because of healthcare, on balance obama as president was a good thing

Pro initially states that Obamacare (in this case medicaid expansion) will save thousands of lives in Florida alone, but when challenged, dropped that. Instead, Pro's support of Obamacare relies on an increase in diabetes detection. It's not surprising that testing and detection has gone up, but Pro provides no proof that this has improved lives in Oregon, or whether Oregon is applicable to the rest of the country. The following text is from the Oregon study:"Medicaid coverage significantly increased the probability of a diagnosis of diabetes and the use of diabetes medication, but we observed no significant effect on average glycated hemoglobin levels or on the percentage of participants with levels of 6.5% or higher."Obamacare and government intervention in health care in general results in:- vastly higher prices, resulting in health care now at 17% of GDP- the destruction of the market exchange between consumers and health care providers- the crowding out of health care charity- increases in taxation, adding to the growing federal debtFor all of that, I'd hope that we'd end up with at least one example of a documented health improvement.Pro claims this is all common sense, but unfortunately economic topics often defy common sense. After all, if economics was simply common sense, why is there a long history of discovery on this subject? Marx's labor theory of value must have been common sense at the time, but then it was abandoned. Using common sense, minimum wage helps the poor, but it takes economists to show that it hurts the poor by outlawing labor below the minimum wage. Tariffs are nice sounding talking points for politicians but in reality, because of the concept of comparative advantage, we know tariffs hurt us all in the long run. Conservatives complain that immigration hurts us by taking jobs, but economists have shown this to be false.As Pro has admitted, emergency rooms, by law, must provide service regardless of insurance coverage. This law has been in place since 1986 when Obama was just 25 years old, so clearly Obamacare had nothing to do with this. The fact that "it's only the law" that hospitals must care for the uninsured is irrelevant to this debate, since it was not part of Obamacare. Additionally, as I've already stated, health care professionals have historically taken care of the poor, It is only through government taking over this role and crowding that out that this has been reduced.Pro appears to want to win this debate by eluding to some who have been helped by Obamacare. However, that isn't the burden of proof in this debate. Pro must show that, on balance, the lives of us all has been improved. This means the positives must outweigh the negatives. Failing that, now it appears Pro wants to lower the bar for the BOP even more by stating that "all my resolut8ion in this debate was was obamacare set a heightened expectation".In the last round, I brought the argument that voluntary exchanges increase welfare for both parties, and a free market is simply an aggregation of these exchanges. From this we can conclude any interference with voluntary exchanges reduces welfare. Thus our starting point must be that government interference in health care reduces welfare overall. Pro's only rebuttal to this is that some people have no, or little money. But this is not necessarily an issue with the free market. For the sake of argument, imagine we have a free market with little government intervention. Also imagine there are one million people who are very poor. Even imagine they cannot work and are flat broke. This does not stop the power of the free market. Voluntary exchanges still occur and are Pareto superior. Just because some do no participate does not mean this does not hold. Additionally, the picture Pro paints doesn't exist in the Untied States anyway due to all manner of welfare programs other than Obamacare."if the free market is so good, why is there need for charity?"I never claimed the free market could cure all disease, eliminate birth defects, stop drug addiction, etc. There will always be a need for charity. Why would Pro claim it's not the place for charity to provide health care? Would it not be better if a doctor voluntarily provided service to someone down on their luck? Does Pro really think it's better to forcibly tax some, channel that money through an inefficient bureaucracy, knowingly inflate prices and then distribute one-third of whats left over to the needy?"healthcare should be part of the social contract."My only response is why? Given all the negatives and lack of outcomes, there is nothing left to support this."con rails against government involvement, then proposes a government involvement alternative. the EITC gives back mroe than they pay, it is welfare. and, per my resolution, if you were to do away with obamacare, you'd have a heighted expectation that the credit would be enough to afford healthcare, insruance, or whatever. that means it's good we had obamacare to ensure we have a baseline expectation to any alternatives."Again, Pro's burden regards Obamacare and it's improvement of our lives. My argument is that government involvement in health care is bad, not that all welfare is bad. Ultimately, it is true, I prefer charity. But this debate isn't about charity vs EITC, it's about Obamacare. As far as the rest of this statement, I'm not sure what it means. Is Pro conceding that Obamacare was so bad we might need to get rid of it, but that's good because at least we experimented and found this out? If so, this is highly speculative and I don't think it makes sense to say that something was bad was really good because at least we know not to try that again.In summary, Pro has not been able to counter my free exchange/Pareto superior argument and for that reason alone, the resolution is unfulfilled. Obamacare will continue to increase prices, thus making it even harder for the poor to afford it. Obamacare will also continue to deteriorate charitable giving which provides help to the poor that is superior to government bureaucracies.