Debater's Choice

Let us refer to my opponent's very first post. The resolution he proposes, provided here in verbatim, runs thus: "The resolution I propose to Beginner is, "The United States should not require its citizens to have health insurance." For this debate, I will be taking the affirmation (or Pro), leaving the negation for my opponent. Note the wording of this resolution: the negation will be for health insurance, while the affirmation will be against."" This is an extremely clear, explicit resolution pertaining only to health insurance. Individual mandate was only a potential correlation outlined later in this round: "Should not require" refers to what is known as the "individual mandate", the requirement for citizens to have health insurance or else be penalized. In essence, this resolution is referring to a portion of the "Obamacare" health care package, which requires American citizens to have health insurance or else pay a tax or fine. Thus, this debate should be discussing the merits of the individual mandate as defined by "Obamacare", and whether implementing it on a national level is beneficial for the United States." This means that my opponent's previous post, which attempts to convert the resolution: "The United States should not require its citizens to have health insurance; [requirement(s) being in the form of individual mandate(s)]" into "The United States should not require its citizens to do anything; the United States should not impose any form of individual mandates whatsoever." Although I didn't set this tenet in round 1, I'm sure it is fair for me to expect a relative level of consistency in the resolution's outlining. The proposition in round 2 changes the resolution much too radically. I suggest this to be completely ignored (even though I benefit by the change due to the affirmation's very anarchical status; anarchy's argumentative base is nearly nonexistent). In sum, I expect the resolution to remain, as explicitly outlined by my opponent in round 1: "The United States should not require its citizens to have health insurance." This debate is not about individual mandates, it's about required health insurance or, as my opponent put it, individually mandated health insurance. The Obamacare package is then only an optional, supplemental outlet through which both PRO & CON can substantiate a case or rebuttal Without further ado, let's begin: Contention 1: The American way of life 1.The clearest benefit of health insurance is the financial opportunity given to the less economically capable to actually receive medical care to potentially crippling, even life-threatening, medical problems. Medical bills are expensive. This is an irrevocable fact in the United States (a simple orientation session with a doctor may cost hundreds of dollars). My middle-class, high-school economics teacher, thanks to health insurance, was able to waive several hundred thousand dollars in a life-saving heart operation. Such a fee would have crippled his family (he has a wife 2 children), put them in debt and destroy his lifestyle (the only economic detriment to his household is the increased insurance bill). Applying this case example to the entirety of US society, it is reasonable to assume that health insurance actually sustains the American lifestyle, providing life-saving benefits to those who need it. Imagine a scenario in which a lower-middle class or poor citizen had a heart attack. The only way to save his/her life is to give her/him a three hundred thousand dollar surgery. The average total Americans' total assets (numbered at around $93,000 [1]) doesn't even number a third of such an immense number! After being given surgery, this poor citizen would immediately be forced to renounce all assets, potentially putting the family into bankruptcy. Due to financial circumstances, this citizen may not even be eligible for surgery. The result would be death. Health insurance saves lives. By mandating health insurance, the government is insuring the lives and livelihood of its people. One can easily argue the issue of money. Who pays? This is actually a non-issue. The insurance company obviously foots the large bills that are within their insurance quota. The insurance money receives money from those who pay for its services. It is basically a massive system of money reallocation. This system works under two conditions: 1. there are enough people paying for insurance 2. the rate of 'accidents' are low enough such that the insurance company is able to pay occasional large sums without falling into debt/bankruptcy. This means that the larger an insurance company is, the better. Both conditions are easily satisfied with the paying patrons footing only a small monthly/annual sum. Every middle-class citizen is financially capable of purchasing insurance. If a child happened to be born in the family of one of these 50,000,000 voluntarily uninsured people, what would happen to this child in the case of health-related problems (actual and financial)? By enforcing a health insurance mandate, our society makes sure that such children receive the necessary medical treatment they would otherwise be denied under the reverse circumstance. Health insurance should be mandated for the simple socioeconomic reasons outlined above. There are no significantly plausible reasons against a health insurance mandate that overrule its benefits. [1] http://www.prosebeforehos.com... [2] http://www.cdc.gov... [3] http://www.allcountries.org...