The United States Ought to Establish a Universal Healthcare

I negate, that "The United States Ought to Establish a Universal Healthcare." I will first go over definitions, then value, the VC, my case, and then the line-by-line. I might extend my case in my next round, depending on how PRO answers my ending question. He'd still have R4 and R5 to refute it, so it wouldn't be a "new argument". We have implicitly agreed upon the definitions of "United States", "Ought", and "Universal Healthcare". "Establish" should be self-explanatory, so that will be it for definitions. VALUE: SOCIETAL WELFARE I'll go with this value. When taking actions, nations should hold their welfare above all else, and should always hold it in the highest of regards. However, I don't think that Healthcare Equality (HE) is the best way to achieve that goal. Skipping forward a bit, let's look at the opening of my opponent's C1: "The United States ought to adopt universal because it can allow and support the right of well-being." Though he doesn't make this explicit, the claim only works on the implication that SW is dependent on every constituent's well-being: which is true. Just as a team is only as good as its worst member, a society is only as good as its worst constituent, and societal welfare is only as good as its worst constituent's welfare. But well-being is not defined simply by the physical health of an individual. It is also defined by mental health: in other words, how happy a person is. There are many factors in determining how happy a person is: money, social standing, physical health, and love being the most commonly accepted ones. But one thing underlies and is an integral part of all the other reasons – freedom. Money can only make a person happy if they can use it; Physical health can only make a person happy if they get to use it, and so on. If we accept that freedom is the fundamental factor to a person's mental health, then we ask ourselves, is mental health or physical health more defining for a person? Who is in a better state; whose welfare is better; who's better off: A happy sick person, or an unhappy healthy one? A free person close to death, or an enslaved person who will live for a hundred more years? I believe that it is the happy sick person, the free person close to death. I believe most people would agree with me. I believe my opponent is one of them. If a society's welfare is only as good as its worst member's welfare, and If a member's welfare is dependent on how free that person is, Then societal welfare is dependent on how free its most enslaved constituent is. VALUE CRITERION: FREEDOM FOR CONSTITUENTS (FFC) His justification for the HE VC is that it makes people healthier and increases their lifespan. Mental health is more integral to a person's welfare than their physical health. And since freedom is a central pillar to anything that makes anyone happy/mentally healthy, FFC is a direct link to SocW that supersedes HE. So. If the best thing a nation can do to better societal welfare is to increase freedom for its constituents, then the natural conclusion is that UHC should not be provided. A1: UHC increases taxes. More taxes means less money, which is more or less the same as less freedom. You need money to do just about anything. Reducing freedom is the opposite of the VC and therefore against the value of Societal Welfare. A2: UHC forces the healthy to pay for the sick, regardless of their wishes. Requiring those who don't want to pay to pay for others is a reduction of freedom. B: If the government is providing UHC, it will definitely ban, restrict, or place a tax on items that are known to be detrimental to human physical health. This is the exact definition of the reduction of freedoms. That'll be it for my case. Let's go to PRO's. An additional argument against the VC of Healthcare Equality: PRO never links it into societal welfare. He never even attempts to show how they're linked. So keep this in mind – even if PRO takes out my VC of FFC, you will still buy it over his VC of HE. At least I gave a go at showing a connection. C1: UHC = allow and support right of well being > I'm just going to insert an anecdote here – it will be a refutation against this entire contention. It'll be in the YouTube video http://www.youtube.com... to the right; watch from 6:14 to 8:46. He is a man that lives in Canada, and he explains how a government program doesn't only NOT provide education, but actively denies it. > No government agency does its job efficiently. What reason is there to believe that a UHC program will be different? > The rest of this contention talks about UHC in other countries extending the average lifespan, which doesn't link into FFC at all. > It doesn't even link into his own VC. What does lifespan have to do with Healthcare Equality? If a link exists, PRO has not told us what it is. > If it's a given that USA is the "only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage" (Institute of Medicine), and we take into account that the World Bank has 66 countries classified in its "High-Income Countries" category, AND that USA is rank 42, what about the other 24? To say that UHC = higher life expectancy when more than a third fail to meet the rule is hardly a solid generalization. C2: US should fulfill obligation by supporting societal welfare "The word ought stated in the resolution denotes a undenyable moral obligation." > This is what he's supposed to be proving. > Just because he's on the side of the resolution doesn't make him automatically right. >> Especially because on debate.org, you make your own resolutions. > Just because there's a statement doesn't mean it's true. If I said, "The US ought to nuke Canada until continental America is surrounded by water on three sides", that doesn't automatically make it true. There is a burden of proof that I must fulfill – or in this debate, a burden of proof that PRO must fulfill. Namely, why his arguments are true. "Therefore to not take up the policy of universal healthcare would be amoral and would be unjust." > Even if No UHC -> No Morality, that doesn't mean that UHC -> Morality. The inverse is not necessarily true. > Also, Justice and Morality are not linked to either VC, nor is it linked to SocW. "In the end it's a matter of people living longer and healthier lives meanwhile being equal in healthcare." > If PRO is trying to use this as a justification for his argument, then it's essentially a "I am right because I am right" argument. Observe: Why ought the US establish UHC? Because in the end, the US ought to establish UHC. Not a valid warrant. > UHC =/= Healthcare Equality. Sure, everyone would have the same provider – but that hardly makes their healthcare equal. Blacks in the South previous to the Civil Rights Movement had the same government as whites, but no one would argue that because they had the same government, they had equal treatment under the law. If UHC = HE, PRO has not yet shown us how. "a old system which continues to perpetuate the disparity" > Not shown to be due to a lack of UHC. "By supporting [UHC…]" > Lifespan is not shown and is also irrelevant. > Government accountability is not shown and is also irrelevant. > Showing that providing UHC means fulfilling a moral obligation is his job, which he has not done in the slightest. > Promoting societal welfare is done by providing more freedom for the society's constituents, which is something UHC does not. I end my R2 with another question for PRO. I thought of this question when you said that "societal welfare which is what this nation is about" in your C2. I thought of the War on Terror. If terrorism is defined as "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes" (Dictionary.com), would you say that terrorism is detrimental, or even completely against societal welfare?