BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Current health care systems are not sustainable

A range of health programs are already available. Many employers offer health insurance and some people deliberately choose to work for such companies for these benefits, even if the pay is a little lower. Other plans can be purchased by individuals with no need to rely on an employer. This means they are free to choose the level of care which is most appropriate to their needs. For other people it can be perfectly reasonable to decide to go without health insurance. Healthy younger adults will on average save money by choosing not to pay high insurance premiums, covering any necessary treatment out of their own pockets from time to time. Why should the state take away all these people’s freedom of choice by imposing a one-size-fits-all socialist system of health care? Human resources professionals will still be needed to deal with the very many other employment regulations put in place by the federal government. Instead of employees being able to exercise control over their health care choices and work with people in their company, patients will be forced to deal with the nameless, faceless members of the government bureaucracy.
Health care programmes currently do not offer equality of care

The United States government cannot afford to fund universal health care. Other universal social welfare policies such as Social Security and Medicare have run into major problems with funding. Costs are rising at the same time that the baby boomer generation are growing old and retiring. Soon tens of millions of boomers will stop contributing much tax and start demanding much more in benefits than before. In such a situation we cannot afford to burden the nation with another huge government spending program. Nations that provide universal health care coverage spend a substantial amount of their national wealth on the service. With government control of all health care, caps will be placed on costs. As a result many doctors would not be rewarded for their long hours and important roles in our lives. The road to becoming a doctor is long and hard; without the present financial rewards many young people will not choose to study medicine. Current doctors may find that they do not want to continue their careers in a government-controlled market. The American Medical Association does not back a government-controlled, single-payer universal health care system. The current system of offering group insurance through employers covers many Americans with good quality health insurance. The group plan concept enables insurance companies to insure people who are high risk and low risk by mixing them in the same pool. Issues over losing or leaving a job with health benefits are dealt with by federal laws which require companies to continue to offer workers cover for at least 18 months after they leave employment.
Healthcare has been recognised as a right

There are several reasons why health care should not be considered a universal human right. The first issue is one of definition – how do we define the services that need to be rendered in order for them to qualify as adequate health care? Where do we draw the line? Emergency surgery, sure, but how about cosmetic surgery? The second is that all human rights have a clear addressee, an entity that needs to protect this right. But who is targeted here? The government? What if we opt for a private yet universal health coverage – is this any less moral? Let’s forget the institutions for a second, should this moral duty of health care fall solely on the doctors perhaps?[1] In essence, viewing health care as a right robs us of another, much more essential one – that of the right to one’s own life and one’s livelihood. If it is not considered a service to be rendered, than how could a doctor charge for it? She couldn’t! If it were a right, than each of us would own it, it would have to be inseparable from us. Yet, we don’t and we can’t.[2] We can see that considering health care as a basic human right has profound philosophical problems, not the least of them the fact that it infringes on the rights of others. [1] Barlow, P., Health care is not a human right, published 7/31/1999, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1126951/, accessed 9/18/2011 [2] Sade, R., The Political Fallacy that Medical Care is a Right, published 12/2/1971, http://www.aapsonline.org/brochures/sademcr.htm, accessed 9/18/2011
Universal healthcare systems are inefficient

It is not, in fact, universal health care itself, that’s inefficient, but specific adaptations of it. Often, even those shortcomings are so blown out of proportion that it’s very difficult to get the whole story. Universal health care can come in many shapes and sizes, meant to fit all kinds of countries and societies. When judging them it’s often useful to turn to those societies for critiques of their coverage systems. Despite the horror stories about the British NHS, it costs 60% less per person than the current US system. Despite the haunting depictions of decades long waiting lists, Canadians with chronic conditions are much more satisfied with the treatment received than their US counterparts.[1] We should not let hysterical reporting to divert us from the truth – universal health care makes a lot of economic, and, more importantly, moral sense. [1] Krugman, P., The Swiss Menace, published 8/16/2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/opinion/17krugman.html, accessed 9/18/2011
Universal healthcare is not affordable

We need to analyze this issue from a couple of different perspectives. The first is this trillion per decade cost. Is this truly a cost to the American economy? We think not, since this money will simply flow back into the economy, back into the hands of health care providers, insurance companies, etc. – back into the hands of taxpayers. So in this sense it is very much affordable. But is this a productive enterprise? For the millions of people that at this very moment have absolutely no insurance and therefore very limited access to health care, the answer is very clear. In addition, the reform will more or less pay for itself, not in a year, not even a decade – but as it stands now, it’s been designed to have a net worth of zero.[1] Lastly, just because we live in a bad economic climate doesn’t mean we can simply abandon all sense of moral obligation. There are people suffering because of the current situation. No cost can offset that. [1] Johnson, S., Kwak, J., Can We Afford Health Care Reform? We Can't Afford Not to Do It., published 9/1/2009,  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/01/AR2009090101027.html, accessed 9/18/2011
Universal healthcare stifles innovation

Profits do drive innovation. But there is nothing out there that would make us believes that the profits stemming from the health care industry are going to taper off or even decrease in a universal coverage system. In short in a single-payer system, it’s just the government that’ll be picking up the tab and not the private companies. But the money will still be there. An expert on the issue from the Brigham and Women’s Hospital opined that this lack of innovation crops up every time there is talk of a health care reform, usually from the pharmaceutical industry, and usually for reasons completely unrelated to the policy proposed.[1] Whereas the opposition fears new research into efficiency of medical practice and procedures, we, on the other hand, feel that’s exactly what the doctor ordered – and doctors do too.[2] [1] Klein, E., Will Health-Care Reform Save Medical Innovation?, published 8/3/2009, http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/08/will_health-care_reform_save_m.html, accessed 9/18/2011 [2] Brown, D., ‘Comparative effectiveness research’ tackles medicine’s unanswered questions, published 8/15/2011, http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/comparative-effectiveness-research-tackles-medicines-unanswered-questions/2011/08/01/gIQA7RJSHJ_story.html, accessed 9/18/2011
Health care would substantially reduce overall costs

With universal health care, people are able to seek preventive treatment. This means having tests and check-ups before they feel ill, so that conditions can be picked up in their early stages when they are easy to treat. For example in a recent study 70% of women with health insurance knew their cholesterol level, while only 50% of uninsured women did. In the end, people who do not get preventive health care will get treatment only when their disease is more advanced. As a result their care will cost more and the outcomes are likely to be much worse. Preventative care, made more accessible, can function the same way, reducing the costs further.[1] In addition, a single-payer system reduces the administrative costs. A different way of charging for the care, not by individual services but by outcomes, as proposed by Obama’s bill, also changes incentives from as many tests and procedures as possible to as many patients treated and healed as possible.[2] We thus see that not only does universal health coverage inherently decrease costs because of preventative care, much of the cost can be avoided if implemented wisely and incentivized properly. [1] Cutler, D. M., Health System Modernization Will Reduce the Deficit, published 5/11/2009, http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2009/05/health_modernization.html, accessed 9/17/2011 [2] Wirzibicki, A., With health costs rising, Vermont moves toward a single-payer system, published 4/7/2011, http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/blogs/the_angle/2011/04/vermonts_single.html, accessed 9/17/2011
Current health care systems are not sustainable

American health insurance payments are very high and rising rapidly. Even employer-subsidised programs are very expensive for many Americans, because they often require co-payments or high deductibles (payment for the first part of any treatment). In any case employee health benefits are being withdrawn by many companies as a way of cutting costs. For those without insurance, a relatively minor illness or injury can be a financial disaster. It is unfair that many ordinary hard-working Americans can no longer afford decent medical treatment. Moving to a system of universal health care would reduce the burden on human resources personnel in companies. At present they must make sure the company is obeying the very many federal laws about the provision of health insurance. With a universal system where the government was the single-payer, these regulations would not apply and the costs of American businesses would be much reduced.
Health care programmes currently do not offer equality of care

The United States as a whole spends 14% of GDP (total income) on health care. This includes the amount spent by the federal government, state governments, employers and private citizens. Many studies have found that a single-payer system would cut costs enough to allow everyone in the USA to have access to good health care without the nation as a whole spending more than it does at the moment. Medicare, a government-run health care program, has administrative costs of less than 2% of its total budget. The current system of health maintenance organisations (HMOs) has destroyed the doctor-patient relationship and removed patients’ ability to choose between health care providers. Patients find that their doctors are not on their new plan and are forced to leave doctors with whom they have established a trusting relationship. Also, patients must get approval to see specialists and then are allowed to see only selected doctors. Doctors usually can’t spend enough time with patients in the HMO plans. By contrast a universal health system would give patients many more choices. In the current system the employee and the employee’s family often depend on the employer for affordable health insurance. If the worker loses their job, the cost of new health insurance can be high and is often unaffordable. Even with current federal laws making insurance more movable, the costs to the employee are too high. With a single-payer, universal health care system, health insurance would no longer be tied to the employer and employees would not have to consider health insurance as a reason to stay with a given employer. This would also be good for the economy as a whole as it would make the labour market more flexible than it has become in recent years.
Banning Fraternities Will Prevent Chauvinistic Behaviour

One of the main impetuses for young men to join fraternities comes from the idea that it will be easy to have sex with women should they do. This idea has two affects on fraternities. The first, detailed in this point is more indirect. The people who apply to fraternities do so because of these preconceptions and often are able to get in to fraternities.   This means that a fraternity essentially becomes a place where a large number of men who already tend towards chauvinistic ideas gather. It seems logical then that often fraternities colour people towards the objectification of women.   This is further exacerbated by initiation rituals which often emphasise sexist attitudes, for example, raiding sororities and stealing lingerie. The significant social pressure this creates, especially on newer university students who might fear exclusion, means that even those who did not have bad preconceptions of women before can end up tending strongly toward chauvinism.1   Further, fraternities often have strong relationships with sororities. This is specifically important because often sorority girls are often encouraged by the hierarchy of the sorority to maintain good relations with related fraternities. This means that many younger girls might be encouraged to play into the stereotypes that the fraternity boys expect of them to maintain the sorority’s popularity with the fraternity. As such, negative stereotypes are reinforced by this relationship.   Banning fraternities would be conducive to changes these conceptions by preventing people with chauvinistic opinions gathering to begin with and reinforcing each other’s views of the world. Further, with less social pressure to impress the frat boys, related sororities might play into these stereotypes less.
Fraternities Lead to the Direct Sexual Exploitation of Women

Whilst the initial proposition argument claims that fraternities lead to the objectification of women and how this harms women indirectly, this argument claims that the men included in fraternities are more likely to physically harm and rape women.7   The culture of the objectification of women and the expectation that members of a fraternity should have sex leads to incidents where fraternity members will report to other members of the fraternity about women that they got with the night before.   Whilst this is typical of most male groups, it becomes more insidious when those who are able to do better with the women often end up doing better within the formal hierarchy of the fraternity.   As such, because of these pressures there is often an impetus from members of a fraternity to have sex with women regardless of the consequences. Given the first argument about the general perception of women that fraternities promote and it is logical that there might be a higher chance that fraternity members would be involved in crimes such as rape and sexual assault. Further, the drinking culture that often goes with fraternities exacerbates these problems as young men who ordinarily would not succumb to the social pressures do, or perceive a responses from women incorrectly, leading to cases of sexual assault.1
Fraternities Encourage Binge Drinking

As mentioned in the first point, many people join fraternities with preconceptions of the lifestyle available to them. Many people believe fraternities are all about binge drinking for example. Because of this, the applicants that fraternities get are often people looking to engage in that kind of lifestyle. As such, a large number of people who do join fraternities do so under the assumption that they will get to consume large amounts of alcohol. This means that fraternities initially attract people who are already into drinking, but secondly those people that do join also wish to live up to their conception of what a fraternity should be, further encouraging binge drinking. Therefore, those people who join because of the drinking are likely to be accompanied by a large number of people who do not see the problems associated with drinking and encourage their habit. Those who are not initially into drinking may start drinking simply to fit in with the others and this may well be encouraged by initiation rituals which encourage drinking themselves. In this case a ban on fraternities would stop such people coming together in the first place and as such halt peer pressure that might result in unhealthy drinking behaviour.   Secondly, the large number of social events that fraternities partake in result in binge drinking through sheer volume of events where alcohol is freely available to individuals. The social pressures to consume alcohol are also coupled with the aforementioned social pressures to have sex. Many individuals feel that alcohol and the consumption of alcohol make them more attractive to the opposite gender by allowing them to get past nerves. Hence, the social pressures mentioned compound one another significantly. Again, a ban on fraternities would prevent this because it would become more difficult to organise such a busy social calendar without the approval of the university. Fewer events necessarily will result in less alcohol being freely available at said events. Further, without an efficient method of collecting money from people that fraternities provide, such parties will become more difficult to organise.4
There Are Many Better Options

Firstly, the ban on fraternities is an overreaction to a problem that only exists within a few fraternities. Many fraternities exist as helpful parts of the community which support students in all parts of their lives through creating bonds of friendship and brotherhood that persist over long periods of time.   Secondly, those frats that do break the rules can easily be punished and made to set an example for all other fraternities. Given the culprits can almost always be targeted; it seems extreme to ban every fraternity.   Further, an alternate solution would simply be to improve relations between fraternities and members of faculty, who might encourage better study and allow fraternities to better prepare themselves for their futures. Further, mentoring in other areas could be given, such as support classes for those suffering from alcohol problems. There might even be mandatory seminars on feminism and other issues that might be affected significantly by the fraternity culture.6
Fraternities Help Academics

"Fraternities might actually convey benefits on members and even their host institutions. While fraternity membership has been associated with cheating on exams and poor academic performance, other evidence suggests that fraternity members declare majors earlier, obtain higher-paying entry-level jobs and donate more to their alma maters. Anecdotally, simply requiring a higher G.P.A. to permit membership than simply to remain academically eligible might boost school performance among current and would-be fraternity members." Says Jeffrey DeSimone in “The Role of Drinking”   This argument is furthered by Charles Eberly in “Unfairly Singled Out,” where he states that "negative consequences surrounding the actions of fraternity and sorority members seem to be highlighted with far greater frequency than the positive outcomes associated with membership. Typical of the latter are examples from a fraternity chapter I counsel at Eastern Illinois University. One member who is graduating with a master's in school counselling developed a program on healthy men's development that is presented to all new members of the college's fraternity system each year, and another brother created a charity to support a local children's advocacy centre. Yet a third is running marathons in all 50 states to support suicide prevention in memory of a brother who committed suicide in 2008. The chapter is planning a fund raising drive to construct a wishing well on campus in coordination with another fraternity chapter that lost brothers in a bus accident, with the contributions going to the children’s advocacy centre."   Fraternities provide areas where different people with different skills can pool those skills together in order to provide an organised and productive environment for those around them. This is especially important given the American education system often focuses more greatly on variety of subjects studied. As such a fraternity might well have a brother who is very good at mathematics and as such could potentially help an English student who has taken a mathematics elective. Further, the standards required of fraternities owing to the very controversy that says we should ban them means that the majority of fraternities end up focusing strongly on maintaining academic success.5,2
There are Many Different Forms of Fraternity

Implicitly the motion assumes that all fraternities are about binge drinking, illicit sex and partying. However, there are many different types of fraternity that for example, admit members not based on old social connections of general likeability but on other criteria, such as academic success or commitment to certain causes. Indeed there are academic fraternities, religious fraternities and social justice fraternities. Whilst these fraternities aren’t immune to the harms mentioned on proposition, it is clear that their purpose and likely their members are significantly different in their attitudes to the “typical” fraternity member. These groups often do a significant level of good both for their members and for the wider community. It seems unjust therefore to ban all fraternities when these people are not doing anything to significantly harm the rest of the university community.3
Banning Fraternities Will Prevent Chauvinistic Behaviour

The issue with impressions of women with respect to university already exist before fraternities become involved. Most young adults go to university with expectations that sex will be easy to come by and this is exacerbated by film, television and other forms of media. Fraternities are targeted as a gathering place for men, but should they be banned, this behaviour will not go away.   Whilst fraternities may exacerbate the problem, they are easily visible institutions that can be targeted and changed, pushing these individuals away from any support network would just lead to a worse outcome as the first opposition argument suggests.   Secondly, fraternities are often negatively stereotyped in this area. Most fraternities are respectful of women and do well to moderate those that might not be.2