universal health care

Outright, I must clarify that the Contender to a motion never has the burden of proof unless it is agreed upon prior to the beginning of the debate. The obligatory taxation argument is invalid as there are taxes paid in the status quo which are obligatory despite providing no benefit to the one paying the tax. A perfect example of this is would be public education, those who put their children through private school are still under the burden to pay taxes for public education despite not utilizing this right. In the same vein of thought, we come to the realization that those living within the social contract[1] do not have absolute freedom, as their living within this contract means that they've given up absolute freedom in exchange for the protection that society provides. [1] http://www.iep.utm.edu... I ask that the voters stay mindful of social Contract theory throughout this debate That said, I move onto my opponent's more pertinent arguments, Should all Americans have the right to health care?- This analysis is inherently flawed for the same reasons that my opponent's analysis concerning the burdens in this resolution are flawed; humans living within the social contract do not have absolute freedom, and the right of the government to tax it's citizens for a public good is not absolute power. Just like citizens may opt out of taking advantage of Public education, they may also opt out of taking advantage of universal healthcare in favor of private clinics just as they do in Europe[2] [2] http://www.mypremiumeurope.com... Next we see that Con's opposition to the resolution stems from a desire to keep his pockets padded; he doesn't want the government to tax him. However my opponent over looks the fact that Universal Healthcare would actually be good for the economy. [1]When people sick they can't work, and that inability to work means that they aren't able to contribute to the economy. Obviously this hurts them but it also hurts their employer and those who depend on him. Assuming his employer doesn't outright fire him as soon as he is unable to work, it means that he needs time off to heal; during this time, the employed still has to pay him and the he doesn't get a benefit from him working. On another note, assuming the employer was a jerk and did fire him, it means he now has to shell out the money to hire and train a new employee to do the sick man's job. Even if this man worked at McDonalds he would have to be trained at least a little bit, but if he had a more complicated job such as being a machinist then the employer would have to spend even more on training costs. [3] http://bangordailynews.com... We must remember that to an extend Universal Healthcare is already provided[4]. If I came into a hospital throwing up blood because I have throat cancer, the hospital would have to provide emergency care by virtue of the Hippocratic oath. This costs hospitals untold amounts of money because most people wait until they're beyond the point of return to seek help since they can't afford regular healthcare. If we would simply fund preventative healthcare, not only would this not be a problem, but we would also cut down on employers who lose money because their employees get sick and are unable to work. [4] http://blogs.hbr.org... As for my opponent's hair cutting argument; it's an Argumentum ad Absurdum and a Slippery Slope argument. If I need healthcare and don't get it, I'll probably die; If I need a haircut and don't get it, I'll probably be fine. In a worst case scenario I could get a pair of scissors from the dollar store and do it myself; I can't perform cardiovascular surgery by myself. Getting a hair cut and getting healthcare and two fundamentally different things, to compare the two and come to the conclusion that we mustn't allow Universal Healthcare is absurd; if we get to that point then get back to me. As for the Slippery Slope? I challenge my opponent to make a link between Universal Healthcare and Universal Hair-Care. If he cannot this is a fallacy. Also, breast implants are a cosmetic procedure. A patient will not die without them; diabetic insulin and preventative health care are necessities. We place the limit on universal healthcare on what is a necessity; if one could truly show that without breast implants that they would die, then Universal Healthcare would cover it. Finally I can't see the chart my opponent has provided very clearly; but a Logical Refutation should stand. For the wait time; having to wait two or four weeks is better than not getting healthcare at all. Payment isn't going to be solely dependent on the healthcare industry. My opponent never tells us what the average income of a person living in these places is so we don't have an accurate point of comparison. The average Canadian makes $25,363 a year while the average American makes $31,111[5]. [5] http://en.wikipedia.org... With my opponent's argument rebutted; I will offer a few argument as to why Universal Healthcare would be a good idea. First; Money- As I've shown in refutation of my opponent's case, it would be economically beneficial for employers, workers and Hospitals if Universal Healthcare was enacted[3][4]. Preventative care would make sure that workers would be able to continue to work without. Second; Permissibility- As I've shown in refutation of my opponent's opening analysis, it would be perfectly acceptable to provide Universal Health Care just as it is to provide Universal Education. If one doesn't want to partake of the public healthcare then private healthcare is an option. However they don't get to opt out of Social Contract responsibilities because they don't want to do it[1]. Third; Possibility- My opponent has provided plenty of examples of first world countries who have Universal Healthcare, and these countries have pretty high standard living[6][7]. In Fact Great Britian enjoys the second highest standard of living in the European Union[7]! [6] http://tinyurl.com... [7] http://www.guardian.co.uk... In Conclusion, Universal Healthcare is not a violation of the rights of free citizens, it is not a bad ideal Economically and it is over a very good idea. As character space allows I will expand upon my own arguments in greater detail in the next round.