Christianity supports the health care bill

I would like to first thank stylezco for this debate. It has been good. I will respond to my opponent's points using the same numbering system that he did. 1. My opponent claims that my statements are flawed. However, he does not support this statement in any way whatsoever. 2b. A) The government does not give scholarships for the worst in class; they award scholarships to promising students who cannot afford tuition. The students then put forward hard work and effort, and for this, they are rewarded. Scholarships provide nothing for the future without hard work and effort. B) This key difference between scholarships and health care makes arguing supporting scholarships irrelevant to health care. 2c. My opponent assumes that if the government gives the poor health care, they will be treated and get better. However, this is hardly the case, given the lowering of quality in health care that comes out of government intervention [1]. 2d. A) I gave an entire logical argument as to how the mandate not to discriminate against pre-existing conditions would lead to rising health care costs, lower demand of health care, and ultimately, the collapse of the health care system in America, hurting the rich and the poor. B) This was quite a few rounds ago. C) Logic and one article support my claims. 3. A) Supporting paying your taxes is NOT synonymous with forcing people to pay taxes. B) New claims are allowed in Round 4, and must still be responded to. C) That quote applied to the Roman government, claimed to be established by God. However, the American government, with its church and state, was not an establishment by God. Plus, just because Jesus would support obeying government, doesn't mean that he supports the government abusing this power however they please. 3b. A) Okay, but the analogy still works. B) a) My opponent calls my claim against the government irrelevant without reasoning. b) My opponent makes a fallacious appeal to authority. The federal government, according to the constitution, has the authority to pass laws to do a number of things, but by the 10th amendment, it lacks certain powers, including the regulation of intrastate trade such as health care. The Supreme Court has not ruled on it yet, but may rule on it in the future as unconstitutional, but besides, it is a biased authority in favor of larger government, as government generally tries to get larger over time. 4. A) I did agree that Jesus does not force people to do anything. B) From Round 3: "As for the article that claims that the poor will be helped, it really doesn't support itself with facts. It claims that the poor will be insured, but it doesn't say HOW. This is a key problem that needs to be answered before the discussion can move on." C) No, as the Health Care Plan requires government enforcement. 5 seems to be missing for some reason. 6. I am expected to read 1,990 pages to find out something that I don't even think exists? This is a rather ridiculous burden for CON. My opponent claims that the bill clearly lays things out, but it is in law lingo, which I cannot understand properly. My opponent refuses to clarify his own statement and unfairly pushes the burden away from him. To counter my opponent's summary: 1. My opponent's source is vague in that it has no support. He claims that the statement's presence in an article makes it fact, but in that case, reptilians rule the world [2]. 2. A) I merely quoted that pre-existing conditions may not be discriminated against, then used a logical argument to link it to the collapse of America. B) As my opponent seems to have forgotten it, here it is again, from Round 2: "The bill requires health insurance companies to accept people with pre-existing conditions indiscriminately [2:1]. This means that they must raise premiums for everybody to be able to afford to insure those who will cost more to care for. This rise in premiums will turn the healthy people away from buying health care, resulting in adverse impact [2:2], driving health care prices higher and higher. When a healthy person suddenly becomes ill, he can apply for health insurance anyway, calling his sudden disease a pre-existing condition. The company would be forced to accept him and pay for for his health care. This would make profits for health insurance companies practically impossible in the long run." 3. My opponent's two main points are actually rather similar, almost the same. One is that Jesus would support universal health care, and the other is that he would support social programs such as universal health care. If one reads my response to Point 1, but treats it as a response to Point 2, nothing would be amiss whatsoever. 3. As the health care bill forces people to do things, Jesus would not support giving the government the authority to do so. My opponent agrees that Christians are not forced to give to the needy. However, given this, wouldn't it be illogical for Jesus to want to force everybody, Christians and non-Christians alike, into the redistribution of wealth? Ironically, my opponent's final summary, all but the last two lines, could more easily be applied to my opponent than to myself. As for those last two sentences, I have no clue how the bill helps the poor because the bill is unnecessarily complicated and lengthy, and nobody (not even my opponent, apparently) has the capability to explain its key functions. In conclusion, the health care bill goes against Jesus' lack of the use of force, any principle of helping the poor, and the Constitution itself. Christianity does not support the health care bill. Vote CON. Again, thank you, stylezco, and may you enjoy your future debates on DDO. 1. http://www.patientpowernow.org... 2. http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net...