The 2010 Health Care Reform Should be Repealed

FINAL REBUTTALa. Necessity of Sourcing Pro claims that not all assertions need be sourced in a debate. For this he uses the example "a Health Care Reform Bill was passed in 2010". I argue that this is distracting because such a claim is not equivalent to those Pro was making. The only assertions not worth sourcing are:1. Those which depend solely on logic rather than facts. 2. Those which are an assumption in the debate to begin with.3. Those with do not effect the debate.An example of number 2 would be Pro's example. Another example would be that we are using English to do this debate. All other assertions which are dependent on facts, non-assumed, and are relevant to the resolution, must be sourced to substantiate their legitimacy. Otherwise, the quality of the debates would simply lack.b. Increases Taxes on the Rich and Decreased Revenue.Pro claims that:1. Increasing taxes on the rich will decrease the revenue collected from them.2. This is nearly unanimous among economists.Pro does provide a source. This source shows that there is an economist who agrees with this position. I can do that too[1]. Except that my economist also demonstrates facts rather than just theories. They explains that the historical record does not concur with Dr. Reynolds. The highest average annual growth in gross domestic product correlates with the time period when tax rates on the rich were highest.Then I have another economist who asserts that there is a consensus among economists opposite to what Pro proposed [2].c. Medicare SavingsPro claims the board established by the health care reform legislation to limit the spending on medicare has no actual power to change it's spending and must consult congress. This is in-fact false. The IPAB replaces MedPAC, a board which used to be limited as Pro describes. IPAB has no such limitation, it is free to cut spending as it sees fit [3].d. New Regulations and Forms Make it Hard to Start a BusinessPro made several claims of which type of regulations the bill creates that he argues will make it harder to start a business. He says that he has a source, as he ought to. Unfortunately, I'm not able to locate it. None of the three sources that appear in his post seem to have anything to do with this point. It's possible that he had text cut off when he posted, this has happened to me. Looking over the review can prevent a mistake like this. Also, numbering your sources can prevent some confusion.Also, I'd like to point out that if this were true it does not refute the benefits to small businesses that I pointed out earlier, which are quite substantial.e. SurchargesAgain, Pro says he has a source and I don't see it. Something must have gone wrong.Even if these surcharges exist it is not necessarily true that the cost will be passed down to those buying insurance, indeed, it certainly will not be passed down to those who have free of cheaper insurance due to the legislation.f. Taxes on Small Business OwnersPro's attitude towards sourcing is a bit discouraging. It is not the obligation of someone viewing the debate to find out everything we're referring to. The vast majority of people are completely uninformed about politics aside from the repeated headlines. It's simply professional to be well-sourced in a debate. Not to mention that it's one of the voting factors.Now, I didn't at first realize what Pro meant. Until he clarified I thought he was referring to a tax directed at small business owners, not the tax on those with $250,000 yearly incomes, of which some may happen to be small business owners. In-fact, this is highly over stated. 98.1% percent of small-business filers have income too low to be subject to the tax [4].g. Necessity of MedicaidHere it seems like Pro ignored my comment. I argue that even if Medicaid isn't giving as good of care as private insurers, which Pro admitted is an unclear issue, it is getting care to people who otherwise would not have it. That is something you just can't put a price tag on. h. Morality of the BillPro asserts that through rationing care the bill will not save lives. I have already demonstrated that the bill does not ration care and that, in-fact, it does the opposite by preventing private insurers from ever doing so.i. Ad HominemThe statement: "It seems that my opponent believes that Health Decisions are too important for individuals to make in a private market, and should therefore be made by the government."Firstly, it's a personal attack. Secondly, it's an irrelevant personal attack. Thirdly, it's a false, irrelevant personal attack. Obviously, my intentions are not sinister, wanting to take away people's choices and give them to the government. The bill gives people power over their own lives by being able to afford health care and increases personal choice by regulating the abusing power that insurance companies have exercised over patients, particularly through the Patient's Bill of Rights. j. Rationing CareHere Pro simply makes several completely unsubstantiated claims. k. Forcing Young Adults to Buy InsurancePro by some stretch of the imagination finds it justified to simply reassert what I clearly just negated. Reread my explanation if you want to see me say it again.l. Insuring Those With Pre-Existing Conditions.Pro finds it hard to figure this out. Read slowly. Insurance companies would not insure those with pre-existing conditions. Pro wants to insure those with pre-existing conditions. He also doesn't want to force insurance companies to insure them. He can't have it both ways. He said give the states grants and let them decide. Just what other solution does he think they would have? These are sick people who would not have care that now have it thanks to the bill. It's black and white here, c'mon. The only other policy that would get care to all these people without forcing insurance companies to do it would be with a national health care service.Also, we're not debating what the best health care system would be. We're debating whether the health care system is better now that this legislation has been implemented.CONCLUSIONI have negated all of the attacks Pro made against the bill with substantial evidence. Pro frequently made claims without proper substantiation and at times resorted to logical fallacies. Vote Con for best argument and sources. Vote Pro on conduct for me forfieting a round.SOURCES1. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com...2. http://www.edlotterman.com...3. http://www.ama-assn.org...4. http://www.cbpp.org...