Resolved; The United States Government ought to guarantee Universal Health Care to its Citizens

I will present my own case in this round; I will rebut the Affirmative case next round. However, I will provide some definitions of my own at this juncture. Definitions: U.S. " the government of the United States. (American Heritage.) Ought " desirability (Encarta.) Aff defines "ought" as indicating morality, however this is not always the case. For example, the statement "you ought to go left to avoid traffic" is not dealing with morality, but rather with desirability. Therefore, prefer this definition. Observation One: "Ought" expresses a moral obligation. A moral obligation, according to philosopher J.O. Urmson, is contingent upon capacity. For example, if a man who cannot swim sees a person drowning, the man is not obligated to jump into the pool to save the drowning individual, as that would endanger two lives. It would be unfair to demand that one do something they can"t. But, if one can swim, then one does have an obligation to jump in to save the person. If you have the ability to do good, you ought to do good. Basically, Urmson contends an actor, like the U.S., cannot have an obligation if that actor lacks the ability bear it. Observation Two: The resolution, by its own wording, is U.S.-specific. I Value Societal Welfare, defined as the health and safety of a society. Ultimately, this value is intrinsically linked to the notion of healthcare, because of the broad social impacts associated with it. Furthermore, the importance of the community is affirmed by Prof. Jane Dryden, "autonomy"does not provide an adequate notion of the human person as embedded within and shaped by societal values and commitments"we do not choose our values and commitments from the position of already being autonomous individuals; in other words, the autonomous self does not exist prior to the values and commitments that constitute the basis for its decisions. To deliberate in the abstract from these values"is to leave out the self"s very identity, and that which gives meaning to the deliberation." The Criterion therefore is Rousseau"s Social Contract. It differs from Locke"s insofar as it advocates that government should provide for the public good"not merely three specific rights. As Rousseau himself stated, "The sovereign is thus formed when free and equal persons come together and agree to create themselves anew as a single body, directed to the good of all considered together." This sentiment is echoed across many social contract theories, particularly in the notion that government is there to serve the people, not to serve itself. At the same time though, a government must act pragmatically, for the benefit of the whole, even if this means some harm for the minority. Prof. Gary Woller furthers, "Appeals to a priori moral principles"often fail to acknowledge that public policies inevitably entail trade-offs among competing values. Thus since policymakers cannot justify inherent value conflicts to the public in any philosophical sense"the policymakers' duty to the public interest requires them to demonstrate that"their policies are somehow to the overall advantage of society." Ultimately then, the government, the U.S., ought to act in such a way as it benefits the most people. It is my belief, that in such stressed economic times, it would be too risky to implement UHC, and thus the U.S. ought not to do it. Contention One: Universal Healthcare would require the government to exhaust enormous funds that it simply lacks. Sub-point A: Universal Healthcare would entail massive costs for the U.S. According to Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel and Prof. Victory Fuchs, "universal health insurance would be underwritten [by the U.S.]"with administrative costs exceeding $145 billion." Professors Chua Kao-Ping and Fl"vio Casoy further, observing that the Institute of Medicine estimated the additional healthcare costs from the presently uninsured being covered by universal healthcare would be around 69 billion dollars per year, and that this number does not even assume that structural changes, delivery financing, scope of benefits, or provider payment might be adversely affected. They go on to state that "there is the possibility that covering the uninsured through a public insurance program may tempt employers to drop coverage and push their employees onto the public insurance program," further increasing the cost of the program for the U.S. According to Reuters, 40 million Americans would need subsidized or free health insurance to be provided to them by the government. As reported by the Tax Policy Center and Reuters, currently, 760 billion dollars in spending and 600 billion dollars in tax cuts are being used to offer like subsidies. That number would need to increase even more should all of the U.S. be covered, and may virtually destroy what is left of U.S. finances. Sub-point B: The U.S. economy is too fragile to handle the added expenses. According to Robert Merry, "US public debt exceeds 70% of the economy, nearing the danger point of 90%. With national debt projected to reach 16.6 trillion dollars this year, that ominous percentage looms." The Congressional Budget Office reported that 15 trillion dollars in spending reductions are needed simply to maintain current debt-to-GDP levels. Even more is needed to reduce the overall debt. It warns that U.S. debt may exceed 100% by 2020 and 190% by 2035. Included in its recommendations was a reduction of healthcare subsidies, many of which would be necessary for universal health care. Economists Buchanan, Gjerstad, and Smith, in a study they conducted this year, stated, to survive economically, we must pursue a policy of fiscal consolidation, including a sharp reduction in domestic spending. This would seem to rule out additional healthcare related expenses. They warned "added spending that would naturally accompany any expansion of the system could cause a return to recession. Claims that healthcare would help millions are clearly contradicted by the fact that such a policy could economically harm millions more." Sub-point C: Such spending would also be fruitless and wasteful even if implemented. Prof. James Taylor notes that, should Universal Healthcare be implemented, "special interest groups can capture resources through lobbying, perverting them away from their efficient allocation." According to Emma Roberts, universal healthcare would be unsustainable, "countries with universal health care struggle to sustain efficiency. Canada and Australia ranked lowest, according to the Commonwealth Wealth Fund study, in accessibility of physician appointments and wait times for basic medical services, as well as specialist care, tests, etc. Other efficiency issues noted by the study included"misplacing medical records and tests." Prof. Jeffery Miron adds that, "Subsidizing health insurance means that patients and doctors are insulated from the costs of health care, so they utilize too much"often in the form of unnecessary tests or medical procedures." Sub-point D: Interestingly enough, universal healthcare isn"t really universal. As reported on ABC News, "A national shortage of general practitioners means that 1.7 million Canadians don't have access to a regular doctor to go to for routine care. In England, shortages of dentists have caused hundreds of people to wait in line just for an appointment"One British hospital even tried to save money by not changing bed sheets. Instead of washing them, a British newspaper reported that the staff was encouraged to simply turn the sheets over. At any given time in Great Britain, there are over half a million people waiting to get into a hospital for treatments." The crux of this point is that many of the benefits claimed by proponents of UHC fall short, because UHC is only ensuring a portion of the population. Essentially, guaranteeing universal healthcare would jeopardize our economy, and is, consequently, not the best course of action for our society. As Urmson notes, moral obligations are contingent on our ability to bear them"and quite simply, we can"t. Prof. Allen Buchanan put it best saying, "a right to healthcare becomes implausible simply because it ignores the fact that in circumstances of scarcity the total social expenditure on health must be constrained by the need to allocate resources for other necessities." Thus, I urge a negative ballot.