Bernie Sanders as President

On the contrary, I had to extend my argument in round 2 since my opponent did not provide any of his own arguments, therefore I could not provide an appropriate rebuttal. If my opponenet had not "copy and pasted" quotes from Bernie Sanders, I could've. Despite the boundless use of citations, which only cited the quotes from Bernie Sanders, there was no real use of facts/proof/evidence. "I ask you, as young people, to stand up and be leaders in this country. I ask you to help us create a nation where every person, no matter their race, their religion, their disability, or their sexual orientation, realizes the full promise of equality that is our birthright as Americans"Does this quote sound like a proper argument made by Pro or a speech from Bernie Sanders? There are countless examples of this:"And then you know what I say [to Mitch McConnell]? I"d say, "Hey, Mitch, take a look out the window. There's a million young people out there who don't want to be in debt for half their life for the crime of going to college. If you want to antagonize those million people and lose your job, Mitch, if you don't want to lose your job, you better start listening to what we have to say." That's the point. That's how change takes place.""The economic and political systems of this country are stacked against ordinary Americans. The rich get richer, and use their wealth to buy elections. Working families get poorer, and give up on the political process. This is not democracy. This is oligarchy. [17] We need a political revolution."Even if these we quotes made by opponent, the use of language such as "And then you know what I say,? I'd say" is not proper conduct when creating an argument. In addtion, in those lines, was there ever a single argument made to support why Bernie Sanders should be president, or were you implying that these are the problems in America and Bernie Sanders can solve them? If so, then you have provided no real evidence, facts, or explanations on how he can change these things and be our next president. My extended argument still stands.Thankfully in Round 3 you have provided a rebuttal without the complete use of quotes from Sanders.1. "Bernie Sander's economic plan is unrealistic and overly optimistic."Con counters this argument, stating "Almost every other major country in the world provides healthcare to all people as a right. There is no reason why the wealthiest country in the history of the world cannot do the same. Not only that, Bernie's plan is the most economically accurate and competent, lowering poverty, creating more jobs, and overall increasing economic growth ."Where are the numbers to support thid claim that Bernie Sanders has the most economically accurate and competent plan? There may be statisics brought up in the blog you cited, or the Physicians for a National Health Program (which has obvious bias by the look of the title), but where is it in your argument?In regards to a single payer healthcare system, there have been many critics. Many supporters of the system tend to glorify countries such as Canada, Britain, and Sweden who utilize it, when it is really plagued with issues. Most significantly in Canada, waiting list times have greatly increased while the lack of medical equipment has decreased.[1] [2]"According to a report by the Frasier Institute, an independent think-tank in British Columbia, Canada, the median waiting time to get treatment from a specialist has doubled in the past 20 years, to 18.2 weeks. Canadian patients wait the longest for orthopedic surgery (42.2 weeks), neurosurgery (31.2 weeks), and plastic surgery (27.1 weeks).""There’s also a severe shortage of essential medical equipment. Canada ranks 14th among 22 OECD countries in MRI machines per million people, with an average wait time to use one at just over eight weeks. Canada ranks a dismal 16th in CT scanners per million people, with an average wait time of over 3.6 weeks."Many of these surgeries may or have been vital to survive, putting patients at risk of death.Also, acording to the Physicians for a National Health Plan, which you have cited, calls for the complete abolition of for-profit hospitals, and places the responsibility for managing “health facilities and expensive equipment purchases” in the hands of regional planning boards.[3] Therefore, funding and allocating of resources would depend on those goverbmental boards, effectively wiping out competition for doctors and control over their resources. This would lead to disastoraus effects, including reduce physicians' control over standards of care and reimbursement, so the government, not the actual physisicans, would determine whats best for patients. Employees at hospitals also have less drive to work and succeed, as stated previously in my argument, since they are payed less and have less chances, if any, to be rewarded for improved care, to work efficiently and longer hours.[4] The scandals that have surronded the VA hospitals are prime examples of this occurence.Con also argues:"Kenneth Thorpe's analysis has been discredited because it wrongly assumes key aspects while at the same time ignoring other aspects of Sanders' plan. To paraphrase, it does not factor in cost savings of the Medicare-For-All healthcare system, assumes huge increases in the utilization of the healthcare system, ignores large savings to State and local governments, ignores the tax subsidies that currently support existing insurance companies, and assumes zero-cost savings under Sanders' plan on prescription drugs and devices.Secondly, the Tax Foundation's Analysis has been discredited for relying on flawed research and many factual inaccuracies including incorrectly stating high corporate tax rates when the opposite is in fact true"First off, according to Politico, the Huffington Post is known for being a "leftist" news organization. But that is besides the point. The cost savings proposed by Bernie Sanders would be almost impossible. "By our napkin calculations, those making more than $200,000 — roughly the top 5 percent of income earners — would contribute about $117 billion to the single-payer system, while everyone else would pay in $126 billion. Payroll taxes yield an additional $432 billion for a total of $675 billion. That’s still $599 billion short of what the country actually spent on health care in 2013 ($949 billion in premiums and $325 billion for out-of-pocket expenses, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services). Sanders says his system would make up for that shortfall by trimming costs, as the government would have more leverage to negotiate with health providers.With Sanders’ proposed taxes, costs would need to be trimmed by roughly 42 to 47 percent — a tall order when "the most generous estimates of how much you could cut cost are on the order of 20 percent," said Sherry Glied, a professor of health policy and economics at New York University who’s served in the George H.W. Bush, Clinton and Obama administrations."[6]Also the article you cite states this: "Thorpe assumes huge increases in the utilization of care, increases far beyond those that were seen when national health insurance was implemented in Canada, and much larger than is possible given the supply of doctors and hospital beds."Which describes the exact problem with the system, lack of resources. See above.2. Bernie Sanders would not be able to enact any of his policies, he has relatively little support." You counter saying that "poll after poll shows that the vast majority of.....etc." Where are the polls that state this? (I cited the other poll [6]) However, this support doesn't matter, even if he does get elected, partailly the vote will go by those who dislike Trump, the Republican frontrunner, over those who are actually Sanders supporters. And if we are going to talk about "political revolutions" where tens of millions of people stand up to fight for change, I can point to the Trump campaign. Tens of millions of people will resist any efforts by Bernie Sanders, justified or not, and the majority of America still reject socialist policies as a whole. Currently Republicans outnumber Democrats in governers and congress, and state legislators.[7] Lets avoid the use of campaign propaganda in the debate, thanks. [1]http://www.medscape.com...[2]http://nypost.com...[3]http://www.newyorker.com...[4]http://www.medscape.com...[5]http://www.politico.com...[6] http://www.politifact.com...[7] https://en.wikipedia.org...