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

As usual, this argument will begin with me refuting my opponent's opinions.Now. I believe my opponent does not understand some of the various points I am making, due to the nature of some of his "rebuttals". He says all in the course of one sentence that it is true we can pay for universal healthcare, but also says that "we can't afford to pay" for it. My opponent doesn't seem to realize that these are synonymous statements, and he has contradicted himself. If we can pay for universal healthcare, we can by definition afford it. With all due respect, maybe my opponent should review his argument before clarifying what he is trying to say.My opponent's statement that the study by the CEA has hurt my argument is false; even if it has not strengthened my argument, it still has done nothing to disprove it. I do apologize for not looking for the exact wording "universal healthcare" in the article I cited, however the spirit of the statistics remain true (for example, even if the plan proposed by that study was not exactly a universal healthcare plan, it WAS a reform which would help provide coverage to more Americans for a reduced cost, thus slowing the rate of growth of insurance cost, a result that would also be achieved and even amplified by an entirely universal healthcare plan paid for by redistributed taxes. So the increase in GDP and benefit to our economy would theoretically be higher than what was proposed in that plan). I have provided several new sources that all support the statement that Universal Healthcare would benefit our economy (1, 2, 3). Please look them over at your leisure, and do some fact checking before you incorrectly attack the fact that a Universal Healthcare plan would benefit our economy. Furthermore, on the subject of sources, my opponent's only cited sources in his last argument are broken links to a Google search, not actual sources. He also provided Wikipedia as a source for his previous argument (a notoriously unreliable source due to the fact that anyone could edit its information, even my opponent). I neglected bringing this up before for the sake of keeping this debate on topic, and avoiding petty arguments about details, but since my opponent decided to take this debate that direction, I thought I should point it out. Perhaps my opponent should check his own sources more carefully before attacking mine. I would like my opponent to expand on his statement that implementing an effective Universal Healthcare system would be close to impossible in America; so far he has made this accusation many times but never backed it up. Now I will address my opponent's accusations about taxes and the Billionaire class. My opponent bases this entire argument on the assumption that my plan would involve "an extremely strict tax policy" on the wealthy; I challenge my opponent to find a quote in any of my arguments where I propose this plan. Never did I say that the wealthy should be taxed an extreme amount more than they already are. MAYBE they should be taxed a slight bit more, but nothing that would come close to causing this so-called "war" between the upper class and the government in America. About conflict of interests, it would be a simple matter to draft preventative measures into a bill for Universal Healthcare. In the examples my opponent provided in the second round, the bill could include a statement that the government cannot leave an insurance company from being paid, or run the healthcare system for profit. Both of these situations seem like common sense and should be easy to avoid. However, as I said before, this debate is not actually about how Universal Healthcare COULD be implemented, it is about whether or not it SHOULD be. It's in the title. My opponent doesn't seem to understand this, despite being the one who instigated this debate. If we could stay more on topic, this debate might be more productive. When addressing health as more than healthcare, my opponent cites the same CEA study I cited before, just after claiming it was not relevant to this debate. If you are going to ignore my argument that Universal Healthcare would benefit the economy, then you cannot expect me to take your argument seriously after citing the same source. Now, I already said I agreed with my opponent that the government should do more to make our food and environment healthy, and yes, I believe educating the people of America about healthier lifestyles is also beneficial. However, neither of these issues address the topic of Universal Healthcare. Yes, health IS more than just healthcare. But Universal Healthcare is just a subset of that issue. Universal Healthcare IS healthcare, and nothing more: a plan to provide insurance for free or a low price to all Americans. It is not a plan to force Americans to exercise more. This debate is about Universal Healthcare specifically, NOT the whole subject of health. Again, it's in the title. Any plans for cleaning food sources or the environment, and educating the people, would be separate plans that could be used in conjunction with a Universal Healthcare plan, and that is what the CEA study was referring to. They would not actually be part of the plan. So yes, they are irrelevant to this debate. My opponent's next statement, that "whether or not you should do something doesn't just depend on the morality of it and the outcome but also whether or not you can actually do it" is, again, false. In round 2, my opponent used a rather poor example and said "do you think that we should press a button and make all issues be solved? We shouldn't do this." This statement is based around a misused word; my opponent says "shouldn't" when he really means "couldn't". SHOULD we press that button to solve all issues? Absolutely we should! Who wouldn't want to do that? The problem is, we CAN'T. My opponent should review his phrasing on statements like this. He also says, "if you can’t do something then you shouldn't do it." Again, he is confusing himself by misusing "shouldn't". If a loved one is dying but you don't know how to save them, should you still try? Yes! However, using his logic, my opponent would say that you shouldn't. The same applies to this debate. My opponent demands that I propose a fool-proof plan for implementing Universal Healthcare in order for him to admit that it SHOULD be implemented. But I am not a politician. Once again, I'm not here to debate how Universal Healthcare COULD be implemented, but if it SHOULD be. I will say again, it's in the title. If my opponent could stick to the topic of this debate instead of repeatedly straying into the land of legislation, then that would be fantastic and we could reach a more concise conclusion. About healthcare being a right: I am not saying that an actual constitutional amendment should be put in place, but I believe it should be something that everyone has access to, because of how essential it often is. My opponent simply misinterpreted what I said. I look forward to the next round, and I hope we can both continue to enjoy ourselves throughout this debate and reach a civil agreement by the end! (1) http://www.bloomberg.com...(2) http://www.demos.org...(3) https://www.quora.com...