The U.S. ought to guarantee Universal Healthcare to its citizenry

I will be addressing Con"s remarks, and them emphasizing some key themes in the debate. SOLVENCY Firstly, as ought is a question about morality, and as morality doesn"t necessarily imply a discussion of the consequences, I maintain I do not need to prove solvency. I would also point out that we began this debate with an understanding that "Pro does not have to pick a specific type of UHC to support, nor does it need to offer a policy to implement it. " However, if this argument does not convince you, I can still solve the problem. Here"s how: (1) Uninsurance is a grave problem; (2) UHC largely eliminates uninsurance (more so than Obamacare); (3) Conclusion: UHC solves for uninsurance and its attendant problems. This is a very clear train of logic. My opponent claims that asserting the need for insurance doesn"t solve. Yet, that is ultimately what the debate is about"is insurance necessary and moral. By asserting and demonstrating how insurance is necessary and useful, I am affirming the resolution. Finally, if insurance will eliminate the problems outlined in my initial statement, and its harms don"t very much outweigh those gains, that I have solved. CON"S TIMING ARGUMENT (a) Con doesn"t draw a direct link between UHC and economic hardship"her only rebuttal to this is that it is "pretty obvious" that UHC will hinder economic success. Yet, I find this assumption dubious, especially in light of the Murray and Thorpe evidence that shows the UHC will have a clear benefit to the economy. There is also a second reason to reject the Con"s argument. Because we"re not debating any specific form of UHC, the government, depending on the plan it may put together, could devise a means of funding it that would have little (if any) negative economic impact. (b) She says that implementing UHC will increase the likelihood of a credit down grade be a "huge margin," but fails to explain what that margin is or why that increase is inevitable. If that margin means that the likelihood of a downgrade rises to 40%, then there is still a 60% chance that UHC will not result in the harms she mentions. In which case, we would have few harms, but many benefits through a reduction in uninsurance. This is a strong cost-benefit justification for the solvency and the utility of UHC. Ultimately, her assertion of a "huge margin" of increase is vague and ill-defined, and we cannot vote of such nebulous suppositions. As Con put it, there is "no empirical evidence (and hence no way to weigh) the impact" of such a vague, undefined threat. We shouldn"t sacrifice the clear benefits of UHC for a threat that isn"t even quantified. (c) Again, since we"re not talking about any particular form of UHC, it is unfair to say that UHC would necessarily fail in the U. S. Plus, there are other ways of coping with rising seniors"like raising retirement ages, etc. Ultimately, though, we"re discussing UHC not Medicare. (d) In fact, I did NOT drop her hegemony argument. This point was predicated on the notion that because UHC would harm our economy, we would be hampered in our efforts to have hegemony. So, if her economics arguments are fallacious, then her hegemony argument loses its footing and its supporting logic. Furthermore, I did note that Rowley never directly explained why UHC would deter/impede our attempts to attain hegemonic status. (e) The 3.8 million stat offered by my source was compiled by the Dept. of Health and Human Services in a meta-analysis of 178 different, independent studies of the healthcare field. And it is not my argument that entrepreneurship will "save" the economy, but merely that it is good for the economy. It prevents stagnation and promotes investment. As Con stated, "it"s pretty obvious. "Furthermore, her 89% evidence did not actually respond to my argument, which was not about how many uninsured visited the emergency room. Rather, my argument was that 10.7% of visits were from non-emergencies, likely cause by a lack of insurance or underinsurance. See also misconstrues my argument about ER costs; regardless of why the ER is more expensive (which it is), its high prices have a detrimental impact on the uninsured, who are often forced to go to the ER rather than another physician. Furthermore, the Con accuses me of providing a lack of methodology, when the sum total of her source"s methodology regarding ER costs is citing: "A growing body of research. " CON"S EMPIRICS ARGUMENT (a) I do not drop the Con"s statistics"I explain why they can be set aside or why they are incorrect. I offer statistics that actually contradict what the Con argues (e. g. the WHO evidence. ) I explain that she only cites a handful of examples, which cannot speak to UHC as a whole; the results of 3 or 4 nations do not necessarily characterize the scores of UHC programs around the globe. She claims the U. S. has the highest survival rate, but I addressed this in Round Three when I stated, "My opponent then claims that the U. S. has better care, and extrapolates from that that UHC delivers bad outcomes because it delivers poor care for "most diseases. " Her own source states that this is a comparison of "specific diseases. " In fact, she only mentions 4 diseases, which is hardly "most. " Furthermore, her own Cato source states, "although the U. S. health care system can provide the world"s highest quality of care, that quality is often uneven. The Institute of Medicine estimates that some 44,000 and 90,000 annual deaths are due to medical errors, while a study in The New England Journal of Medicine suggests that only a little more than half of American hospital patients receive the clinical standard of care. " Also, the uninsured wait 1.5x longer for care (I stated this in round two,) beating back her wait times argument because wait times either way would be problematic, and they receive worse care. (b) Again, the U. S. system could easily implement a more easily maintained system of UHC than Canada, particularly as we"re not talking about any particular form of UHC. Furthermore, many other UHC nations have, like Germany, as I noted earlier in the debate, have successful systems the U. S. could model. (c) Care "rationing" does not occur in all forms of UHC. Canada is a flawed example, and care does happen in UHC. She says that people receive not care because the rich skip ahead. This really is warranted, especially insofar as "wait times" do not mean "no care. " The rich will abuse either system, and as yet, she has offered no evidence as to why that abuse will be more egregious in the Pro world than in the Con world. Finally, there are severe wait times in the U. S. too: "The uninsured are 3-4 times more likely than those with insurance to report problems getting needed medical care, even for serious conditions. In one study, more than half of the uninsured postponed needed medical care due to financial concerns, while over one third went without a physician-recommended medical test or treatment due to financial concerns. " (Kao-ping and Casoy) (D) I explained how neither Obamacare nor lower drug prices solved. In which case, there"s not solvency on the Con side either, and if the burden is shared, she should have some level of solvency. I didn"t explain why people should have to pay for others because that is not necessarily going to happen on the Pro side. I don"t have to defend a specific form of UHC, and thus, I don"t have to offer a means of funding it either, as each system is funded differently. MY CASE Ultimately, my opponent never rebuts that actual evidence I provide as to the added costs of uninsurance. She just offers some competing statistics that fail to address the specific point I raised. Thus, those points can be extended across the flow. Furthermore, the source she cites is largely specific to Sweden, and what goes on in one nation is not necessarily characteristic of what goes on in most. And, while the U. S. may have some high survival rates among those who are treated, the evidence I provided shows how many are untreated or seek treatment to late due to a lack of insurance. She says that the failures of Obamacare are unverifiable, yet, the CBO is a highly reliable source that is non-partisan and has a huge amount of information to draw on. It seems far more reliable, therefore, than pro-conservative LocunTenens. com. If most doctors, as you can see if you pull the actual survey report from their social media pages, southern doctors were polled slightly more. That demographic is likely to skew the results = methodological flaw. Furthermore, Con literally provides no warrant at all as to why most people would choose to be uninsured under Obamacare. Con drops my points about the need to eliminate the emotional suffering of the uninsured. Con drops the additional information I offered to support the Thorpe study. Con also never addressed the Murray evidence. Con drops my turn of her Cato evidence, showing how it could bolster the pro position. REASONS TO VOTE PRO (1) Con drops my analysis of Germany"s healthcare system (round two), in which reforms were made to stabilize it. The wait times there are small, and it"s economically viable. This illustrates that UHC doesn"t necessarily have to entail the economic harms she forecasts. Germany represents the possibility of success. (2) Con"s economic analysis, particular that of the ill-defined risk of a credit downgrade that she cannot link directly with a warrant to UHC, fails to show undue risk of economic harm through UHC. Furthermore, many of her arguments only rely on a few examples. Just because 3 or 4 nations have some issues, that does not mean that UHC, which is practiced in dozens of nations, is bad. (2) UHC is economically beneficial. The dropped Thorpe and Murray analysis shows, clearly and with solid methodology, how UHC could save up to 1.1 trillion dollars, and would contribute to lower absenteeism, etc. (3) Con cannot solve. Obamacare would only reduce uninsurance rates by a measly 40%. Even with lowered drug costs, this is not enough (as my earlier analysis shows. ) (4) I do solve"though I don"t need to. By virtually eliminating uninsurance and its incumbent harms (bankruptcy, emotional distress, communicable disease, 25% greater likelihood of mortality, etc. ), I do solve for the problem posed within the resolution. Con, thank you for an amazing, polite, and high-quality debate!