Obamacare is not good for the country

Lets address the issues. On the individual mandate my opponent has given figures. My claim was that median out of pocket medical cost for the uninsured + fine > insurance cost. My opponent proved that:insurance cost > fine. Which is fully consistent with my equation providing that:median out of pocket cost for the uninsured > 0. And of course that is the case. My opponent mentioned that $10,000 deductible for a family plan cut the premium from $12686 to $5380. So that means approximately 73% of all those deductible dollars would have been spent. If we construct a worst case scenario where 49% of the people consume 100% and the rest uniformly use the rest that would still put the cost at 48% i. e. $4800 well in excess of the fine. So using my opponents own data there is plenty of room for the effect. This is besides the fact the fine can be easily increased, if the desire is to drive people to the insurance companies. The next issue is business support. Obviously different agencies do and don’t support different aspects of this bill. Healthcare dissatisfaction with any plan runs about 70% of the US so small businesses supporting repeal is not unusual. Small businesses in general provide bad or no care and the law makes that expensive it is not shocking that segment of the business community would be opposed. If we look at big business which currently pays for healthcare we find a different attitude. Let’s example the 3 most credible groups / business lobbies. First off, a good chunk of this legislation came from the business roundtable (. http://www.californiahealthline.org...) Individual insurance mandate Value-based purchasing, in which payment rates would be based on quality measures; Innovation centers to experiment with alternate methods of provider reimbursement; Accountable care organizations; Bundling, in which providers are paid a lump sum for treating a single condition; Financial penalties for avoidable hospital readmissions Comparative effectiveness research. Read more: . http://tinyurl.com... And of course the US Council on Foreign Relations (international business group) that I discussed at length in part 1 are supporters. The US Chamber of Commerce sees the law as too consumer friendly but supports both increased regulation and federalization. (. http://www.uschamber.com...), which my opponent had listed as anti-business harms. As for the exchanges my opponent is not addressing the key argument that the exchanges just provide another mechanism. It is expensive to provide healthcare for the sick. We can either do it or not do it. We can either have them purchase subsidized using the standard market or the exchange market. The cost that needs to be considered is the extra cost of the exhange not of the medical care. The exchanges in and of themselves are a mechanism for implementing policy, not policy. He also brings up purchase across state lines which would create a national insurance market and thus necessitate national regulation of healthcare. His whole argument in part 1 was that national healthcare regulation was a negative. I think I’ve shown that my opponent is essentially repeating contradictory talking points and the law holds up to analysis by credible well researched groups.