The Affordable Care Act is ultimately has more positives than negatives for our society.

Hello, so in this debate I will be showing why The Affordable Care Act in fact has more harms than benefits for the society of the United States. I will begin my debate by going through the Pro's arguments and rebutting them through a point-for-point analysis, then I will expand upon the rest of my argument. 1. "Healthcare should be treated as a necessity, not a commodity." We need to start this debate by putting this piece of legislation in context. While it may seem, due to simplified media speculation, that all the ACA does is provide healthcare for those who can not afford it, this is far from the reality of the situation, and in fact, while the idea of inexpensive or "free" healthcare is enticing and could be potentially enacted under an appropriate piece of legislation, the ACA is simply too poorly put together to serve as an effective piece of legislation. Prior to the Affordable Care Act in the United States, healthcare was still treated as a necessity and not as a commodity. Those who could not afford to pay their bills were, in most cases, offered free treatment. Those making less than $20,000 a year, or those who met other qualifications such as a specific number of children in the household (differing per state), received state-subsidized insurance free of charge. Before the ACA, those who had this subsidized insurance could go to medical practitioners who accepted the government insurance program. They would also be covered in hospital visits. Now, there was also a significant population who did not qualify for the free insurance programs. These individuals often fell into an income bracket of around $50,000-$100,000 a year. These individuals also did not purchase insurance because it was likewise too expensive for them. Now, under the ACA, they aren't getting "free" insurance, they are getting insurance at a slightly lower cost, but still, many of these families can not afford to pay this insurance premium, which, in some cases, can exceed $5,000 per year. However, thanks to the poorly written ACA, they are now forced, by law, to pay money which they don't have for the "affordable" insurance, or otherwise pay a significant fine. Does this sound helpful to you? The ACA is merely giving free insurance to those who already have free insurance, and it is forcing individuals who currently cannot pay for insurance, to pay for it. 2. "Prior to the A.C.A., Americans have been paying the most per capita for health-care (and higher education) of any 1'st world country." I will defer you to my rebuttal for your first point, which shows that the ACA actually is more financially taxing on low income families than the status quo. I will also add that the ACA will in fact force insurance premiums to go up, as insurance companies will have to charge extra due to the enormous inflow of new individuals into their plans. Thus, the passage of the ACA will in fact make the per capita cost for health-care in the US even higher than it currently is. 3. The A,C,A, is being protested by people like the Koch brothers. When billionaires are campaigning against a bill like this, their interests are not likely our own. I do not believe this is a valid point. Just because the ACA is being protested by billionares doesn't mean the general public doesn't appose the poorly written legislation as well. Refer to my first point, where I discuss how many low income families oppose the ACA because it forces them to pay for the new government insurance programs with money which they don't have. Again, it's never "free" insurance, someone has to pay for it. Also, all of those who are currently insured will have their premiums increase, so they also oppose the ACA. 4. "College students are able to retain affordable insurance under their parents, nobody can be denied coverage, those who make less money pay cheaper premiums, contains tax credits for businesses, and here is the biggest one: The A.C.A. requires companies with more than 50 employees to provide insurance to all of them (so no more cutting hours and hiring more part-time workers to avoid paying benefits)." While I will agree that some of these portions are beneficial, such as college students beings able to retain their parent's coverage, and nobody being denied coverage, we still need to look at the legislation in a broader context of what it does as a whole. Again, just because a few of its individual parts may have some merit, it does not mean that the legislation as a whole is beneficial to our society. First of all, as I said in my first point, those who "make less money" as the OP puts it, still have to pay out of pocket with money that they don't have, with yearly premiums sometimes exceeding $5,000. Furthermore, while the ACA may prevent the hours of employees from being cut to avoid insuring them, it won't prevent the employees themselves from being fired to save on costs. All companies look for the cheapest possible way to function and make a profit. In many cases, with medium-sized companies, dozens of workers may be laid off to get the overall employee count to below 50. 5. "Doing anything that is even remotely effective is better than doing nothing at all. Provided that the A.C.A. has done more harm than good, it is greater than what we were doing before about our healthcare crisis: nothing." This is quite simply not true. Doing "anything", i.e the Affordable Care Act, is actually more harmful to our society, as I have shown in my above points, than the status quo. Furthermore, the Pro erroneously assumes that, before the ACA, "nothing" was being done in terms of healthcare, but if you will simply refer to my first point, it clearly outlines that a) Individuals at or below the poverty line received free healthcare b) In many cases individuals who could not afford to pay hospital bills were not required to pay them However, by passing the legislation, we actually have all the harms of a) Increased insurance premiums b) Forcing people to purchase insurance which they can't afford e) Massive layoffs c) Overcrowded hospitals d) Closed-down hospitals 6. "From an economic standpoint, the more people who buy health insurance, the lower the prices should go. Also, the A.C.A. will ensure that people don't get buried in debt over illness, which means they are less of a drain on the economy in the end." This, as I have shown in my 4th point, is not true. Currently insurance companies set their premiums at a rate that can compensate their current volume of customers. A sudden inflow of customers paying the prices that the government sets rather than the prices the companies require will drive prices up for those who are currently insured or do not fall into the lower income brackets. And no, this doesn't include just the millionaires- it includes the majority of the middle class as well. One more point I would like to make is the issue with the ACA and hospitals. There are two main issues here: A) A large inflow of newly insured individuals will begin going to emergency rooms for any sort of injury, regardless of whether or not it is actually an "emergency". We already see this happening with individuals who are on state-subsidized insurance, and the problem will only grow under the ACA. Our emergency rooms are already full beyond capacity. B) The ACA will force hospitals to shut down. This is already happening in Norwalk Hospital in Norwalk, CT. The state of Connecticut is withdrawing $30 million in funding from the Norwalk Hospital because it says that, due to the ACA, insurance companies will pay for all emergencies and hospitals no longer need state funds to pay for individuals who cannot afford their own insurance. The issue here is that $30 million is a static number not adjusted to the amount of money the hospital will actually save due to the ACA, because insurance companies don't pay for an emergency 100%. Thus, the hospital is still going to have to pay the co-fee and will be short tens of millions of dollars, and thus is currently at risk of shutting down. Thus, we see that while the ACA does have good intentions, its poorly written nature prevents it from being an effective piece of legislation, and thus it is more harmful to our society than it is beneficial.