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

This is a hot topic and demands the public be informed. This is also my first debate here, so forgive me if my conduct is slightly off. This was a bit longer then intended, sorry. .. I'll simply give an opening general statement, go through each of my opponents points, and summarize my views in closing. -OPENING- I will attempt to demonstrate that the health reform prop does not require you to change providers, as is the presidents words. My opponent states that he has claimed "under new health care legislation, if you like what you now have, you will get to keep it. " The first video I found, he says you will not be required to change, affirming pro's claim. -REBUTTAL- 1. These people don't have much of an option to start with. Now, I don't know about my opponent, but the jobs I've had so far that provide health care benefits didn't let me choose the provider, just the coverage option. I fail to see how this is significant, as pro is merely stating that by the employer choosing the government option over the others, the employees hence have no choice. I argue that the employer had the choice all along, and no one forced the employer to change. We must work off of who has the choice in the first place, otherwise not I nor anyone else can refute pro's claims, since the employee is, in these instances, powerless even in the current system. 2. I fail to see how this affects the individual's choice of coverage plans. The purpose of the reform is to change things. This usually comes about by changing/making laws. By making large swaths of insurance provider's policies illegal, the system is doing what it set out to do; change how health care works. Now, we can assume other providers will change to adapt the new regulations rather then close up shop. They are not eliminating competition, merely trying to change the way companies do business, hence, pro's claim that people will be unable to keep their providers is baseless unless he can provide evidence that these providers intend to not change their practices to be legal with the new system. 3. I reluctantly comment on this. I wasn't able to find an exact reference saying such a thing. Can pro please cite me a source? For now, I'll just say, if the public option exists as I last heard it did (apparently 8 hours ago according to MSNBC. com, see footnotes), everyone will be able to choose to use the government health care or not. Even if they are forced to have the goverment option, they don't need to USE it. They just have a back up as well ASSUMING it is forced on them. They can use any alternative they like. Again, cite please? 4. I found what I believe to be the correct document, went to page 16, and found nothing. Excuse me if I'm mistaken, but I don't see the clause that states what pro states. As such, I will reject this for now until clarified as I can't comment on what I don't see. If pro can provide a link to this document, I'll come back to it. *5* - "claiming that if the lose of choice is an inevitable consequence of the legislation rather than in explicit language, it doesn't count. It counts. " I would like to conclude on a quick point about certainty. Obama can only speak for as much as he's aware of. What I mean is that one insurance company can, in theory, change it's policy, drop coverage, or close shop JUST so that their clients are forced to change providers JUST to prove Obama wrong. We must assume he speaks in a practical sense about what he knows and can control. He, nor anyone authoring this legislation, intends to put a company out of business or limit your options as a consumer that I know of. If it happens unexpectedly, can we truly hold him accountable? And I want to point out, none of this is 'inevitable' as outlined in the quote above. -CLOSING AND COUNTER ARGUMENTS- a. 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. b. In point 2 he assumes that businesses will drop coverage rather than trying to compete with the government standard. I feel this is a misconception I heard a lot of in the channels of 'teh intarwebs' I frequent. This competition is intended so that other providers will supply more acceptable coverage based on the policies of the government by simply making the government another competing business in the free market. What the government is doing with the bill is simply creating a new health insurance provider that will set the bar for what others will need to provide. Free market principles still apply, in that businesses can compete with the government and the consumer still has the choice of who to go with since the public option exists. c. Obama has stated you will not be REQUIRED to change health care providers. This is true. The providers themselves will be required to change their practices, perhaps, but I see no evidence that they will eliminate policies and certainly none that they will, themselves, close down the business, meaning all existing options are still viable unless an announcement has been made by your company otherwise, or telepathy has come into use. Either way, Obama can't account for individual company practices and I think it's unfair to force him to account for ALL of them. I feel I have refuted my opponents points and provided some evidence to the contrary. Con affirmed. I await my opponents reply, and good luck! Sources: - . http://www.whitehouse.gov... - . http://www.google.com...