Lets Make Healthcare Reform a referendum

I shall quote my opponent and refute him: ============================================= "It would appear that my opponent has misread what I have said I was not saying that the link he sent me was one sixth of the bill i was saying its one of the six proposed bills 3 of them in the house and 3 in the senate. " My opponent did not create an argument from this, but I would just like to mention that I was the only one in this debate to post a source of the Healthcare Reform Bill. Since my opponent did not post a source or guideline to which one of the proposed bills he wanted to argue, my source providing one of the proposed bills still stands. If my opponent wanted to debate about all of the proposed bills, he could have done some research and found the documents for the others. However, he did not, and thus his quote does not hold water. ============================================== "Actually i was nearly pointing out how are person could go about figuring out what happened in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows without reading it by going to book rags, I was saying that voters would be able to find out the details of the bill without reading the entire 1000 pages see as it would probably be broken down and analyzed just as Harry Potter was by Bookrags. com. " Once again, my opponent tries to compare "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" to the Healthcare Reform Bill. Although "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" could be summarized and made easy to understand for readers, it would be unethical to summarize a Healthcare Reform Bill that affects many aspects of the nation. One would need to look through every page of the bill, simply because that is the only way to understand the bill completely and not be led into a certain viewpoint by those summarizing it. As I stated previously, much of the electorate would be unable to sustain reading the entire bill or really comprehending all of it. Summarizing the bill would lead to bias and slanted viewpoints of the bill without reading the entirity of it. ================================================= "Secondly the fact that you try to diminish my first argument as being incoherent is deplorable and insulting, perhaps my opponent just doesn't understand the argument or feels he can simply dismiss it because he has no counter argument for it; just in case he didn't understand the argument allow me to reiterate the people are not represented properly because pharmaceutical and health insurance companies pay our elected officials to the way THEY want them to. What my statement went on to say was with these congressmen and senators being "bought off" the average American isn't represented properly. In fact the Senator i mentioned earlier takes $66,100 from the health insurance companies as well as senators from Georgia, Montana, Arizona etc. " I did not diminish my opponent's first argument. I simply ignored the first sentence of his second paragraph in Round II of the debate. My opponent did not follow through on the entire idea or provide any evidence as to why his statement is true. My opponent then criticizes me without even understanding what I meant by my elimination of the first sentence in that paragraph. My opponent once again brings up the fact that some Congressmen accept money from health insurance companies. However, the source that my opponent provided states that Republicans oppose the bill on general principle, proving that money does not influence most of the Republicans in Congress. The source also lists several Democrats who are not influenced by the insurance companies. My opponent's source also gives examples of Congressmen who were given money from insurance companies to change their views, but the Congressmen did not change their opinions on the issue. There will always be corruption in politics, but that is not an excuse to make a referendum. If a referendum were to be created, insurance companies would simply go to the public and try to pay them off. See what I mean? My opponent does not bring up a valid point. Besides, Congressmen have enough knowledge of the government, law, and passing of bills to make an informed vote. However, most of the electorate, which do not have an in-depth knowledge of government or law, would not vote as informed as the Congressmen. ========================================================= "I would now like to make mention of a point that my opponent brought up that actually re-enforces the validity of my argument. This was what my opponent sighted as a tediousness of a referendum "he referendum took place in Quebec on October 30, 1995, and the motion to decide whether Quebec should secede from Canada was defeated by a very narrow margin of: 50.58% "No" to 49.42% "Yes". " this is the point of a referendum its designed to make take action on an issue even if it is an issue where people are very divided. And as for the lost votes this happens in pretty much every election whether its for the Senate, The House or the Presidency, and rarely are the overall results contested (see 2008 Minnesota Senate Election, 2000 Presidential Election). " My opponent really does not bring up an argument. In the sourced referendum my opponent provided, the scrutineers spoiled the votes of tens of thousands of voters that could have completely changed the outcome of the decision. For the passing of the bill, votes would not be lost because it would only be left to Congress. Every member in Congress is accounted for, and since the number of people involved is small enough, there will not be any miscounted votes. This just reinforces the fact that there would be a more informed and exact voting if it were left to Congress and not made a referendum. ==================================================== I have refuted my opponent's points effectivley. My opponent has simply attempted to make accusations against the current voting stature of the bill, but his conentions did not hold water. I heavily urge a Con vote.