Obamacare should be repealed.

-----Rebuttals-----R1: Passage of PPACAPro argues that it was not fair and ethical that the legislation passed both majorities, and says that there was no major bipartisanship in order to get this legislation through. This is not revealing the whole picture though.First, since Obama took office, the Republicans have moved very far to the right. This is evident by the creation of a hardcore right-wing faction known as the Tea Party, and more importantly the fact that the Republicans are the most conservative in 100 years. [1] This is empirical evidence. Democrats have been far less radical. Further, the Republicans have invoked massive use of the filibusters to prevent legislation from passing. [2] And, the GOP has at all costs trying to prevent Obama from achieving major success.Lastly, the Republicans have been strongly opposed to Obamacare because they want to deny Obama success. Pro says they do have a plan. Point 1 is allowing individuals to purchase insurance over state lines. I agree with this. Point 2 is medical malpractice reform, which will save an astounding 1% of health care costs. [3] Point 3 gives people with health insurance a tax break. However, the key points here are that while the GOP plan would reduce costs with greater competition, it utterly fails to expand health insurance access to 30 million more individuals like Obamacare does. It also doesn't include a Medicare expansion or protections for consumers, which are progressive ideas. Ultimately, it fails to achieve the same expansion in health coverage, doesn't lower costs by $2,000 per family like Obamacare [4], and doesn't have a mechanism to reduce future costs.Pro says that conservatives now oppose the individual mandate. I will accept that. And Pro also said that Obamacare adds 13,000 pages to the tax code, which already has 134,000 pages. That is massive, but this law, by requiring insurance companies to state their reason for premium hikes, requiring 80% of spending to go towards health care, and other measures brings transparency to the health insurance industry.Pro asserts that this act basically let's gov't detail how health care is used, and the community rating taxes the young to give to the old. To first clear the fallacy on health care, Obamacare does not put gov't in charge. An independent advisory does rank treatments and procedures to make the system more efficient and result in, "significant reduction[s] in health care costs," [6]. This is called the Independent Payment Advisory Board.Furthermore, the community rating puts the price of health insurance the same for the whole "community", and thus spreads out the risk over a large pool of people and lowering costs. [5] There is a consensus actually on Obamacare. Many parts of it, including protections for patients who are sick, gov't should lower health care costs, gov't should help citizens obtain health care, everyone should have access to care, and insurance companies should spend more on health care than administrative costs are all ideas that have strong majority support among the U.S. population. [7] So, as I said earlier, it is the GOP who were trying to block health care reform for Obama's gain.In conclusion here, Obamacare has high ratings among the U.S. population on many components of this law. This law was held hostage by the GOP, who have explicitly said they want Obama to be defeated. I ask why would they wish to help the President achieve a major policy victory?R2: More Affordable Health CareThe CBO never adjusted Obamacare's price as doubling. The original estimate was the PPACA would cost $938 billion over 10 years (2010-2019). The new study that you refer to has an 11 year estimate from 2011-2022 at a cost of $1.76 trillion. The original report also said from 2012-2021 the gross cost would be $1.445 trillion. The new projection adds on 2022, in which this year will have a cost of $265 billion. Add that to the 2010 projection, and you get the $1.76 trillion. [11] So, Pro has manipulated the actual numbers. Furthermore, the "2 million additional words" to the tax code that you have implied — is nonsense. Your source provided zero evidence of this. Pro also asserted that there would be $2 trillion in tax compliance costs, and another $2 trillion in under subscription. These are both random numbers, from which no evidence has been shown. The states that do decide to expand Medicaid are given significant help from the fed gov't to pay for new costs, the fed gov't pays for the new subsidies.The new taxes under Obamacare have a broad base, and thus are small taxes. For example, the main points of funding include a broadened Medicare tax base for high-income taxpayers, a small excise tax on medical devices, and other small taxes. The CBO has analyzed savings for individuals, and on average the savings for individuals is about 14-20%. This is after taxes are factored in.The Medicare savings are real. And Congress has a good record of sticking to cuts once they make them. [8] The cuts in Medicare are made real by increasing the efficiency of treatments, limiting overpayments to private insurers, and using preventive care.And, the increase in insurance premiums wasn't really due to Obamacare, which only accounted for 2% of the total increase. [9] And, the nonpartisan CBO still has concluded that after the PPACA is fully implemented, it will lower employer premiums by 1) making the insurance market more rational and transparent, and 2) Reducing the "hidden tax" we all pay for the uninsured in emergency rooms. [10]The CBO reports are updated. Like the one on the total costs of the PPACA, which I mentioned, was updated, and it found that the PPACA would save $50 billion more than thought. [11]First, the savings from Obamacare are real. The CBO, which is a very good source, has not changed its projections. Further, Pro thinks that the study will be outdated in two years, but is perfectly fine with assuming a private study will be accurate in two years. Further, the CBO has concluded that a net change of 5 million losing their employer coverage by 2019. [12] Or, a net increase by 3 million people by the same time.The conclusion is that Obamacare does reduce costs. It reduces costs by about 7-20% for the average individual, and does this by using market forces, increasing the insurance pool, increasing insurance transparency, and increasing the efficiency of medical treatments.R3: FreedomPeople will eventually need health care. It is not something you can really refuse. You can't really refuse to get a triple bypass. Since health insurance is thus essential, and is not a regular market product, we must expand coverage so that we don't end up paying for the uninsured in the form of hospital costs passed to the insured. We already do this as a hidden tax, costing us about $132 per capita annually. [13]About the 83% of physicians who thought about quitting, this is inaccurate. Only 4% of doctors actually responded to the poll, and the author of the poll has participated actively in Tea Party anti-Obamacare protests. [14]http://www.youtube.com... So, Obamacare increases the insurance pool by a large amount, reducing risk and therefore costs, by the amount of 7-20% per individual in an insurance exchange. Consumers get more transparency and rationality from the insurance companies. The deficit is reduced. Medicare is made more efficient. And 30 million more Americans get care.[1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] Conrad, Jessamyn. What You Should Know About Politics... But Don't. 2008. 116.[4] http://tinyurl.com...[5] http://tinyurl.com...[6] http://tinyurl.com...[7] http://tinyurl.com...[8] http://tinyurl.com...[9] http://tinyurl.com... [10] http://tinyurl.com...[11] http://www.factcheck.org...[12] http://tinyurl.com...[13] http://tinyurl.com...[14] http://tinyurl.com...