The PPACA "ObamaCare" Should Be Repealed

Rebuttals: My opponent states that Obamacare is bad for the economy, is unaffordable, and finally unworkable, and simply cites a bunch of gallop polls as “proof” of this. But I ask him what's the significance of those polls? Simply because a small business doesn't like it in no way means the economy would be harmed. Furthermore, this is simply an ad populum fallacy, the claim that everyone hates it therefore it should go cannot stand here, because that in no way means Obamacare is “bad” or “good”. In fact, what is a “small business” anyways according to gallop? Is it a number of people employed? Or the amount of revenue they bring in? And why only 600? There is simply too many questions here to possibly justify this line of argument. If Donald Trumps business only employs say 10 people, but makes a revenue of over 10 billion a year does gallop call this a large or small business? And how does this translate into bad economics? This improves quality of life, which in turn is a business incentive as 100% of the people are now covered not just 85% of them. Secondly, it is in fact affordable. Before Obamacare, the federal government was expending about 17% of GDP to cover only 85% of Americans. Per capital it was number 1 in the world, for spending $8k per person for healthcare. After Obamacare, it is now expected to fall about 200 billion by the year 2021 in healthcare expenses to the state, and cover 100% of the population. Thus we see that Obamacare is not only affordable, and good for the economy (better quality of life is always good economics), but is actually saving the government money as well. [http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...] Finally, he claims it's unworkable because it's failing to meet it's own deadlines, but the problem isn't the actual implementation of the program it's self, it's the republican resistance to it. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) claimed that he was going to resist everything Obama asked for in the senate because he wanted Obama to be a “one term president” instead of if his ideas were good or not. In fact, this legislation has had a fury of legal challenges to it, even though it was ruled constitutional, and even then states are still trying to fight it's implementation. No wonder it hasn't met it's deadlines. Republicans are trying to fight it grit-tooth-and-nail despite it being ruled perfectly legal and in fact benificial. [http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... ] C1: The Fundamental Function of the State is to Interject When it is in the Best Interest of the Community. My opponent will no doubt argue that the Right of Contract is somehow violated as a result of Obamacare having been implemented between market-forces, people, and insurance companies. However, this cannot be true, as the contention above notes, the fundamental assumption of the state relies on it's monopoly of power to be exercised when “such restriction protected the community, health and safety, or vulnerable groups, as in the case of Muller v. Oregon, 208 U.S.412(1908), where the Court had found in favour of the regulation of women's working hours.”. This was noted not only in Muller v Oregon, but also in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish. Obviously, the impact of Obamacare concerning heathcare thus trumps the right of contract upon insurance companies. C2: Unlike Other Industires, the Healthcare Philosophy Runs Contrary to Free-market Philosophy Free-market assumptions rely on low-barriers to entry, personal responsibility, and voluntary transactions. The problem with this is that, as noted by Time Magazine journalist Steven Brill, healthcare runs completely contrary to this philosophy. In a free-market, if the consumer needed to purchase new shoes, s/he can walk up the street with money, and exchange that currency for the goods, although if s/he does not like the goods, they may leave and purchase shoes somewhere else. However, healthcare in a drastic situation does not in fact allow this. An example of this would be an unconscious stroke patient arrives at the emergency room via ambulence (which was not called by said patient), s/he cannot consent to the prices they are subjected to for the care either directly or indirectly, nor has s/he actually choosen to enter the market in this case. Ergo the free-market cannot be used in healthcare. Coupled with doctors ethics which compells each certified physician to save the patient regardless of monetary transactions and you have a system ripe for universial healthcare! C3: It is Universially Agreed Upon that the Alternative to Obamacare Would Deny Some of the Populace Healthcare This was outright admitted by the Republican Ron Paul, who upon being questioned about this simply proclaimed “well that's what liberty is all about, taking risks!” and then went on to say “well the church will take care of them!” Note that they never denied that the GOP's system cannot cover 100% of the populace, indeed it admits that some are not worthy of it financially, and becausde of the philosophy as shown above, I therefore submit this as evidence that if we accept the philosophy, then logically it follows that the opposite (some cannot have it) ought to be scorned. Espescially when the US guarentee's it's populace the right to life. Part of the right to life is the being taken care of should you become sick. -(youtube)/watch?v=xTuW-a_qFlA-(youtube)/watch?v=7BXTKrbGbZs C4: Other Countried Already Adopted Similar Legislation, With the Exact Same Claims Against Universial Care (Such as Canada in the 50's) Pretty straight foreward: Canada under Thommy Douglas had this same debate in the 1950's. With the exact same argument's against it's universial healthcare, it has not only ceased the debate today, but even conservatives would be crazy to reppeal universial care due to it's historical signifigance, but also because of it's popularity, it is a Canadian icon. Brittian, and France also have similar systems, same as Germany. [Canadian History for Dummies, Will Furgeson, pg 313] In conclusion: Just because small businesses claim they do not like it does not mean it will translate into poor economic activities, indeed one thing investors look for is quality of life, furthermore, it actually decreases sending on healthcare, and it is workable, the problem is the resistance to it! I personally argue that it's the fundamental role of the state to impliment such a program in the best interests of it's people, along with the fact that healthcare philosophy is contrary to free-market philosophy, and the fact that other systems simply don't cover nearly as many people, and we see the impacts of universial care in other countries, I think the case for Obamacare holds firm, and concluse that this legislation is awesome for america and should remain in power! Thank you! http://www.youtube.com...