Should universal health care be implemented in the US given current conditions

To conclude this debate I’ll mostly be making closing statements. For those of you following this debate feel free to check out the comment section. My opponent and I have been debating a lot in the comment sections and it would be a pity to miss those arguments. First I’ll be refuting some of my opponents’ arguments. My opponent and I have kept on arguing about the topic of this debate. My opponent stated in round 3 that he wants me to expand my argument about the implementing of this plan. I did, yet in the next round he says that I’m off topic. Do you think this is right? He asks me to expand my argument about implementation and then when I do answer his question he later says I’m off topic. Next my opponent says the word should is “loosely defined” this is one of the reasons as to why he should know that when I used it I was using its (first) and second definition: used to indicate what is probable (1). The reason why this is justified is because given that this is a political issue in political context whether or not you should do something does depend on whether you can actually do it. In other areas of life should is defined using its first definition. The problem is that in political context the word should won’t usually just refer to what we need to do but also whether or not we can do it. Since this is a political issue I’m using the word correctly given context. Further my opponent states that it would be fantastic if we could both stick to the debate. He’s being a hypocrite since he asked me to expand on my argument about implementation even though he thinks it’s of topic. He’s also being a hypocrite when he thinks that I haven’t read his arguments. He already admitted that he hasn’t read the first CEA study he has provided when he stated, “I do apologize for not looking for the exact wording "universal healthcare" in the article I cited”. On top of that he hasn’t responded to many of my arguments. For example in round 4 he literally devotes most of his time to arguing against my plan and then at the end says he thinks he’s responded to all of my arguments. He hasn’t. Now I haven’t addressed all his either arguments but at least I acknowledge this. In regards to the CEA study even after round 4 it seems as though my opponent still hasn’t read it. He says that it’s not relevant to the debate. Well if it isn’t then he shouldn’t have brought it up in the first place. Anyhow I think my opponent doesn’t understand the essence of the study. To conclude the part he quoted (since I already explained this) the study never said that expanding alone coverage would benefit our economy. Simply put it stated that in order to successfully reform our health care one thing we would need to do is cut growing costs by 1.5%. If those statistics are true (which they are only a prediction, not a fact) then my opponent would need to be able to provide evidence as to exactly how he’s going to cut these costs in order to grow our economy while still being able to expand our coverage to all Americans. If he can’t prove this than the statistics and study he brought out is simply useless. I already provided many reasons in round three as to why the study hurts his argument. Anyone reading this should know. My counterplan The first plan I provided I don’t support. I said that it’s better than standard universal health care though. My opponent still hasn’t stated why it’s worse. He only said that I don’t support it which is true. That wasn’t the purpose of it though. It was just to provide a plan that was better than universal health care not one that I support. My opponent has used most of his space in round 4 to attack it. First my opponent has stated I haven’t provided that much evidence which is true however he hasn’t provided any evidence against my plan so he’s again being a hypocrite. If he wants to prove me wrong then he can’t just say that because I haven’t provided any evidence it means I’m wrong. He has to try to prove me wrong by at least providing evidence against my case. My opponent also thinks my second counterplan is immoral because it denies coverage to the wealthy. Well sorry but they can easily afford their own health insurance. My opponent already said that the wealthy would be paying for other’s health care. What’s the difference between both our plans here? He also said that it denies coverage to the working class. It doesn’t. It only denies coverage to those that can afford to pay for it. I have highlighted the benefits of my plan and freedom of choice is one of them. Why should we force anyone to participate in a system? This is getting us closer to government tyranny. Further he states my plan is close to tyranny. I don’t know what he’s thinking when he states this. My plan promotes freedom of choice. His is plan forces all of us to participate whether we like it or not. His logic is twisted if he thinks that my plan is close to tyranny and somehow his isn’t. Dr. Ron Paul is one supporter of a plan similar to mine. The only real difference is that I think that the government should chip in a little bit while Dr. Ron Paul doesn’t think this way. Besides that, his plan and mine are very similar. He brings up a lot of good points about this plan while also argues against socialized medicine here’s a video of him talking about this. Closing statement. Throughout this debate my opponent and I have been arguing about the topic of this debate. I have been arguing that we should view this issue how it’s supposed to be viewed and that’s as a real life issue. My opponent though still wants to debate about this issue but specifically only the outcome. He doesn’t want to debate about the implementation, the potential consequences and many more issues related to this specific issue. Why do you think that he doesn’t want to argue the implementation of this plan? I believe it’s because he knows it would be very hard to actually debate this and doesn’t want to. I bet he would argue about the implementation of this plan if it was an easy thing to do and if it were easy to argue. My opponent has argued a lot against me but throughout this debate hasn’t addressed many of my arguments even though he’s claimed he has. In round 4 he used most of his space just to argue against my counterplan even though I also provided many other arguments that he should have addressed. Throughout this debate my opponent has made too many false accusations. I can address these in the comment section, but if you have been looking at the debate in the comment section my opponent only wanted to debate about sources. I still welcome him to debate me in the comment section. I have provided a lot of evidence, a lot of sound logic to this debate, I originally wanted this issue to be viewed as a real life issue but unfortunately my opponent doesn’t want to debate this way. I have already justified the reasons as to why we should be debating this issue as if it were a real life issue since it is. I think my opponent shouldn’t have entered this debate unless he was willing to debate the issue as a real life issue. Usually in politics we debate more than just the outcome. In politics we usually also debate how we can implement such a plan and maintain it. I have challenged him to another debate where we actually view this issue as a real life issue instead of debating about a fantasy world where only the outcome matters. Thank you!Please vote for con. If you have any questions feel free to ask me in the comment section. I hope my opponent is also willing to debate any unfinished arguments there. (1)https://www.google.com...