Romanii (PRO)I'm lazy, so...
P1: The government has an obligation to protect its citizens' rights to life and liberty
P2: Health problems violate citizens' rights to life and liberty.
C1: Therefore, the government has an obligation to protect its citizens from health problems.
Premise 1 -- The United States constitution has clearly recognized that all human beings have these rights, and that one of the most fundamental roles of government is to protect them.
Premise 2 -- This is obvious. If health problems didn't threaten people's lives or somehow inhibit their ability to live life normally, then no one would care about them, and healthcare wouldn't be an issue at all.
Thus, the conclusion is shown to be true -- providing healthcare to its citizens is a fundamental role of government. Since the government's only reason for existence is to fulfill such roles, universal healthcare is worth *any* expense no matter how high. It is for that reason that no one complains about the government spending hundreds of billions of dollars on national security and the military -- because they serve the legitimate governmental interest of protecting its citizens' rights. Why should the same not apply to universal healthcare, when dying from a health condition is far, far more likely than dying in a terrorist attack?
Universal healthcare is, by definition, "worth the expense".
The resolution is affirmed.
Return To Top | Posted:
2015-05-31 05:53:54
| Speak Round
lannan13 (CON)Okay so, here we go for Round 3 of our match-ups. I shall begin by posting my Constructives this round and with a similiar equation.
We must first note that in order for my opponent to win this debate he must prove that; A) the government needs to provide Health Care and B) That there is a net gain with government health care. As Con I only have to refute 1 of those to disprove and negate the resolution.
Contention 1: Kant's Categorical Imperiatives
P1.The Government should only act to enforce the imperatives of Perfect Duties.
P2.Universal health care does not meet the standard of a Perfect Duty.
C1: Thus, the Government should not act to enforce universal health care.""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’" [1]
According to the above we see that Kant establishes two duties of that of the government; Perfect Duties and Imperfect Duties. Perfect Duties are those things of which the government must provide to ensure that the government and that society is fully functional. What are these things you may ask? These things are the simple things ensured under that of the Social Contract that you give up for a Civilized Society (not to kill, rape, steal, etc...). These things are indeed key as we can see that this ensures that of a Minarchy at the minimum. What that means is that the Government is to ensure that the people are safe. Everything else falls into that of the Imperfect Duties. Now note that these things may protect and benefit the public, we can see that if they're not of the Social Contract like ideals that they automatically fall into this category and SHOULD NOT be carried out by the government, but by Private entities.
“Any action is right if it can coexist with everyone's freedom in accordance with a universal law, or if on its maxim the freedom of choice of each can coexist with everyone's freedom in accordance with a universal law” [2]
We can see that if the government intervenes on the behalf on the people to infringe on that of an Imperfect duty that they would undermining humanity to achieve their due ends. We can see and must ensure that the Imperfect Duties are carried out by the Private Entites as things like people's health and Private debt is something that is to be delt with by the individual NOT the government. [3]
Contention 2: Universal Health Care is inneffective.
"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]
Here we can see that even in nations that have this health system that it actually makes this issues worse in terms of waiting for treatment and to extend the damage we can see this hurts the freedom of the individual and that is something that needs to be preserved.
“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]
Here we can see that the affects of the Universal Health Care is disasterous to our economy as the costs are keeping pace with that of one of the Top US economic movers. We can see that this has severely harmed our nation and that this law has costed our nation a total of 2.9 MILLION jobs. [6] This is obserd, because instead of focusing on national healthcare it would be better for our nation to focus on economic growth and advancement, but this is doing the exact opposite by killing jobs for the sake of a lost cause as this doesn't ensure that you will get better treatment. No, it's a loss of jobs, economic growth, and finially a great loss in Medical Treatment. This is something that my opponent cannot account for, because even if it's free to get your brains blown out it doesn't mean you're going to do it and you sure wouldn't want to do it. The only economic growth you may see is that on the insurance companies side due to the federal government colluding with Insurance Companies to require that everyone purchases their product. [7] Even at that the Insurance Companies are finding themselves down in profits by 0.3% in late last year from the year before. This is another threat to freedom as the federal government is creating an economic monopoly which poses on Economic Freedom. Here I would like to quote Economist Milton Friedman on the matter, "There is no special role for government in the medical care field at all. There is the same role for government in this area, as there is in every other field – to enforce laws against fraud and deception, to help some people who are in dire distress. For ordinary medical care, there is no case for government financing at all. The costs of ordinary medical care are well within the means of the average American family. And the problem of sometimes it being large and sometimes it being small is readily handled through the availability of private insurance arrangements." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfx94h-oNYM Here we can see that the federal government, nor any nation's government, should involve themselves in this field as for it harms the economic freedom by limiting the choice of health care and this is the type of collusion that Saul D. Alinsky would support.
Sources
1. (http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2012/entries/kant-moral/)
2. (Lectures and Drafts on Political Philosophy, translated Frederick Rauscher and Kenneth Westphal (in preparation). Relevant contents: “Naturrecht Feyerabend” course lecture, fragments on political philosophy, and drafts of works in political philosophy.)
3. (Johnson, Robert. "Kant's Moral Philosophy.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2012.)
4. (Tanner, Michael, and Michael Cannon. “Universal Healthcare’s Dirty Little Secrets.” Los Angeles Times. 2007.)
5. (Hsieh, P and Zinser, L. "Moral Health Care vs. “Universal Health Care”" The Objective
Standard. 2007. Pg. 4)6. (http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisconover/2014/02/24/obamacare-will-cost-2-9-million-or-more-jobs-a-year/)
7. (http://www.wsj.com/articles/universal-health-services-revenue-up-11-1414446456)
Return To Top | Posted:
2015-06-03 05:58:33
| Speak RoundRomanii (PRO)I would like to start by rejecting Con's analysis of the resolution. I do NOT have to utilize either of the routes he has provided in order to affirm the resolution; the route I chose is perfectly fine -- providing universal healthcare is a fundamental obligation of the government, and therefore it is worth the expense regardless of how much it costs. Because the burden of proof is shared, in order to win, Con must provide arguments of his own *and* refute my argument, which he has attempted to do in the previous round. I'll be utilizing this round to demonstrate that Con has failed on both counts.
== AFF CASE ==
Con's first contention basically functions as a response to my own argument, attempting to show that providing universal healthcare is *not* an obligation of the government. I agree with his first premise that the government should only enforce imperatives of "perfect duties"; the question is what exactly these "perfect duties" are. However, his only justification for why UHC shouldn't be considered a "perfect duty" is an appeal to authority (Kant), essentially stating that criminal justice is the only such duty. On the other hand, I have actually provided an explanation of why the provision of healthcare *is* one of the government's fundamental obligations (i.e. "perfect duties") -- health conditions violate our sacrosanct rights to life and liberty. Because my reasoning is sounder than Con's, prefer mine, and consider UHC to be a "perfect duty". Furthermore, Con states that the government is supposed to "ensure that the people are safe", but somehow simultaneously denies that the government is supposed to look out for our health... how exactly can it be said that injuries and diseases do not threaten our safety? By Con's own logic, providing UHC is a "perfect duty". Therefore, we should edit Con's syllogism:
P1.The Government should only act to enforce the imperatives of Perfect Duties.
P2.Universal health care *does* meet the standard of a Perfect Duty.
C1: Thus, the Government *should* act to enforce universal health care.
The resolution is affirmed.
== NEG CASE ==
I have several responses I can make to Con's argument here.
1. It is irrelevant because my argument affirms that UHC is worth the expense *regardless* of monetary cost, because providing healthcare is a *fundamental role* of government. One cannot put a price on the right to life; it is sacrosanct, and thus the government must protect it without consideration of the practical consequences of doing so. Like I have already said, we grant this for things like national security, so why not also healthcare, which protects against something which is far more likely to afflict the average citizen? Con's pragmatic argument fails to negate the resolution.
2. The Affordable Care Act is *not* universal healthcare, so again, this argument is irrelevant to the debate. The Affordable Care Act is an attempt at extending health insurance to all citizens via regulation of the private health insurance market. This is very far from actually guaranteeing everyone "healthcare". Firstly, many people are still excluded from health insurance due to the sheer complexity of the system and its reliance on employer co-pay [1]. Secondly, even if you have health insurance, the insurance company only starts helping you pay after you have fully paid your deductible, which, for low-premium plans, is often enormous [1][2]. Thirdly, health insurance companies still regularly cheat their clients out of financial aid with fine-print exceptions, weaseling, and other things of the like. It is not at all accurate to consider Obamacare to be a form of universal healthcare. UHC would necessarily have to be a single-payer, Medicare-for-all type system, like the ones of European welfare states. Therefore, none of what Con said about the ACA is actually applicable to UHC...
3. Con's criticisms of the ACA are deeply flawed. The only economic impacts which actually matter are the ones relating to job-loss (no one cares about small reductions in the profits of multi-billion dollar corporations...). However, even the job loss claims are patently false; 2.9 million jobs is HUGE, yet labor statistics show nothing but a consistent decline in unemployment rates ever since the ACA was passed in March of 2010 [3]. For that reason alone, reject Con's numbers. Moreover, even if such huge job losses occurred, there is no reason to attribute them to the ACA; all of the studies cited in Con's articles are from blatantly biased lobbying groups such as the Advanced Medical Technology Association, which have a vested interest in negatively portraying the taxes that were placed on them by the ACA.
4. The only time that Con directly addresses UHC itself is when he talks about the healthcare systems in Sweden and Great Britain, citing their long wait-times as an issue. However, if we look more closely at this issue, it isn't really an "issue" at all. In non-UHC countries, there are shorter wait-times because only people who can afford treatments have access to healthcare, while everyone else is denied it. Meanwhile, in UHC countries, all citizens have access to healthcare, and as a result, there are somewhat longer wait-times involved for everyone. Which is the worse scenario? Completely denying healthcare to a substantial portion of the population, or allowing everyone access to healthcare at the expense of having to wait for it a bit? Any reasonable calculation would favor the latter. Con asserts that some people die waiting for healthcare, but even if that's true, that death toll certainly couldn't be worse than the 45,000 people who die due to being deprived of healthcare for financial reasons [4].
-
In conclusion, my philosophical case demonstrates that due to the governmental obligation to protect our rights to life and liberty, universal healthcare is, by definition, worth the expense. This on its own is sufficient to win me the debate because it not only affirms the resolution, but it also renders Con's pragmatic case irrelevant (as if all the flaws I pointed out weren't enough on their own to defeat it). Vote Pro.
-
[1] http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/bs-ed-obamacare-medicare-20140326-story.html
[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2015/05/14/1-in-4-adults-had-insurance-but-still-couldnt-afford-medical-care/
[3] http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
[4] http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/
Return To Top | Posted:
2015-06-03 16:08:04
| Speak Roundlannan13 (CON)Round Forfeited
Return To Top | Posted:
2015-06-08 16:09:01
| Speak RoundRomanii (PRO)Extend.
Return To Top | Posted:
2015-06-10 10:24:12
| Speak Roundlannan13 (CON)Round Forfeited
Return To Top | Posted:
2015-06-15 10:25:03
| Speak RoundRomanii (PRO)Round Forfeited
Return To Top | Posted:
2015-06-20 10:25:03
| Speak Round
Judge: RXR.
Judge: nzlockie
Judge: Blackflag
Judge: admin
Judge: Alex Reed
Can we not use borderline expletives to attack each other please?Posted 2015-07-14 15:13:31
I know, but when you LMAO it makes you look like a self absorbed cock, and the romanii I know is not a self absorbed cock. Cheers!Posted 2015-07-14 14:46:11
@Stag
It's definitely worth a LMAO.
Not sure what standard you're using to judge speaking skill, but okay.Posted 2015-07-14 14:19:39
@Romanii You shouldn't be LMAO'ing. You are speaking quite static, like you are giving a report. Lannan speaks with a lot more clarity, flow, and precision. In my opinion, he was the way better speaker in this debate. You should overview the debates and learn to emulate the way Lannan spoke. Posted 2015-07-12 05:20:19
@Stag
Lmao how was Lannan a "way better speaker"?Posted 2015-07-12 04:55:09
Lannan is probably under 23 Posted 2015-06-11 05:52:46
Isn't that illegal in the US....?Posted 2015-06-11 05:34:35
I don't have health carePosted 2015-06-11 00:57:37
@lannan13 Were you covered by Universal Healthcare?Posted 2015-06-10 13:06:42
@lannan13 that sucks!Posted 2015-06-10 02:41:03
Sorry, I had to take some medical tests.Posted 2015-06-10 00:33:33
@Stag , it was an example given. I also source other nation's health care systems as well.Posted 2015-06-03 08:51:02
BTW @lannan13 , this debate is not contained to the US. Many people would also disagree with your assertion that the Affordable Care Act fits the definition of "universal healthcare." Either way, it is bad to set up the ACA as a model for your arguments against universal healthcare being not worth the expense, because the main function of the ACA doesn't cost the government or the taxpayers anything.Posted 2015-06-03 08:41:17
I have already shown what I would do in these sort of debates. As Con I would just run the universal argument of intertwining government and the economy. Posted 2015-06-03 08:38:45
@RXR
lol that wasn't a very helpful explanation.Posted 2015-06-01 12:47:47
yup, lannan, our score is currently 1-1.Posted 2015-06-01 12:34:25
I should get to this debate on Wednesday.Posted 2015-06-01 09:45:15
I think the pro case is easier.Posted 2015-05-31 11:34:24
Round 3 against Romanii?Posted 2015-05-31 11:29:41
@Romanii Because the cons of universal healthcare out-weigh the pros.Posted 2015-05-31 06:11:58
@RXR how is it tough for Pro?Posted 2015-05-31 05:54:49
This is a tough one for pro.Posted 2015-05-29 10:59:46
You could take the debate still as it would be a great learning expierence for you.Posted 2015-05-29 03:34:44
I would debate this with you but you are coaching me!Posted 2015-05-28 23:28:46