The U.S. ought to guarantee Universal Healthcare to its citizenry

For this Round I shall be defending my own case, in response to the Con"s rebuttal. The Con begins by claiming that I fail to warrant why UHC allows us greater freedom to engage in society. My Sub-point C, however, clearly explains the warrant for this. Furthermore, it stands to reason that healthy individuals, individuals who are not constantly afraid of becoming sick because they could not afford treatment, and individuals who are not forced by necessity into paying usurious private healthcare premiums will be more able to do the things they want to do, both physically, financially, and emotionally. I will now offer a point-by-point defense of my case. One: Uninsured (A) My opponent cites two statistics to lessen the impact of the number of uninsured. Firstly, I would point out that the $50,000 represents a household income that has to support all of the family members of that household. It is therefore possible that this income is stretched thin to provide for everyone. Additionally, that number says very little about where people are actually living"certain neighborhoods will cost more to live in than others. Consider that most Americans homes, according to the source she cites (Figure 3), make $75,000 or more. That"s a $25,000 spending difference, and indicates that the Con is not necessarily correct when she states "do not have [UHC] because they don"t want and don"t need it."In fact, it is very possible that many still can"t afford it, even at that income level. This seems even more plausible when you consider that, according to the Cato report she cites, the average cost of health insurance in the U.S. for a household is $12,106"24.2% of those families net income. Finally, even if we buy that 37% might be able to afford healthcare"which is a stretch"that still means that 63% are far less likely to be able to afford it. Then, the Con goes on to talk about how 40% of the uninsured are between 18-34. Yet, that means that 60% are not. Additionally, younger individuals tend to lack stable incomes, and, according to her source, tend to come from minority groups that historically and statistically have fewer resources. They may be "healthier" but they"re not impervious to illness"even the young need healthcare. (B) My opponent then claims that the U.S. has better care, and extrapolates from that that UHC delivers bad outcomes because it delivers poor care for "most diseases."Her own source states that this is a comparison of "specific diseases." In fact, she only mentions 4 diseases, which is hardly "most." Furthermore, her own Cato source states, "although the U.S. health care system can provide the world"s highest quality of care, that quality is often uneven. The Institute of Medicine estimates that some 44,000"90,000 annual deaths are due to medical errors, while a study in The New England Journal of Medicine suggests that only a little more than half of American hospital patients receive the clinical standard of care. Similarly, a RAND Corporation study found serious gaps in the quality of care received by American children." She claims higher survival rates outweigh my evidence, yet her survival rates are for very specific ailments, and are not indicative of the system in general, nor do they take into account the problems her own source observes in the U.S. system. Finally, I have yet to see a warrant for the taxi cab argument. (C) Firstly, I discussed the notion of solvency in my earlier remarks. Secondly, according to the Nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, 30 million people will remain uninsured under Obamacare. Therefore, all of the harms of uninsurance remain in existence. Also, the "comparatively cheap" fine will increase over time until it becomes a rather large one. Furthermore, the Con cannot solve because of the 50 million currently uninsured, Obamacare will still leave 60% of them uninsured. (D) Her evidence for her "20%" assertion is a study conducted by LocumTenens.com. This firm, lobbied Congress through the GA Chamber of Commerce to reject Obamacare because of what it called, "economically harmful" practices that would be emplaced. It seems then that this "20%" study could have been more a tool to save it from having to pay out additional funds, rather than a legitimate study. Furthermore, the survey polled doctors who practiced mostly in the South. This tends to be a more conservative area, which would bias the study and make it inapplicable to the nation as a whole. (E) My opponent seems to agree that uninsurance is a problem. She claims, nevertheless, that UHC is not the answer because it create worse outcomes, and that I have no evidence to prove otherwise. However, both in my round one and round two statements, I have providence evidence about the benefits of UHC, in particular citing how it would actually benefit the economy, how it would reduce emotional suffering, enable more people to receive care, etc. I have also shown that the Con"s plan of Obamacare would leave huge numbers uninsured"that it is not "universal." I have also demonstrated, through Kao-ping and Casoy specifically, how uninsurance actually produces the "worse outcomes." Ultimately, it is by eliminating uninsurance that UHC solves the problem. Two: Security (A) The WHO evidence I provided in round two is clearly analysis "on outcomes from countries with UHC to see if they"re any better." Furthermore, just making things cheaper doesn"t solve the problem. If I can"t afford a drug at $100, but still can"t afford it when the price is reduced to $75, then I haven"t been helped. Everyone still needs insurance. (B) Obamacare does not solve, as I discussed earlier. Additionally, I provided more information on the impacts of the economics argument at the close of my round two statements. It also stands to reason that communicable disease will spread if people can"t get care because they lack insurance. My opponent never attacks this line of reasoning. She merely claims that, while that might be true, I offer no concrete impacts. However, even without those impacts, it also stands to reason that the spread of disease is something that we should attempt to reduce, regardless of the extent of the threat. So, you can accept the logical warrant for why UHC (by enabling more care through providing insurance) would reduce the spread of disease, which provides a reason for why UHC is good. (C) The Murray evidence is not reliant of testimony, and shows clear economic benefits to UHC. Additionally, here is some more information on Thorpes study, as researched and reported by the CBO: "This study did not just focus on expanding access; it also assumed significant systemic changes including administrative simplification, computerized physician order entry, an automated patient safety/error reporting system, reduction in inappropriate clinical practice variation, and controls of provider payments and premiums to reach target goals in expenditure growth. According to Thorpe"s analysis"[universal healthcare] would save between $320.5 billion"and"$1.1 trillion." (D) The NPR source only lists concrete economic problems in France and the UK"two countries cannot be used to condemn UHC as a whole, especially when the NPR source notes that Germany, by making several reforms, is doing better. In fact, the report never states that any of these systems lack viability. Rather, it seems to point out that with some tweaking, UHC could work fine. Three: Self-esteem All address all the points as one. All of this information illustrates and emphasizes the harms of uninsurance"the major problems with the Con. Taken in conjunction with other evidence I have provided, it does show why UHC is needed, from a moral perspective. It is what we "ought" to do. It"s not just the contagiously ill, but the disabled and chronically ill who are ostracized, and that"s something we should seek to minimize in a democracy. Universal care and universal insurance will combat this, and solve the problem. Finally, I don"t need to offer a system because we agreed that we weren"t talking about particular systems or forms of UHC. With that, I look forward to Round Three.