DDO Tier Tournament: The United States ought to guarantee universal health care for its citizens.

This is my first ever tournament! I look forward to fun and exciting debate. May the best debater advance.__________________________________________________________________________________________________________Let’s examine the BoP. In order for Pro to win, he must prove both of the following: 1. That universal health care leads to better outcomes (whether in financial or well-being aspects) 2. That the government is obligated to provide for health care I only need to negate one of these points in order to ensure victory, and the first 2 contentions of my case will be adressing the second point. [To further streghnthen my argument], my last contention will adress the first point. Contention 1: Kant's Categorical Imperatives Kant's Categorical Imperatives have two parts. The First Formulation and The Second Formulation. Sub-Point A: First Formulation "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’ (Pg. 1)" [1] In the first formulation, Kant tries to draw the distinction between Perfect Duties and Imperfect Duties. Perfect Duties (not to kill, not to steal, etc.) must always be followed in order for social order to be preserved. On the other hand, Imperfect Duties are left for individuals to pursue. Even while Imperfect Duties may present a benefit to society, they cannot be mandated. Otherwise, individual autonomy would be violated. Health Care is an Imperfect Duty, because it is not needed to preserve social order, and thus should not be mandated. Sub-Point B: Second Formulation "We should never act in such a way that we treat Humanity, whether in ourselves or in others, as a means only but always as an end in itself."[2] If the government were to disregard an individual’s autonomy and enforce and Imperfect Duty for the benefit of others, the government would have then undermined the humanity of that individual and abused them as a mere tool to achieve its ends. Although the impact on liberties may be less tangible and more difficult to measure, they are, of course, still very important. The Imperfect Duty falls to individuals to take care of their own health and decide for themselves whether they wish to purchase insurance. Thusly, the societal aims of the general good as well as individual liberties are balanced. Syllogism for this contention: 1.The Government should only act to enforce the imperatives of Perfect Duties. 2.Universal health care does not meet the standard of a Perfect Duty. Conclusion: Thus, the Government should not act to enforce universal health care. Contention 2: Nozick's Entitlement Theory Sub-Point A: "Essentially, what Nozick says is that if a person originally obtained a resource without violating anyone else’s rights, or from another person voluntarily, then he or she is entitled to it.... “everyone has some entitlement or claim on the totality of natural assets... with no one having differential claims. The distribution of natural abilities is viewed as a ‘collective asset’” [3] Nozick believes that no one is entitled to another’s holdings or goods that were acquired by that person. He argued that the government should not be in the business of transferring someone’s holdings or goods (e.g. property, wages, etc.) to another who did not acquire the holdings or goods in the first place. From this, it is possible to conclude how he feels about health care that is provided through taxation of citizens. Nozick argued that any taxation imposed by the state in order to provide services or benefits to others is both unfair and unjust. Syllogism: 1. Individuals are entitled to the things they have (as long as they did not infringe upon the rights of others to get there things) 2. Government should not be allowed take someone's things and give it to another person - since the person has acquired his things rightfully Conclusion: If someone has healthcare, and is paying for it by holding a job and working, it is unjust for the government to take money from this person (in the form of taxes), just so that someone else can receive the same benefits without working. Contention 3: Universal Healthcare is ineffective and lowers quality for all Sub-Point A: Having universal health insurance does not equate to receiving quality treatment "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] Although universal health care systems may provide insurance coverage for all citizens, it does not guarantee accessible and quality treatment. This can be attributed to factors such as inefficiency in switching from free market operations to government determined supply and price, often leading to shortages. As demonstrated by the figures above, this can lead to unreasonably wait times or even denied procedures. Thus, a health insurance system can actually hinder the true goal of providing health care. Sub-Point B: Government-paid health care creates an incentive to abuse the system “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] This proves, with figures, just how the private market-public good interplay works out in US tax code. The fact that government health care is tax-negative enough to force action to the private sector, and then the actual cost of private sector action on the employer shows the inefficiency of the cost of gov't provided health care. Syllogism: 1. Universal health care does not gaurantee quality treatment for everyone. This means that there is no net gain in well-being. 2. People that get free health care tend to abuse the system. This only hurts the economy as a whole. Conclusion: We can conclude that there is no benefit in terms of well-being or Finance ==================================================================== Sources: [1] Johnson, Robert. "Kant's Moral Philosophy.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2012. URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu...;. [2] Johnson, Robert. "Kant's Moral Philosophy.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2012. URL = <http: plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2012/entries/kant-moral/>. [3] Rice, T. "Individual autonomy and state involvement in health care" Journal of Medical Ethics. 2001. Pg 241-2 [4] Tanner, Michael, and Michael Cannon. “Universal Healthcare’s Dirty Little Secrets.” Los Angeles Times. 2007. Web.<http://www.latimes.com...; [5] Hsieh, P and Zinser, L. "Moral Health Care vs. “Universal Health Care”" The Objective Standard. 2007. Pg. 4