Obamacare is not good for the country

He has argued well, but not well enough. I ask that voters vote pro, as i have shown that obamacare causes more problems than fixes any, thus is harmful to our country and our struggling economy. Lets get some facts straight. What is the penalty of not complying with the individual mandate? My opponent seems to think it is high enough to give incentive to people to comply. The actual bill says otherwise. Here is an excerpt from the actual bill: After 2016, the flat dollar amount is indexed to inflation. The flat dollar penalty is capped at 300% of the flat dollar amount. For example: o A family of three (two parents and one child under 18) would have a flat dollar penalty of $1737 in 2016; o A family of four (two parents and two children over 18) would have a flat dollar penalty of $2,085 in 2016 because the 300 % cap would apply (PPACA ï¿½ï¿½ 1501 and 10106 adding IRC ï¿½5000A(c); ï¿½ 1002 of Reconciliation Bill). Now lets look at the alternative: Buying Insurance. : •On average, the annual premium was $2,985 for a single person and $6,328 for a family. •The annual premium differed from state to state. For example, the premium for a family health plan in New York was $13,296, while a similar plan in Iowa was $5609. •The annual premiums for health plans were also different depending if the annual deductible was high or low. For example, family plans with no deductible had an average premium of $12686 each year, while plans with an annual deductible of $10,000 had an average premium of $5380 each year. (. http://healthinsurance.about.com...) So as you can see, you DONT BUY INSURANCE: $2085 for a family of four VS BUYING INSURANCE: $6328 for a family of four. Now who wants to pay that much when they could just pay the penalty and when something really bad happens, they can run off and get insurance and they cant turn them down for a pre-existing condition? And the result will be higher premiums because consumers are going to be the ones who bear the brunt of the extra money being spent by covering these people. Eventually, the entire insurance system will collapse, paving the way for a government run single payer system, which is worse than what we have now. We all know the governments track record when it comes to running programs successfully. 2. My opponent says that " In particular the business community has been supportive of the Patient Protection act (Obamacare), because they like the cost containment structures. This counter argument wasn't addressed. " On the contrary, every site that i looked up speaks to this being false. (My opponent also neglects to add any proof to his random statements). Recently some 20 states, led by Florida Attorney Gen. Bill McCollum--and recently joined by the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), representing some 350,000 small businesses--have filed suit against ObamaCare, claiming that the legislation is unconstitutional. They say the federal government has no authority to require people to buy health coverage, plus the law imposes numerous financial hardships on the states. Here is a website of Small Business owners and what they think about Obamacare: . http://www.speaker.gov... Major findings of the study include: • By overwhelming margins, small employers who have some knowledge of the new law think that PPACA will not reduce the rate of health care (insurance) cost increases, will not reduce the administrative burden, will increase taxes, and will add to the federal deficit. They agree that PPACA will result in more people having health insurance coverage, but do not think it will yield a healthier American public. • Fifty-seven percent of a cross-section of companies that employ 50 or fewer workers and offer coverage may stop doing so. • Twenty percent of small employers currently offering expect to significantly change their benefit package and/or their employees' premium cost-share the next time they renew their health insurance plans. Almost all significant changes expected involve a decrease in benefits, an increase in employee cost-share, or both. • Since the law's enactment, one in eight (12%) small employers have either had their health insurance plans terminated or been told that their plan would not be available in the future. Plan elimination is the first major consequence of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) that small-business owners likely feel. • Eighteen percent of small employers think they are "very familiar" with PPACA and another 40 percent think they are "somewhat familiar" with the new law. NEXT:"In round 1 I pointed out that the exchanges don't change anything with respect to the regulatory framework. " Why would a phenomenally successful private insurer ever want to compete with itself by offering a heavily regulated Health Insurance Exchange product that has unaffordable premiums because of adverse selection? Because of the requirement of risk adjustment within the Exchange, and because individuals and employers with high health care costs will seek relief in the Exchange, all products offered by the Exchange will be too expensive. The Health Insurance Plan of California (later PacAdvantage) was designed not unlike the current federal proposals - an insurance exchange especially geared for small businesses. Because of adverse selection, it became a victim of the death spiral, and closed in 2006 at the expense of millions of dollars that were passed onto the residents of california. This costs money, and that is one thing that we are all short of. This will add to our deficit. Thus, it is harmful. THE COST; you are missing my point. What im talking about is the cost to pay for this overhaul of healthcare will be passed on the the american public, and the healthcare plan isnt making anything better! Most people would be a little less reluctant to give up a little extra hard earned money if they felt confident that what they were paying for is better than what they already have. NEWS FLASH: they dont. The estimated cost is a trillion dollars. This is unsustainable, and destined to balloon into a quite larger number. What happens when (like social security) the government runs out of their money needed to cover millions of americans? They'lll do what they always do, steal it from other programs at the expense of that program. Or they will raise taxes on americans who already cant afford their bills. The bottom line is that the cost is too great. Especially when there were suggestions that would have made healthcare better, affordable and heres the kicker: IT WOULD HAVE COST NOTHING! !! ! what was that plan? Allow insurance companies to compete across state lines. How would this make it more affordable? Because if health insurance for a single man in Cali costs 200 bucks, but in arizona, costs 70 bucks, then it would force the company in california to lower their prices so as not to loose millions of customers, otherwise everyone will jump ship to where it is the cheapest, and the more expensive company would close down. This is called the free market. It would work and all it takes is a law change, not 1 trillion dollars. Picture wal-mart. Wal-mart has forced other chains to lower prices to compete. Otherwise they go out of business. This is how allowing states to compete would lower healthcare costs and ultimatley make it better. Well im running out of room. I ask that the voters vote for me because my opponent has not dissproved how obamacare is harmfull. He has tried to dismantle my arguments and has failed. He has not shown any reasons why obamacare is GOOD! He has not shown how obamacare will fix existing problems. Thanks for viewing and voting.