of the person buying the gun. Upon trying to buy the gun, the two colombine shooters would have been denied the guns due to them having previous criminal records. End story. His own source (here: http://www.politifact.com...) even showed how the bill would have worked, but due to it;s striking down it no longer has the enforcement mechanism law experts need to uphold the law. This has been my case since round 2! My opponent simply dropped my argument, picked it back up, and moved the goalposts again! The only thing uninforced would have been family members, which is it. And while the bill it's self may not have an enforcement mechanism, the ATF (Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Bureau) already enforces these laws anywho! This simply gave them the tools to track and watch for online sales and public sales via gun shows. Re: BOP 2 My oppoent dropped this argument in previous rounds. He now claims the prices would make it horrible, however this is a new argument, and is awefully painful to me that he would do so in the last round! I shall rebuttal quickly but this isn;t fair to me: while price was never an issue here, the bill was struck down, even then the agreement between two sellers is their own business, and has nothing to do with the bill about where it is bought or sold, but the mental soundedness of the buyer. That's it. It prevents guilt should a shooting occur, and it's the same as preventing someone from selling a high-powered vehicle to a kid with a record for driving recklessly as noted earlier. When saftey and convienence collide, the saftey of the public should be priority, not making a quick buck at the expense of someone elses life! My opponent never offered a price argument earlier! Those studies (in final passing) were reliable, and even admitted their own short-comings, along with methods employed, and justifications for said methods. Furthermore, all they noted was that their correlation was incredibly strong, but unlike most other cross-sectional data studies this one didn't fit within the parameters of causation at that point and time. That's it, and it's disingenuous to claim that somehow they lied when it was all written in there, heck my opponent even quoted it (their was correlation but not enough for causation) Conclusion: Unfortunately, my opponents conduct in the end was disappointing. None the less, I enjoyed the debate, and thank him for his participation. I have shown through studies, other countries, etc... That the bill could work if it was implimented for UBC's. My opponent dropped several of my arguments, commits several fallacies, and logically deduces his arguments incorrectly in my opinion. Criminals are expected to break the law by very definition. Legal experts get paid to investigate crimes, and they generally do well. Time for those background checks to come in. Thank you Please Vote Con For Reasons Above! opponent: goodluck on your future endeavors!