New US Health Care legislation is likely to resulting in requiring change of providers

Hey, sorry for the delay. I'm lazy on weekedns >.< Anywho, first, my main argument isn't that he's 'technically' correct. I think Obama IS correct, but assuming sections of your argument are true, he would be 'technically' correct. I acknowledge this isn't the debate, though. I'm just stating that wasn't intended to be my argument. 1. I still don't consider this argument to consequential to our debate. The EMPLOYER is the one we must talk about, and it sounds like Pro is focusing on the individual employee. My argument against this point is that the employers has the choice, not the employee (well, they have some choice, but based on options the employer gives). What I'd say is a valid argument in this respect is whether the employer can keep their current plan. If they elect to go somewhere else, that's fine too, but I don't believe Pro can say that, since the employer chooses to offer coverage from a different provider, the employee has no choice. If we take that statement for granted, and Obama said his statement of not having to change providers REGARDLESS of the health care reform bill, he'd still be false since an employer could, with some notice or without depending, change providers and the employee may or may not have a choice in the matter. 2. Well, first, the parts I found on the Baucus markup mentioned it only in passing within news articles and then, only said it was one proposal. I'm reluctant to comment further, if Pro could provide a link to some literature I may be able to address this further in R3. For now, I still maintain that this is a) hypothetical considering the legislature mentioned may not make it into the final draft of the prop and b) Pro says 'some' states 'most' will be illegal. I can't comment on how vast this might be, assuming it's true (again, link please?). My understanding, mostly from browsing http://www.whitehouse.gov... and some other pages there, state merely that the limiting aspects of coverage plans will be illegal, i.e. caps, pre-existing conditions, and the likes limiting you from getting health care. If this is what Pro is referring to, I'd argue a) that all it's doing is making things better, though Pro stated this is irrelevant, so b) it's not exactly 'changing' coverage, just making it easier to get. The basics of your plan should be the same as far as I can see, with no real noticeable differences. Now, most of that statement comes from thinking how this would effect my coverage, so if you have a counter example let me know. 3. I still haven't seen this explicitly stated, as Page 16 lacks mention of it, and I found no other reference besides the president and his staff saying you can keep no coverage. For the sake of this debate, I'll assume these are not to be used as evidence as we're debating the accuracy of Obama's claims themselves. 4. "There is controversy over what HR 3200, page 16, requires." -This is key, I interpret it with a more liberal view I guess. It doesn't say to me that you'd be explicitly forced to take insurance coverage to me, unless you have none, which now I would direct readers to point 3 as my argument there would now apply here. This is where it sounded as if you might be forced to take the government option in lieu of none, and I don't think no coverage is applicable, yada yada, re-read 3. "the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states: 'Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day' of the year the legislation becomes law.' ... So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers." http://www.investors.com...... -I'm reading this from page 16, and even taking it alone, Pro's quote above only seems to talk about 'when' you must have coverage by. I looked at the link, and commenters seemed to be slightly perplexed/mad at how it's misrepresented and provide some points to the contrary. It doesn't ban private insurance policies and my evidence for that statement is the bill itself. I ask Pro for a section of the bill that does state this, as I can't find one. The quote used above from the bill, again, only talks about when you need coverage by, and the paragraphs before and after are merely laying out what kind of coverage the following sections apply to. AKA, "if your coverage is a, and b, and c then listen to what follows, otherwise, d". I didn't read to d, but the section quoted doesn't STATE anything. It only says what the following statements apply to. And Private insurance isn't one of them, from my reading. 5. The idea I'm trying to get across is this. If there's 3 lemonade stands on the street, and they all sell a shot glass worth of lemonade and sell that shot glass for $20 a pop, there is something wrong here. But who are you to argue? They're selling the lemonade YOU need. Then, their parents decide to open up another stand that sells full glasses of lemonade for $5 a piece. Why? Because $20 is outrageous. This is the same idea here. The government sees that current prices and policies are outrageous, so they plan on 'showing them how it's done' so to speak. This should have the result of merely lowering costs, improving eligibility, and providing more coverage. I argue that we can assume that private insurers will attempt to meet government policies. I also suggest that they will do so by providing MORE policies and not getting rid of old ones, unless required to, which I still haven't seen full proof of (point 2). So you'll get to keep what you have, but you'll have more and better options. Choose wisely. a. Pro argues, "I would like to point out that my opponent has made no argument that says people will be FORCED to use the new system outlined in the health insurance prop in any way." They will be forced to use the new system because (1) undercutting the free market by 20% to 40% will cause much of the market to disappear, and a person cannot keep what is unavailable, -Assumption: the market will disappear rather then try to compete. Another assumption: the government will be sufficiently better than the private options. I don't see evidence for this and I think the US government has a bad track record for public services. (2) many of the policies people now have will be outlawed, so they cannot keep them, -Point 2. See it. Thanks (3) if you are happy being uninsured, you won't be allowed to keep that status, -Point 3. See it. Thanks. (4) and rules mandate switching to the government run pool. -Not sure which point this is.... 4? Yes, I think refer to points 3 and 4, focus on 4. b. "...If Con believes all these government advantages are unimportant, I challenge him to say so directly." -I do. I cite other countries as examples. They have government run health care, and they have private health insurance companies competing with the government. The government, with their resources, COULD harm private insurance, but I don't see evidence that they WILL. The assertion that "if you like what you now have, you will be able to keep it" is clearly untrue. The assertion that "if you like what you now have, you will be able to keep it" is clearly untrue. -I have shown how I believe this statement of untruth to be untrue. I feel I have successfully rebutted the claims above. Most of the evidence Pro offers seems to be market predictions and, while grounded in fact, are not promises themselves, therefor, do not prove Obama's statements false. The bill seems to prove otherwise, as a matter of fact. I look forward to Pro's responses.