Lets Make Healthcare Reform a referendum

I shall refute my opponent's contentions by directly quoting him: ============================================= "I would first like to make note on my opponent's mention that the particular bill (one of six) and the fact that the length of the bill is over 1000 pages, but I would like to point out that the comparison of the size of between Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows and the Health care reform bill is minuscule and as many people are aware you can go to a variety of links to find out what happened in it, lets use this link as an example: . http://www.bookrags.com...... . Now this may seem irrelevant but it highlights the fact that it would easy for voters to have understanding of the contents of a health care reform bill without reading the full 1000 pages. " First of all, my opponent claims that the particular bill I defined is "one of six. " That is simply untrue. The source I provided is the bill in its entirety. Next, my opponent attempts to connect the reading and page length of "Harry Potter and the Death Hallows" with the Healthcare Reform Bill. However, these two different writings cannot be compared simply because they are close to one another in page length. Almost any literate person can read and understand "Harry Potter and the Death Hallows. " It has a plot and actually interests the reader with action and mental images. However, the Healthcare Reform Bill takes a much deeper understanding of government and the law to be able to comprehend and correctly interpret. The bill also does not really attract the readers into reading 1,000 pages about healthcare, so people would be more likely to either skip sections or not read the bill fully, leaving an ignorant and uninformed vote. To effectively vote on a bill, one needs to read the entire document to make sure everything is understood and reasoned. Most people of the electorate will not be able to do this, for various reasons. The main one is simply that reading and interpreting the Healthcare Reform Bill takes understanding and full comprehension of the law and the government, which many people of the electorate do not contain, which is definitely a turn-off for referendums. My opponent's source is completely irrelevant to this debate. The Harry Potter novel and the Healthcare Reform Bill require much different capabilities of the mind and comprehension of items such as government and law. My opponent quotes that it would be simple for voters to understand the contents of the bill without reading it fully. However, this still leads to an ignorant and unfair vote, for the voter does not know all of what is being voted on. Besides, the sources from where the voters can get a summary of the bill can influence the voters to vote a certain way, creating a bias. ============================================= "Now, the reason why it should be made a referendum is because of the polarizing nature of the subject, an example of this would be the conflicts in town hall meetings all over the United States. In the past referendums have been successfully used to help extinguish the partisanship and the division. I use for example the Quebec Independence referendum of 1995, . http://en.wikipedia.org......, the people of Quebec where so divided over whether they should separate a referendum was the only thing that would lead to calm waters after the consequences of it had occurred. Many people also feel as if they are being misrepresented by the members of both the House of Representatives and the Senate because of the massive influence that the bug Pharmaceutical and Health Insurance companies have over them, for example how can we trust Senator Evan Bayh when we know he gets paid large sums of money from the health insurance companies to help them. A referendum would be the best way for the American people to be represented, and is the only thing that will cause the cease of partisan bickering over this particular subject. " My opponent does not provide a coherent argument in the first sentence, so that should be ignored. He then gives a source in an attempt to prove his point about referendums. However, his source quotes: "When the counting was completed, approximately 86,000 ballots were rejected by scrutineers as "spoiled ballots", meaning that they had not been marked properly by the voter. " At the top of the source, it states: "The referendum took place in Quebec on October 30, 1995, and the motion to decide whether Quebec should secede from Canada was defeated by a very narrow margin of: 50.58% "No" to 49.42% "Yes". " Those 86,000 ballots could have ended up changing the entire outcome of the decision if they were properly marked by the voter and counted properly. My opponent's source brings about the errors and tediousness it takes to make a referendum, once again providing evidence for my side. Then, my opponent proceeds to mention that many people feel they are being misrepresented in Congress. However, the men and women in Congress understand the process of passing bills, the functions of the government and the law, making them well-qualified for voting on the bill. If a referendum was created, the average person/voter would not be as well-qualified and fall short in complete understanding of the bill and its eventual effects. My opponent then attempts to prove a point by declaring that Congressmen are being bribed to vote in a certain way. However, although he makes a reference to a Senator, he does not provide any sources or evidence that this is happening, he only creates an assumption. Most Congressmen are not bribed, for they know how severe the punishment is and that the security/reporters around Washington D. C. can catch on quickly. Besides, if the bill were to be a referendum, people would still be getting influenced by websites, television commercials, and personal messages expressing what view on the bill should be voted for. A referendum would not be the best way for the American people to be represented. As I pointed out in your source, there would still be many errors and faults involved with it, not to mention a lack of understanding regarding the bill in the first place. I have negated the resolution by refuting my opponent's contentions. I heavily urge a Con vote. I thank the readers for the opportunity and await my opponent's rebuttal. Thank you.