Health Insurance Should Be Abolished & Health Care Covered For Only Those Who Need It

Final Rebuttal: The difference is clear: My opponent brings up a scenario in which he proposes that a rich man is able to pay for his appendix with a written check. He then goes on in defining this check as a tool to pay for your bills. When looking at this scenario, we find that 1) the billoniare could easily pay this bill through his health insurance without having to go through the process of writing out a check. A tool is an instrument used to facilitate your work, the more efficient tool is one that can make your work far easier and efficient than the other tool can. The health insurance in all ways can make the payment of health care far easier than writing out a check. Lets now look into how similar my opponents plan is to the current system. The richer pays for his/her own health care: This is similar to the current system as 1) the richer acquires the "better" insurance plan requiring him/her to pay a series of monthly bills. The richer can not qualify for the "free" health insurance due to income and can only acquire one that requires them to pay. 2) The current system is not mandatory meaning that you could pay for your health insurance by hand if you feel it to be more efficient. More American's including a large number of rich people decide to get health insurance proving the current system to be more efficient. 3) Technically the government pays for the health insurance of those who cannot afford to buy there own. Using Tax revenues, they are properly able to provide these people with good health care to cover there annual check ups and in emergency situations. In conclusion, there is no need to pass my opponents resolution as it is so similar to the current plan that passing it would be a waste of time, money and effort. Not Specifically Federal Or State: My opponent states that "Iï¿½ï¿½ï¿½‚ï¿½ï¿½„ï¿½m just debating that this would be a good policy in general. The states could do it or the federal government could do it." However, this can not be a good policy if he is unable to find the perfect government to hand the responsibility to. Seeing as both government would handle it differently, it is important to see which government my opponent gives the responsibility to and how they would handle it in general. Upon looking into this matter, we can then conclude if the policy itself is a "good policy". Where this money will come from: The government is already struggling to accommodate its expenses in the already high taxation, and my opponent proposes that we dumb a responsibility as big as this one on the government knowing fully well that its fiscal need would and must lead to increase in taxation and increasing in governmental spending. With the health insurance, the government is able to pay a set bill to medicaid and other public insurance companies, however, passing this resolution would mean that the government pays for every health care needs per person. We are talking about thousands if not hundreds of dollars per person, both monthly and annually. How the entire department will function in terms of how it will organize it self: My opponent agrees that we are better of with medicaid, a form of insurance and in his words said that we are better of with it than without. The fact is that if this program proposed by my opponent follows the same organization that the medicaid does, then it is essentially a health insurance. The organization of medicare, medicaid requires the government to pay a set bill, if we were to follow this organization, Then the government would be paying for a set bill and thus making it an insurance policy. The fact is that either way, the insurance policy system is still more efficient. Finally, what qualifies you for this benefits: While my opponent takes the limit to the amount of times you can take advantage to these benefits, he never fully tackles the answer to the question "what qualifies you." With this said, lets look into the limitation. This limitation means that if one were to become sick after he or she is to exhaust all there limitation, he/ or she would have to pay from there pockets, there health care bill despite there financial status. exactly how is this better than the current health insurance? Physical Intent: My opponent asks me the question of what physical intent means. This simply shows that my opponent did not fully read my last argument or this question would have been easily answered. My opponent brings up human imperfection, however human imperfection exist regardless of the system used. So, the doctor regardless of how you plan to pay your bills will do what ever he or she sees fit. This argument should be droped as it has no ties to this debate what so ever. People Not Going to the Doctor: Intelligence might consider one to go to the doctor whenever they feel ill, however finance discourages them as they are unable to pay. My opponent mentions a requirement forcing all Americans to visit the doctor, however if the government is paying for these check ups, then they have to pay for the diagnosis, the medicine if needed and future care that links to the problem diagnosed. That's millions if not billions of dollars wasted or rather spent by the government each year. Not Affordable: Are you suggesting that the government pay for over 87% of American health care? If so, then this is outrageous. What qualifies: "If you can't afford it" Is not a reasonable answer. You might be able to afford it ones but not twice, do you qualifgy for the second one only or for both. This is a question that my opponent did not answer. I was looking for income bar to show how much you have to make to be able to qualify for this program. "Privatization as seen in every other public affair is far more efficient than public ownership: I never declared that privatization will be better, i simply stated that looking into many departments that deal with the public affairs, privatization seemed to be the best policy. VOTERS: My opponents resolution is highly flawed as it fails to properly answer questions that proves it efficiency over the existing policy. My opponent have not shown us that his new policy is more beneficial than health insurance My opponents resolution fails in finance requiring huge reservoirs of money that we don't currently have. My opponents plan fails in organization not even looking into the government. In conclusion, My opponents plan is so vague that in no way is it better than the already existing policy. Thank you.