Question: Should everyone get a universal basic income?

Title: Universal Basic Income Content: I accept

Title: Universal Basic Income Content: This debate is for 1harder's Spring Regular Tournament. All the settings of this debate are in accordance with the tournament's rules. Resolution: The U. S. should replace existing welfare programs with a universal basic income (UBI). I propose that every adult receive an annual, basic income of $10,000. This income would be unconditional, earned whether one is employed or not. Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare would be exempt as they aren't really considered welfare.

Title: Universal Basic Income Content: IntroductionAn unconditional, individual, and universal basic income would indisputably boost the economy and allow many low-income Americans to climb the ladder of social mobility. It would not only lift people above the poverty line and reduce income inequality, but create jobs, lower school dropout rates, improve health, and raise overall economic output. A UBI would enable, rather than trap, those with unfortunate financial situations as it would provide *everyone* money to work with; all would have the fiscal leverage to progress forward when they otherwise wouldn’t.Our current welfare programs, in contrast, do the opposite of what they’re intended for. They encourage passive behavior and inhibit productivity. The means-tested programs withdraw benefits as soon as a certain income is reached, and are burdened with high marginal tax rates so long as their income is below a certain level. Others require people to exhaust nearly all their assets until they become eligible for aid. With so many strings attached, and the overall counter-productive nature, welfare programs simply are inferior to a UBI, and have too many downfalls.Economic/Societal ImpactsThere are several instances of cash transfers, or UBI trials, working. The following examples turn up multiple benefits:Namibia tried out a UBI program, the Basic Income Grant, in 2007-2012. After just one year into the program, household poverty rates dropped from 76% to 37%. Other effects were noted too: income-generating activities rose from 44% to 55% over the time period. Parents were enabled to purchase school uniforms, afford school fees, and encourage attendance because of this problem, and as a result, school dropout rates dropped from 40% to nearly 0% in a year [2].India tried a cash transfer project from 2013-2014 too. The result was that sanitation improved, medicine could be afforded, clean water became more accessible, and participants could eat more regularly [3].Uganda’s UBI trial enabled participants to invest in skill training. The findings were that “relative to the control group, the program increases business assets by 57%, work hours by 17%, and earnings by 38%” [4]. Kenya has an ongoing trial, and it has so far reportedly let to increased happiness and life satisfaction, and reduced depression and stress [5].If we are to quantify the effect this would have in the US, we should look at the current poverty levels. Currently, the poverty level is a $12,140 income for individuals [1]. With my proposed UBI of $10,000, this would pull everyone with an income of a few thousand or more above the line. That’s potentially *millions* of people. The Failure of Welfare ProgramsThe current welfare programs do *not* provide overall work incentives. Most are means-tested, meaning that if you demonstrate that your income and capital are below specified limits, you’re eligible. This can lead to what some call the “cliff effect”: once someone passes an income threshold, that aid is withdrawn, and climbing further up the income ladder becomes more difficult. This issue is maximized when we understand how disadvantaged the poor are tax-wise under welfare. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office, “[found] that the marginal tax rate climbs to 40 percent when a worker earns slightly more than about $12,000, and then to nearly 50 percent in the mid-$20,000 range.” [6] These programs impose high marginal tax rates, essentially trapping these recipients into a large income hole that they can’t climb out of. To put this into better perspective, here’s a graph [7] that shows tax-less income in respect to income earned: These welfare programs are creating a clear poverty trap. Under a universal basic income, this wouldn’t happen. A UBI would extend to *every* person, regardless of what their incomes are, enabling them to have more social mobility than they would under the incredibly flawed welfare programs that are burdening so many lower-income people.But that’s not all. Many welfare programs also have asset limits, meaning that one must have almost no assets to be eligible for benefits. Programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) have asset limit ranges from $1,000 in states like Georgia and Texas to $10,000 in Delaware [8]. This is problematic because it discourages the importance of saving and self-reliance; only those who exhaust just about all of their assets become eligible for aid. Savings are very important because they provide cushion against anything that goes wrong. Just having under $2,000, for instance, is enough to protect against eviction, missed meals, or the loss of utilities during a financial setback. To force such recipients to go to the point of being broke to receive benefits in no way incentivizes them to increase their income.To sum, a UBI would (1) significantly reduce poverty and boost economic output, and (2) incentivize people to work in ways our current welfare programs cannot. Thus, I affirm.=Sources=[1] https://www.healthcare.gov...[2] http://www.bignam.org...[3] http://sewabharat.org...[4] https://www.povertyactionlab.org...[5] https://www.princeton.edu...[6] https://www.urban.org...[7] https://www.economist.com...[8] https://www.americanprogress.org...

Title: Resolved: The United States ought to provide a universal basic income. Content: u know the rules. AC, NR, AR,2NR, 2Ar. no new args in 2ar

Title: Universal Basic Income Content: His plan increases the “income effect” compared to a UBI The entire premise of my opponent’s argument is that everyone will get at least $15,000 and full employment. The differences between a UBI and a means tested program are not significant under the current system, as far as income effects go, for poor people, and both programs retain work efforts at the lowest income levels. My opponent’s plan, however, provides an extra $5,000 in income at this level for those in the private sector. The difference between no assistance and assistance under Con’s plan is more than it would be under a UBI, meaning his plan would reduce work incentives compared to a UBI. EITC reduces work incentives for many groups Con claims the EITC has mechanisms which reduce the negative effects of the phase-ou. Economic research has demonstrated that the EITC significantly discourages work for many demographics, especially women. Women in the phase-out portion of the EITC become 5% less likely to work, and for women who are already working, women work 20% fewer hours per year.[1] Another study came to the same conclusion, and discovered evidence of a negative impact on many females. “[T]he EITC explains 71 percent of the decline in low-educated married mothers’ desire to work between 1988-1993 and 1994-2010…While the “welfare to work” reform was designed to do bring welfare recipients into the labor force, the reform could have had the opposite effect on the “weaker” nonparticipants by shifting them from a program with some connection to the labor force (welfare) to a program with no connection to the labor force (disability insurance).”[2] Wage subsidies, like the EITC, introduce multiple distortions in the labor market. These distortions are favorable to low-wage industries, making domestic production costs lower. This means imports are negatively affected, which distorts trade, and hurts the economy.[3] By making the EITC more generous, we would be increasing the work disincentives for women. A more generous EITC would also increase distortions in the labor market. The issue with public works and education Con’s plan is trying to create a quasi-universal basic income system, but instead through providing employment and job training. This solution is problematic. The way Con sets up his plan would negatively affect the private sector. There are two scenarios for poor people: either they get nothing, work for the government/educate and get a $10,000 UBI, or work for the private sector and at least earn $15,000. This plan creates a whole new level of bureaucracy and would drastically increase spending--Con’s claim that this would somehow reduce spending is insane. The plan causes thousands if not millions of new people to work for the public sector. The issue with this is that there would be a “crowd out” effect. Many tasks the government completes could be provided for by the private sector if the government wasn’t providing them. While government expands, the private sector retreats.[12] We must weigh the two effects. The crowd out effect would affect all industries, because my opponent’s plan has to be able to, at full capacity, be able to employ the entire country. Every industry will experience some type of crowd out. The cost of his job guarantee for low-income people in order for them to obtain welfare is extremely large. This is essentially his plan: People are poor. People need assistance. They must work in order to get assistance. The government should offer work to those who are currently idle. Thus, he basically is ensuring work for anyone who wants it. It is implied that the government should be able to, at maximum capacity, provide work for 300 million people. But this means the government would have to get involved in all industries: fast food, technology, yard work, etc. The reason is because we only have so many construction projects, and many construction projects are already done efficiently by the private sector. When public roads are fixed, all public buildings repaired, and all museums erected, what then? What if the demand for these new products (like museums) wane over time? Or a recession strains the system and it cannot handle the influx of workers? The simple fact is these public works programs would not be doing traditional public construction jobs after a period of time, and the government would be forced to distort the market by entering formerly private industries in order to ensure employment. The cost of such a program would be enormous. Under a UBI, you simply hand over the check. Under a job guarantee/workfare regime, you have to pay managers, supervisors, and other bureaucrats in order to supervise work projects. You would have to pay for the education programs, the teachers, and administrators. You would require a large number of other employees to make sure everyone receiving benefits needs it; the increase in administrative complexity and costs would be enormous. Under a UBI, administrative costs would be virtually zero. Nothing about the UBI restricts or inhibits public work programs. As I already explained, the UBI increases work incentives, on balance, even for those who are at the bottom of the income ladder. This means implementing a UBI would expand the size of the labor market and it would be easier to staff public work programs. A study in Germany predicts a UBI would increase the labor supply and increase work incentives.[4] The U.S. is considered the most innovative economy because of its “cut throat” capitalism and private sector innovation.[9] By making the government the largest employer and heavily distorting private markets, the U.S. economy would be destined to become less innovative and productive. It would be much more efficient to allow the private sector to deal with education and employment. Marco Rubio has an education plan that promotes and encourages vocational training using private sector mechanisms.[5] The research on vocational training is ambiguous, with the GAO saying any “positive impacts [from vocational training tend] to be small, inconclusive, or restricted to short-term impacts.”[17] A 2008 study found no difference in employment, wage, and economic outcomes for those who have gone through work training programs compared to those who had not.[18] Did workfare work in the past? Con claims the welfare reform act of 1996 dramatically reduced welfare rolls and increased work incentives. This argument is flawed because welfare rolls were falling before the implementation of workfare. One study found only “15 percent of the decline [in welfare rolls] is due to welfare reform, the rest to the significant expansion of low-wage work during the 1990s.”[6] In other words, economic growth reduced welfare rolls. Another study published in the American Economic Review argues 50% of the decline in welfare roles was due to a reduction in number of people receiving welfare.[7] This has important implications for those who interpret welfare reform as a success. A reduction in the number of families receiving welfare may have negative impacts on those at the bottom of the income ladder. Indeed, of those who have been kicked off of or became ineligible for welfare, “most are in poverty.”[6] Economists who have reviewed the literature also note how only about one third, at best, of the reduction in caseloads is due to welfare reform.[8] The benefits of my opponent’s counterplan are overstated Keeping people out of poverty is a benefit of both of these plans, according to Con. But as I noted, the significant distortions in the labor market caused by his plan may make the situation worse, and require that the U.S. becomes the largest employer in the country. In the long term, this would reduce not only U.S. but also global economic growth and innovation. His plan would not reduce wasteful spending. A UBI would eliminate administrative costs. His plan increases costs, because not only are you giving money to people, you are also doling out paychecks to thousands of extra unnecessary employees that oversee the public works. A UBI program is affordable.[10][11] My opponent’s plan would undoubtedly increase costs. The production of skilled workers is much better suited for the private sector, mainly due to the massive public costs of ensuring education for every poor person if they wish to pursue it (and by artificially increasing the amount of skilled workers, the value of education would fall and reduce wages for those who are already educated). Crime rediction is nonunique. Poor people, who are more likely to commit crime, often do so in order to make a living. One way to fix this, as my opponent notes, is to give them a job. But a UBI would have the same effect: by reducing financial hardship, a motive for crime would be substantially weakened; a UBI would also increase social cohesion. In Nambia after a UBI was implemented, crime fell by 42% due to an increase in cohesion.[13] In India, UBIs increased economic activity and school attendance.[14] Obtaining unearned income makes people more sociable. When people earn small lottery winnings, the ones close to UBI level, it has been found “that unearned income improves traits that predict pro-social and cooperative behaviours… as well as reduce individuals' tendency to experience negative emotional states.”[15] A UBI would have the same effect, meaning a UBI would positively impact our society. When the government does more, the private sector does less, and oftentimes the crowd out effect is larger than the benefits of increased public works. An research suggests increased infrastructure spending is a poor economic stimulus and the crowd out effect more than cancels out the benefits of increased infrastructure spending.[16] Creating other public goods, if there is no demand for them, is a net-negative because the taxpayer has to pay for these institutions. http://bit.ly...

Title: Universal Basic Income is a good thing Content: Let's debate the merit, feasibility, And necessity of a Universal Basic Income. Heads up - this first post is quite long. My future arguments will be more succinct. It's a big topic so I'm looking for an opponent who's willing to put some time into this debate. ---A Universal Basic Income: is a periodic, Unconditional, Automatic, Guaranteed payment given to all citizens; regardless of their income. Universal basic income is one of the most ambitious social policies of our time. Over 15 countries are currently running UBI feasibility trials [1]. Why is it that so many scientists, Politicians, And economists are spending their time researching this wacky-sounding idea? The key benefits of a Universal Basic Income are as follows: A UBI would completely eliminate poverty A UBI might pay for itself by creating a massive economic boost A UBI encourages people to work, Unlike welfare A UBI reduces bureaucracy A UBI makes the population smarter and healthier A UBI reduces crime rates --- It's not all altruism though. A UBI also addresses a dangerous threat to our world: The job insecurity created by automation. Job creation can't keep up with automation. While it's true that innovation creates new jobs, These don't compare with the number of jobs being eliminated by the same technological advancements. Automation has been blamed as the key reason why factory workers and miners are losing jobs. Job growth is tied down by corporate structures and politics. Technology doesn't care. As technology advances it makes things more efficient. This efficiency means employers can produce more stuff with less workforce. In a world where artificial intelligence can diagnose better than doctors, Compose classical music, Beat professional players at starcraft, Poker and go, People are worried that the pace of job growth will not be able to keep up with the advancement of technology. Take the self-driving car for example; Transportation is one of the largest industries in the world. Imagine the jobs lost and economic catastrophe if this industry became fully automated. This might not be long off; self-driving cars have already shown to be at least as good, If not better drivers than humans. ---A UBI would completely eliminate povertyBy providing all citizens with a basic living income we could end homelessness, Hunger and poverty overnight. A UBI could pay for itself by creating a massive economic boost In a recent study, A UBI of $1000/month in the USA was estimated to grow the GDP by over 12. 5% in 8 years [2]. Allowing poor people to spend more will increase overall economic demand. More people buying things means more tax revenue is generated and a stronger economy. This would offset the long-term cost of the program. A UBI encourages people to workThe modern welfare disincentives people from getting jobs, Unemployment insurance and welfare cheques disappear when you get a job. UBI doesn't discourage jobs, Because people get to keep the money either way. Studies show that while some people initially quit their jobs, They often use the freedom UBI provides to find jobs that they are better suited for (increasing productivity), Going back to school, Or taking care of their family. A UBI reduces bureaucracy and paperworkModern welfare systems are immensely complex. The UBI is simple. It doesn't require income verification, Tax departments, Eligibility checks, Identity checks, Or any other bureaucratic labor. A UBI makes the population healthierBy providing everyone with the means for basic shelter and nutrition, We can reduce (the currently overwhelming) strain on most health care systems. With increased economic security, People are less prone to stresses, Disease, And self-destructive behavior. A UBI experiment in Canada saw hospitalization rates go down 8. 5%[3]A UBI makes the population smarterStudies have shown that the stress of poverty makes people much worse decision makers. The effect is not subtle, This study showed it was equal in a 13 point drop in IQ[4]. By eliminating the distress of millions we can create a smarter more rational society. A UBI reduces crime ratesThe root cause of crime is desperation. Desperate people take desperate measures and are more likely to break laws. By lifting society out of poverty we would greatly reduce desperation thus removing one of crimes biggest motivators. This has the potential to greatly reduce crime rates everywhere. ---A universal basic income is not only good for society and the economy; it may also be the only realistic solution to the near-term threat of automation.

Title: Universal Basic Income Content: A Universal Basic Income: is a periodic, Unconditional, Automatic, Guaranteed payment given to all citizens; regardless of their income. Universal basic income is one of the most ambitious social policies of our time. Over 15 countries are currently running UBI feasibility trials [1]. Why is it that so many scientists, Politicians, And economists are spending their time researching this wacky sounding idea? The key benefits of a Universal Basic Income are as follows: A UBI would completely eliminate poverty A UBI might pay for itself by creating a massive economic boost A UBI encourages people to work A UBI reduces bureaucracy A UBI makes the population smarter and healthier A UBI reduces crime rates --- It's not all altruism though. A UBI also addresses a dangerous threat to our world: The job insecurity created by automation. Job creation can't keep up with automation. While it's true that innovation creates new jobs, These don't compare with the number of jobs being eliminated by the same technological advancements. Automation has been blamed as the key reason why factory workers and miners are losing jobs. Job growth is tied down by corporate structures and politics. Technology doesn't care. As technology advances it makes things more efficient. This efficiency means employers can produce more stuff with less workforce. In a world where artificial intelligence can diagnose better than doctors, Compose classical music, Beat professional players at starcraft, Poker and go, People are worried that the pace of job growth will not be able to keep up with the advancement of technology. Take the self-driving car for example; Transportation is one of the largest industries in the world. Imagine the jobs lost and economic catastrophe if this industry became fully automated. This might not be long off - self driving cars have already shown to be at least as good, If not better drivers than humans. --- A UBI would completely eliminate poverty By providing all citizens with a basic living income we could end homelessness, Hunger and poverty overnight. A UBI could pay for itself by creating a massive economic boost In a recent study, A UBI of $1000/month in the USA was estimated to grow the GDP by over 12. 5% in 8 years [2]. Allowing poor people to spend more will increase overall economic demand. More people buying things means more tax revenue is generated and a stronger economy. This would offset the long-term cost of the program. A UBI encourages people to work The modern welfare disincentives people from getting jobs, Unemployment insurance and welfare cheques disappear when you get a job. UBI doesn't discourage jobs, Because people get to keep the money either way. Studies show that while some people initially quit their jobs, They often use the freedom UBI provides to find jobs that they are better suited for (increasing productivity), Going back to school, Or taking care of their family. A UBI reduces bureaucracy and paperwork Modern welfare systems are immensely complex. The UBI is simple. It doesn't require income verification, Tax departments, Eligibility checks, Identity checks, Or any other bureaucratic labor. A UBI makes the population healthier By providing everyone with the means for basic shelter and nutrition, We can reduce (the currently overwhelming) strain on most health care systems. With increased economic security, People are less prone to stresses, Disease, And self-destructive behavior. A UBI experiment in Canada saw hospitalization rates go down 8. 5%[3] A UBI makes the population smarter Studies has shown that the stress of poverty makes people much worse decision makers. The effect is not subtle, This study showed it was equal in a 13 point drop in IQ[4]. By eliminating the distress of millions we can create a smarter more rational society. A UBI reduces crime rates What is the root cause of crime? It is not ethnicity, Or culture, Or status. Crime is born out of desperation. Desperate people take desperate measures, And are much more likely to commit a crime. By lifting society out of poverty we would greatly reduce desperation, Removing one of the worlds biggest incentives for committing crime. This has the potential to greatly reduce crime rates everywhere. A universal basic income is not only good for society and the economy, It may be the only realistic solution to the near-term threat of automation.

Title: Universal Basic Income is a good thing Content: I would like to start by saying that I agree with the motivations of this idea, They are noble ones. Technological unemployment => Less jobs => Less pay => Freezing cold economy => Scarcity + Inequality => Crime. But. . . At this very moment a UBI would prove to be more than prejudicial to our economy and society. To not distinguish between the working and the criminal in a world where work is the main source of value IS DANGEROUS. I understand that a salary is still due to the ones who choose to work under a UBI but it would cease to be a good enough motivation since you are allowed to be lazy and still live fairly well. More, If the UBI exists does the welfare end? If yes, Are people who are just lazy living well to the detriment of those with disabilities that require more funds to control or cure? We are not at the point where we should be handing over our hard-earned money to the state to feed possibly unmotivated and disconnected people who might not be contributing to our development as a society or to our eventual future of abundance yet, This is precisely why welfare exists. Markets are marvelous engines for figuring out how to do things and transfer value really well and they will continue to be until the ones on the rich side reach "climax" abundance and turn tyrannical against the non-producing counterpart. A UBI would be a good idea only when and if a TRUE job crisis arises, Where something like 50% or so of the population is in fact unemployed due to the advancement in technology and welfare is not enough to provide a good and dignified standard of living to this half. It is in fact a good idea for when the paradigm shifts, The fact is the paradigm has not shifted and doesn't seem to be in crisis yet. As we stand, We still need much more technological advancement and abundance inequality for this to be a remotely plausible idea making it a "bad thing" for the moment.

Title: Universal Basic Income Content: IntroMurdoc kindly responded to my public plea for a debate, and I am grateful to him for making this round possible. This topic is also of great personal interest to me, and so I am happy that this was one of the two Murdoc identified as ones he was willing to debate. In order to ensure quality judging, I have set a voting ELO threshold at 3,000. Comments are required and the select winner system is in force. The voting period lasts 14 days. TopicThe United States ought to provide a universal basic incomeDefinitions- Universal Basic Income: an unconditional cash payment which the government pays monthly and universally to all adults throughout their lives. The monthly payments must be sufficient to meet the socio-cultural subsistence minimum of the community in which the recipient resides [source: adapted from a definition by Prof. Matt Zwolinski]- Ought: moral desirabilityRules1. No forfeits2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final speeches4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)7. For all resolutional terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate8. The BOP is evenly shared9. Pro must post his case in R1 and waive in R510. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate their appropriateness)11. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the R1 set-up, merits a lossStructureR1. Pro's CaseR2. Con's Case; Pro generic RebuttalR3. Con generic Rebuttal; Pro generic RebuttalR4. Con generic Rebuttal; Pro generic Rebuttal and SummaryR5. Con generic Rebuttal and Summary; Pro WaivesThanks......to Murdoc for the debate. Looking forward to a discussion on a wonderful and fascinating topic!

Title: That UBI should be implemented in the western world Content: Hello ISDA, Before I proceed to point out the multitude of flaws regarding a USI system, I would like to point out that your opening argument is very broad and illogical. You define a Universal Basic Income system as '...the government [giving] EVERY citizen a base income of around $10 000.' Do you understand that for a country like America with a population count of over 323 million, the annual tax revenue, even if solely dedicated to provisioning a UBI system, would not be sufficient to provide every one of its citizens with that amount? Additionally, $10 000 a year is a completely insufficient amount for disadvantaged members of society. Even for the most basic living conditions (cheapest rent, cheapest food, etc.), it requires at least $30 000 annually to provide enough money for a non-working person to provide humane living conditions for themselves (providing they are mentally and physically healthy).

Title: Resolved: The United States ought to provide a universal basic income. Content: NC: https://docs.google.com... Attack: looking over my opponent's case, all she talks about is minimum wage, this is non-topical because UBI has nothing to do with minimum wage. A topical aff would be plan providing aid. Theory Shell on Topicality A: MY opponent must be topical B: Violation C: Standards 1. Ground: In order for my to be able to argue the resolution, My opponent must be topical so that the debate is fair. 2: Predictability: I cannot run DAs or CPs if I do not know Aff's ground. This makes it unfair D: voters Vote off of fairness because Aff makes it impossible for me to win because I do not have any ground. Thus, I negate

Title: Resolved: The US ought to provide a UBI Content: I negate resolved: The United States ought to provide a universal basic income. CP Counterplan: The US will provide a basic income, excluding felons, violent criminals, FBI watchlist members and legal immigrants who have lived in the US for less than 10 years. Through the CP, the neg solves for all the aff impacts of economic equality, gender equality, drug abuse, health care, and education. However the CP isn't advocating for universal basic income, as according to my opponent and common definitions of the term, UBI is both universal and unconditional. UBI shouldn't have any restrictions or bounds on who receives a basic income; otherwise it wouldn't be universal and cease to be a UBI. Framework I agree with my opponent's standard of the Kantian Social Contract, however, this is better upheld under the negation as I'm aren't supporting mass immigration nor crime. Instead of the principle of generic consistency, rather we should determine ethical actions through the basis of consequentialism. Overall, I solve all the aff impacts, and I better support his framework. Observations I fulfill my opponent's observations as he says I must prove a basic income wouldn't help the common american, while the resolution is based on universal basic income. Instead he must prove how UBI would better support the average american compared to merely a basic income. Contention 1: Crime and Terror Under the CP, basic income isn't supplied towards violent criminals and felons. Imagine a world where criminals such as those in the Crips, Bloods, MS-13, Latin Kings, Mexican Mafia, Sinaloa Drug Cartel, Barrio Azteca, or the Surenos, had, just for the sake of argument, $10,000 for every member annually. Just for a smaller group like Tango Blast, which boasts 19,000 members, the US money would indirectly give the organization through its members $190,000,000 dollars annually, for whatever means they so wish. The impact is an increase in overall crime, especially in the case of transnational organized crime groups. What could occur if say a known terrorist organization It could very well be said that if criminals have funds given to them? In the case of domestic shootings, terrorists could buy larger and larger weaponry, with the potential of gaining military hardware through the black market. Imagine the outcome of say, the Orlando Massacre if Mateen had say an M-16, grenades, or such. Contention 2: Welfare Magnets As aforementioned, UBI has to provided towards everyone regardlessly. If such a welfare state was created, where just by existing people can get a basic income, it would decisively be regarded as utopian in nature. Anyone and everyone would wish to go there. Mass immigration would soon occur, as everyone attempts to join the welfare state. Much like how many immigrants in the status quo receive food stamps through their naturalized children, a similar phenomenon would occur with UBI. I negate resolved.

Title: The US ought to provide an universal basic income. Content: For clarity I will be presenting my arguments on why we should not implement a UBI and then moving on to addressing my opponents point. With that out of the way I will move onto my arguments Contention 1: A universal basic income will not work. The New York Times(1) says that $1,000 a month to every American would cost around 3 trillion dollars a year. And $1,000 is a month is below the poverty line. 3 trillion dollars a year is almost the entire US budget and more than twice our discretionary funding. So we can see that A UBI is not feasible at all. Contention 2: A UBI would bring about a dystopian future. Imagine if you will a world where jobs are few and far between, those with jobs are locked in a competitive industry with few workers rights. The government is a tyrranical mess where the rights of the people are nothing.What I am saying is not some impossible nightmare, and as I will show you it is very possible. Subpoint A - Loss of jobs. Fox Business(2) says that because of increased automation, 22.7 million jobs will disappear by 2025. And CNBC(3) says that only with proper adaptability and commitment will the workforce ascend to the next level of work. Now what that means is that only with proper commitment by workers can we at least help to avoid rampant unemployment. And this is where UBIs comes in. According to the Foundation for Economic Education(4) giving handouts to every American would de-incentivize them to try and find a job. So as we can see a UBI will aid in a drastic rise in unemployment. In addition it will take away money and focus from useful systems such as a jobs guarantee which would solve the imminent unemployment at a much lower cost. According to The Atlantic(5) it would only cost 158 billion dollars a year, less than a 15th of the cost of a UBI program. So as we can see a UBI will exacerbate job loss and harm us greatly. Subpoint B - Loss of rights. According to Sapira(6) political rights are directly correlated with economic participation. She says "And this is the real danger of a universal basic income it makes the citizens unnecessary to the government" She also says that in societies where the state economy comes from sources that require only a small, fixed number of people to defend or maintain them, tend to develop autocratic regimes with little concern for the welfare of their citizens. To summarize, a universal basic income is a frivolous, expensive system that will cause a loss of our jobs and our political rights. Now I will respond to my opponents arguments. Entrepreneurship: In this argument my opponent presents that entrepreneurship will increase because people will have financial security. Now I have three responses to this. First, there seems to be a lot of different evidence tied together here. My opponent talks about the effects of entrepreneurship in India and Namibia, and talks about the danger of low economic security. But I would like to see the evidence that states that a UBI will fix this, and why. Secondly, There are more effective ways to do this. For instance a negative income tax, which I will talk more about later as my opponent mentions it, could remove financial insecurity. Which would in turn raise entrepreneurial spirit. Finally, this won't matter because we cannot pay for a UBI. Education/ College(I am combining my opponents second and third points because they deal with the same thing.): For these arguments my opponent presents that a UBI will decrease highschool dropouts and increase college and thus innovation. My responses to my opponents previous arguments apply here as well. I would like to see evidence specifically stating this and a negative income tax could do these things as well. And of course we just can't pay for it. Lower Work Hours: My opponent begins this argument by talking about benefits of lower work hours and then continues on to say that A UBI will lower work hours. But the crux here is that their evidence is about negative income tax not universal basic income. A negative income tax is very different from a universal basic income. Samuel Hammond and the Niskanen Center(7) published an article titled "Universal Basic Income is just Negative Income tax with a Leaky Bucket." And in this article they explain what negative income tax is "The NIT, popularized by Milton Friedman, is an extension of the progressive tax system into negative territory. Just as someone making lots of money pays a higher tax rate, those below the poverty line would pay an increasingly negative tax rate"which is to say, the IRS would pay them." Now this is obviously not universal, and is not an income. So really my opponent has no evidence that supports their claim that a UBI will reduce global warming. Economic Inequality: So here my opponent talks about how a UBI will reduce income inequality. But their evidence talks about raising people out of poverty. Now this is different because the rich will also get payed more, meaning the gap will stay the same. Systems that would go towards reducing income inequality do exists though. Systems like a jobs guarantee or negative income tax would do this, however these are not we are debating the merits of. So it's clear, A UBI will, cost too much, take away our jobs, take away our freedom, and it's benefits can be better accomplished with other systems. This means that it is flawed and unnecessary. For these reasons I strongly urge a con vote. Sources: 1 - NY Times - Porter, Eduardo. "A Universal Basic Income Is a Poor Tool to Fight Poverty." The New York Times, The New York Times, 31 May 2016, www.nytimes.com/2016/06/01/business/economy/universal-basic-income-poverty.html? module=ArrowsNav&contentCollection=Economy&action=keypress"ion=FixedLeft&pgtype=article. 2 - Fox Business - Lee, Laura. "Automation Is Killing These Jobs." Fox Business, Fox Business, 30 Mar. 2016, www.foxbusiness.com/features/automation-is-killing-these-jobs. 3 - CNBC - Jr., Stephen Spinelli, and Jiffy Lube co-founder. "1 Million US Jobs Will Vanish by 2026. Here's How to Prepare Workers for an Automated Future." CNBC, CNBC, 2 Feb. 2018, www.cnbc.com/2018/02/02/automation-will-kill-1-million-jobs-by-2026-what-we-need-to-do-commentary.html. 4 - Foundation for Economic Education(FEE) - Hunter, Britteny. "The Top Three Arguments against a Universal Basic Income." FEE, Foundation for Economic Education, 8 Sept. 2017, fee.org/articles/the-top-three-arguments-against-a-universal-basic-income/. 5 - The Atlantic - Lowrey, Annie. "Should the Government Guarantee Everyone a Job?" The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 18 May 2017, www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/05/should-the-government-guarantee-everyone-a-job/527208/. 6 - Sapira - Sapira, Shai. "Universal Basic Income and the Threat of Tyranny." Quillette, Quillette, 15 Oct. 2017, quillette.com/2017/10/09/universal-basic-income-threat-tyranny/. 7 - Niskanen Center - Hammond, Samuel. ""Universal Basic Income" Is Just a Negative Income Tax with a Leaky Bucket." Niskanen Center, Niskanen Center, 13 July 2016, niskanencenter.org/blog/universal-basic-income-is-just-a-negative-income-tax-with-a-leaky-bucket/.

Title: Universal Basic Income Content: Let's debate the merit, feasibility, And necessity of a Universal Basic Income. I believe that the advancement of technology will decrease the workforce demand, Which will increase unemployment, Necessitating the need for a UBI in the near future.

Title: Resolved: The United States ought to provide a universal basic income. Content: Good luck! !! The basis of my opponents proposal stems from the idea that what makes him/her happy is what should make us all happy, as if to say happiness is a "one size fits all" kinda thing. An idea that mediocrity should be good enough for everyone. I challenge my opponent to explain why someone whose idea of happiness is financial success or even endless wealth, is somehow immoral. What pedestal does my opponent get to stand on to claim that wealth is not a valid form of happiness, or ones pursuit of wealth somehow adversely affects everyone else? As long as those endeavors are done by legal means, then those pursuits do not affect others! It seems to me the United States has been trying to provide a universal basic income since the great depression, mostly by means of a minimum wage. Not to suggest that the minimum wage is the only factor that causes prices to rise, but it is the most effective factor to cause prices to rise. When the minimum wage goes up, then the cost of production goes up which then is past on to the consumer. I challenge my opponent to explain how causing prices to go up is an effective tool for helping those with lesser incomes. Furthermore, minimum wages can cause employers to have to forego hiring new employees. When the cost of production goes up, it causes business owners to go elsewhere for production. In the end, raising minimum wages only proves to make American workers less competitive on a global scale which causes jobs to disappear. I fail to see how stifling job growth is good for anybody. Many point to the industrial revolution as if it was a sad period for the American worker and point out the disproportionate nature of wealth distribution, yet they conveniently forget that it was an unprecedented achievement that took place. At no other point in written history has so many people been brought out of poverty so quickly. There were no minimum wages, so prices were low and so was the cost of living. Right now, China is on an industrious endeavor that could prove to dwarf the achievements of the industrial revolution. When production is left alone, it can prove to be very effective in bringing wealth to the masses. I noticed this is my opponents first debate on this site. I welcome you to the DDO community and good luck! !

Title: Universal Basic Income Content: IntroMurdoc kindly responded to my public plea for a debate, and I am grateful to him for making this round possible. This topic is also of great personal interest to me, and so I am happy that this was one of the two Murdoc identified as ones he was willing to debate. In order to ensure quality judging, I have set a voting ELO threshold at 3,000. Comments are required and the select winner system is in force. The voting period lasts 14 days. This is a re-do of the original debate: http://www.debate.org...TopicThe United States ought to provide a universal basic incomeDefinitions- Universal Basic Income: an unconditional cash payment which the government pays monthly and universally to all adults throughout their lives. The monthly payments must be sufficient to meet the socio-cultural subsistence minimum of the community in which the recipient resides [source: adapted from a definition by Prof. Matt Zwolinski]- Ought: moral desirabilityRules1. No forfeits2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final speeches4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)7. For all resolutional terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate8. The BOP is evenly shared9. Pro must post his case in R1 and waive in R510. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate their appropriateness)11. In each round, both debaters will wait until at least 48 hours have elapsed on the argument clock before posting their arguments (the only exception being the first two speeches, which should be posted as soon as possible)12. Both debaters' first speeches will be identical to the ones they posted in their original debate (linked above)13. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the R1 set-up, merits a lossStructureR1. Pro's CaseR2. Con's Case; Pro generic RebuttalR3. Con generic Rebuttal; Pro generic RebuttalR4. Con generic Rebuttal; Pro generic Rebuttal and SummaryR5. Con generic Rebuttal and Summary; Pro WaivesThanks......to Murdoc for the debate. Looking forward to a discussion on a wonderful and fascinating topic!

Title: Universal Basic Income Content: Full resolution: The United States should begin to convert existing welfare programs into a universal basic income (UBI). There are about 126 different welfare programs that are currently on the books.1I am arguing that we should begin to replace these programs with a UBI. Note that I do not need to argue that these existing 126 welfare programs must be eliminated immediately, but rather I will argue that these programs should eventually be phased out and a transition to a universal basic income should begin. First round is for acceptance. No new arguments in the final round. I will outline my UBI proposal in the arguments section.I have made this debate impossible to accept. Accepting without permission will result in a forfeit of all seven points.1. http://object.cato.org...;

Title: Universal Basic Income Content: Thanks, Con. I’ll use this round to defend my case and crystallize.Trialsa) Con alleges that the countries that had UBI trials in are incomparable to an American-implemented UBI because they’re considerably poorer, more corrupt, and less stable than the United States is. However, Con doesn’t illustrate *why* this matters, and expects us to assume that, because a country is less developed, any UBI trial conducted is going to be invalid. This string of assumptions is really going to hurt Con, and I’m going to show why.The underlying principle of a UBI is that an increase an income is inherently beneficial, as money is the basic means that we use to provide for ourselves. This principle doesn’t change in a country with proportionally less poor people. Even if we buy Con’s assumption that “each of these nations have significantly more room for improvement than the United States does, so the effects will be amplified”, there’s no reason to believe that a UBI *won’t* be effective. Given that the U.S. has 43 million people living under the poverty line [12], the U.S. *absolutely* has room for improvement, and indeed has room to see a benefit from a UBI. Con’s premise is essentially that a country needs to be poverty-free in order for a UBI to be ineffective. Because a UBI would exist for the very purpose of reducing poverty, this point is nonsensical.Con doesn’t show how corruption or instability is relevant to a UBI. How would the basic principle of more income increasing financial leverage be confounded by more corruption or instability? Furthermore, “instability” isn’t defined by Con. He wants us to outright buy his assumptions that such would “amplify” the results of a UBI trial, and that such amplification results in in conclusive evidence that a UBI would have no effect whatsoever in the United States. We have no reason to buy either of these assumptions, so this point is negated. b) Con contends that my trials are limited, and are thus incomparable to the U.S. on a national level. But again, he gives us very little reason to dismiss my evidence; trials for cash transfers haven’t yet been done on that immense of a level, and in the absence of such, we should buy my pieces of evidence prima facie. Con gives us no instances of a UBI working, beyond a “model” in the UK (which I demonstrated to be flawed in R3), whereas I provide 4 instances of *actual* conducted trials, all of which pointed to UBI benefits. Additionally, Con admits that his model is a micro-implementation of an actual scenario, so *even* if his example is valid, we should dismiss it by Con’s own admission.Current Welfare Programsa) Yes, we have a progressive tax system in the sense that the poor pay marginally fewer taxes from their ordinary income. They are, however, taxed more when unrealized capital gains are added [13]. When one considers state and local taxes in addition to ones on the federal level, the illusion of the progressive tax system vanishes. In fact, a study [14] from the Institute on Taxation and economic policy found that “Overall, the poorest 20 percent of Americans paid an average of 10.9 percent of their income in state and local taxes and the middle 20 percent of Americans paid 9.4 percent. The top 1 percent, meanwhile, pay only 5.4 percent of their income to state and local taxes.” [15] The poor simply do not have less incentives to move up the income ladder, contrary to Con’s claim. He also dropped the CBO report I cited, so extend that.b) My asset cap point is pretty much dodged. Con insists that asset caps exist because some people just don’t need welfare programs. But he concedes that “there is definitely an argument to be made” in raising that cap. That’s exactly the argument I’m making: the caps are dangerously low, which discourage self-reliance and saving. Con is supposed to be defending the welfare programs as they stand right now, yet he admits that they might not be ideal. This can’t be good for him; I don’t see how he can simultaneously defend the status quo and agree that the status quo may not be idea.c) Con asserts that the poverty rate isn’t taken into consideration for in-kind welfare programs. How is this relevant? They do, in fact, take into consideration things like income and total assets. Con doesn’t show why this matters.I've shown how (1) multiple examples prove that a UBI works, and that (2) it reduced poverty, which Con has essentially conceded. Thus, I affirm.Sources[12] https://poverty.ucdavis.edu...[13] https://www.alternet.org...[14] https://itep.org...[15] https://www.cnbc.com...

Title: Universal Basic Income Content: Thanks for providing the opportunity for this debate. This isn't a subject i am particularly opinionated on but I am currently educating myself to form an argument. I look forward to hearing your first argument.

Title: The US ought to provide an universal basic income. Content: I accept. Where is that debate?

Title: That UBI should be implemented in the western world Content: UBI is an undeniably good choice for the western world, as it eliminates extreme poverty and allows more economic freedom. For those who don't know UBI, or Universal Basic Income, it is where the government gives every citizen a base income of around $10,000 that you can spend on anything. The difference between this and normal welfare is that most public welfare goes by the system that you earn the amount of money from the welfare but any amount above and you lose said welfare, acting as a box as opposed to UBI which is a pedestal. This is because it acts as a base income that you can build off. This will be accomplished by abolishing most welfare projects. We must have UBI to ensure the ability of anyone to have a, although low, stable income.

Title: Resolved: The US ought to provide a UBI Content: Ok, I understand that I will not do my last speech then, for round 4, correct? Well, I will just assume so. Anyways, moving on...(and all sources will be in round 4 speech) I stand in firm affirmation of the Resolved: The United States Ought to Provide a Universal Basic Income Observation 1: Definition Basic income has 5 characteristics... A basic income is a periodic cash payment unconditionally delivered to all on an individual basis, without means-test or work requirement. That is, basic income has the following five characteristics: Periodic: it is paid at regular intervals (for example every month), not as a one-off grant. Cash payment: it is paid in an appropriate medium of exchange, allowing those who receive it to decide what they spend it on. It is not, therefore, paid either in kind (such as food or services) or in vouchers dedicated to a specific use, as well as any form of benefit (such as disability or food stamp). Individual: it is paid on an individual basis"and not, for instance, to households. Universal: it is paid to all, without means test. Unconditional: it is paid without a requirement to work or to demonstrate willingness-to-work Observation 2: Grounds The negative must prove that Basic Income does NOT benefit the citizens of the US, as well as prove that the US ought not to provide a basic income, instead of the countries ability to do so, as the resolution states ought. Framework: My Standard for evaluating morality for this round is upholding the Kantian Social Contract due to the principle of generic consistency. We can"t know what others want [Kant, 1] Since people differ in their thinking about happiness and how each would have it constituted, their wills with respect to it cannot be brought under any common principle and so under any external law harmonizing with everyone's freedom. [Kant, 2]No one can coerce me to be happy in his way. Instead, each may seek his happiness in the way that seems good to him, provided he does not infringe upon this right of another.We, as humans, don"t know what other people want in their pursuit of life. Therefore, laws that promote a certain type of happiness violate the individual"s individuality. Since all people are inherently rational beings, this violates their rights as beings and is against a-priori reasoning. Society in decisions [Kant, 3] For what is under discussion here is not the happiness that a subject may expect from the institution or administration of a commonwealth but above all merely the right that is to be secured for each by means of it, which is the supreme principle for which all maxims having to do with a commonwealth must proceed and which is limited by no other principle. The "public well-being' that must be taken into account is lawful constitution which secures everyone his freedom by laws, whereby each remains at liberty to seek his happiness in whatever way seems best to him. What Kant is saying is that societies govern to secure each person the right to achieve happiness and self-fulfillment. Therefore, to infringe upon someone"s rights is to deny that person their right to happiness. Since this is only violating the rights of one person, it is a violation of the goals of a state " and by extension of society. Contention 1: UBI Promotes Freedom 1. UBI Means Freedom to Pursue What One Wants (1) The objective of basic income is to transform the deprivations linked to non-employment and poorly remunerated employment into "real freedom" (1995). Real freedom requires not just the abstract right but financial resources to make freedom a lived reality. Furthermore, by securing individuals" "power to say no", basic income reduces the vulnerability of poor and working people to exploitative relations in labor markets. And, According to Rutger Bregman, (2) UBI would allow both our employment and leisure time to become more fulfilling. Currently, millions of people are employed in work that serves no real purpose, and is simply a way to fill time and provide salaries. Under UBI, Bregman believes we would have the financial freedom to pursue useful and worthwhile work. 2. UBI Creates Economic Freedom Among Citizens Jason Murphy states that" There has also been a growing focus on how basic income could be implemented to address gender inequality. He points to a rape shelter in Vancouver that has voiced support for UBI, in part because it would give women the economic freedom to escape abusive relationships. Murphy also stated that" A monthly stipend and reduced working hours would give both parents the freedom to commit to domestic chores, while still being able to invest in professional careers. Women carry the burden of emotional labor"the childcare, support, and household work, which largely goes uncompensated. According to Bregman, "This unpaid work is valuable and"UBI is recognition of that." Contention 2: Poverty Internal Link Basic Income Eliminates Poverty (3) The human rights case for a basic income: Poverty is not a natural tragedy like cancer or earthquakes. Poverty is a human caused tragedy like slavery or government oppression. These types of tragedies can be ended by recognizing that humans have the right not to be subjected to tortuous conditions imposed by other. And humans have a right not to live in poverty. A basic income is not a strategy for dealing with poverty; it it the elimination of poverty. The campaign for a basic income is a campaign for the abolition of poverty. 1. Drug Abuse (4) It seems sort of obvious that bad times might result in more drug abuse, as people suffering from economic despair self-medicate. Researchers from Vanderbilt University and the University of Colorado Denver published a paper showing an undeniable inverse relationship between drug abuse and the economy overall. According the data, when one sinks, the other rises. "There is strong evidence that economic downturns lead to increases in substance use disorders involving hallucinogens and prescription pain relievers"" Drug treatment policies get significantly cut during economic downturns, which seems like precisely the wrong move at the wrong time. In short, increased rates of income leads to a decrease in drug use, and moreover abuse. More deaths, illnesses and disabilities stem from substance abuse than from any other preventable health condition. Any chance to decrease drug abuse should be taken to value the lives and welfare of humanity. 2. Healthcare (5) For most people, a single doctor"s visit can be a financial obstacle course. Many patients throughout the year pay hundreds or thousands of dollars in premiums. Then, at the doctor"s office, they are faced with a deductible, and they may need to pay coinsurance or make a copayment. If they have prescriptions, they"ll likely fork over cash for those, too. And that"s just for basic primary care for one person. Repeat that process for an entire family; add in any labs, referrals, specialists, emergency-room visits, and surgeries; and the result for even healthy families is dozens and dozens of payments, and often thousands of dollars. If the UBI were to be implemented in the U.S., people would have to worry less about the expensive payments that must be made because of illness or injury. If people"s income increased, they could purchase more healthcare. Less disease and injuries leads to less widespread death and harm. 3. Education (6) UBI keeps kids enrolled in schools. By providing an income cushion, it would increase workers" bargaining power, potentially driving up wages. It would make it easier for people to take risks with their job choices, and to invest in education. In the U.S. in the seventies, there were small-scale experiments with basic-income guarantees, and they showed that young people with a basic income were more likely to stay in school; in New Jersey, kids" chances of graduating from high school increased by twenty-five per cent I stand in firm affirmation.

Title: Universal Basic Income is a good thing Content: So we both agree that a UBI would be a good thing if automation takes over the job market. Good, Then let's discuss the pros/cons of a UBI on modern society. The average wage has remained stagnant worldwide while the cost of living has skyrocketed. We are already feeling the effects of automation. Modern welfare in most countries doesn't even cover the basic cost of living. This is why it's imperative to explore massive changes to our social nets with ideas like UBI. I think one of the best effects of UBI is that directly addresses wealth inequality. We all know that rich corporations are only getting richer, While the poor seem to be getting poorer. A UBI empowers poor employees to demand better working conditions and higher wages. Lower income employees enter the middle class at the expense of large corporations, Effectively bridging the wealth divide. Rebuttals"If the UBI exists does the welfare end? If yes, Are people who are just lazy living well to the detriment of those with disabilities that require more funds to control or cure? "Yes, UBI replaces welfare. The problem with welfare is that it discourages work - welfare payments stop after someone gets a job. UBI payments do not. For this reason, A large portion of these "welfare bums" actually reenter the job market. ---"I understand that a salary is still due to the ones who choose to work under a UBI but it would cease to be a good enough motivation since you are allowed to be lazy and still live fairly well. "Do people quit their jobs after given a UBI? Well we've tested it. It turns out that most people would rather be wealthy the lazy. A portion of the population does initially quit, But most of them go further their education or find better jobs that are actually in their field. The Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend program has been in place for the past 25 years, With money distributed from the oil reserve royalties earned in the state. The unconditional cash payments amount to $2, 000 per Alaskan resident. "The researchers found that the unconditional payments to residents had no real impact upon full-time employment levels (whether positive or negative), Although they did find that part-time work increased by about 17%. " [4]----"A UBI would be a good idea only when and if a TRUE job crisis arises, Where something like 50% or so of the population is in fact unemployed due to the advancement in technology"The problem here is that technology advances exponentially, while politics and the job market advance slowly and linearly. I would argue that something THIS DESTRUCTIVE, Cannot be dealt with reactively, It must be dealt with proactively. If we wait until half the population is unemployed we've waited far too long. That's why we're running early trials now.

Title: The US ought to provide an universal basic income. Content: I'll deal with my opponent's arguments first and proceed to defending my own case.He says that a UBI is enormously expensive and as of now we can not afford such a program. Four responses to this. First, according to Matthew Ygleias of Vox in an exact rebuttal towards said New York Times article, UBI would put US spending to about where France and the Scandinavian social democracies are. Foreign nations easily do similar levels of welfare as the projected costs of a UBI. Additionally, the article my opponent cites is off on the projected cost by 600 billion dollars or so. Second, according to David Morris of Fortune, studies by the Roosevelt Institute indicate that a basic income would grow the economy by 12.5 % and shrink the federal deficit, meaning that a UBI would help the overall economy and goverment, not hurt it. Third, consider the cost of poverty on society, as children struggle through school as they work, as homeless people live on the streets, and many struggle to meet ends meet. Are they truly doing the best for our country impoverished. Millions who could be potential engineers, doctors, and scientists are currently wasting their potential, through no fault of their own, merely by the virtue of their social class. Forth, social programs in the status quo have spent billions of dollars with little to nil result. We could simply cut money from those programs in order to help fund a UBI. He says that people will become lazy and won't want to work. However, this is key to help mitigate the problems of climate change as proven by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, will nil adverse effects as countries throughout Western Europe have had similar levels of work for decades on end. Additionally, this isn't unique to UBI, as the status quo already does exactly that. He says that a job gurantee would solve the problem of unemployement, but I must ask; Where are these jobs? Where is the US going to magically sploof up several million jobs. How exactly is this a permanent solution, as at some point AI and automation will simply be better. It is incredibly unlikely that every single American will somehow find the time and money in order to better educated themselves in the new age of technology, meaning that we would likely have these problems regardless.He says that the dollar is key to political rights, however, it only takes one part in the overall goverment. There's democratic activities such as voting, running for office, protesting, civil disobidience and such which all allow nationals to take part in their goverment. I'll now deal with my opponents rebuttal.UBI gurantees that regardless of the circumstance, there will always be a net underneath you. If a business fails, the entrapener won't be sleeping on the streets. Same too applies for financial insecurity. If one wishes to quit their job, they have the ability to do so, as they have a source of income independent of their job. If my opponent needs to see the evidence where exactly this will occur, I simply suggest clicking on the article cited beforehand. If he needs further, may I suggest Scott Santeens' Medium article entitled Inequality and the Basic Income Guarantee. It goes both into entrepreneurship and education.On lower work hours, simply refer to what my opponent himself said in how he argued that a UBI would lower overall work hours. He's contradicting himself in saying there's no evidence to say UBI would lower work hours while only a few paragraphs above saying the exact opposite. Welfare programs lower the need to work, it's as simple as that. An UBI or NIT would bring forth the same basic effect, however, it would be greater under a UBI as it is provided to everyone, not simply those below the poverty line (or whatever thresehold one wishes to set it at). It wouldn't just be the poorest of the poor not working, many of the near and middle class would join in, guaranting that the intended effects would be brought forth.On inequality, I'll simply offer an anology. Envision a room full of 100 children (hopefully not locked up by ICE) where 1 has 101 candies and 99 have 1. If the 1 child had to give everyone else 1 candy, then everyone would have at 2 candies, and be a much more equal society. By the sheer virtue of the population size of the lower and middle class compared to the upper class, they will get a great deal more. Effectly, UBI is a great equallizer for a society, lowering overall inequallity.For these reasons I strongly urge voting for the motion.

Title: Universal Basic Income Content: As my opponent predicted, I will be running a counter-plan:Replace the current welfare system -- implement a federal "Workfare" system for the unemployed, and rely on Earned Income Tax Credits (EITCs) to subsidize the salaries of the employed.There is a single, crucial difference between Workfare and UBI -- the $10,000 will not be granted unconditionally. Under the Workfare system, the unemployed recipients will be required to either (1) work on government-sponsored community service & public works projects, (2) receive government-sponsored vocational education, or (3) engage in some combination of both. For the purposes of this debate, it is unnecessary to formulate a detailed system of specific requirements, but that is the general framework which the requirements will follow. If the requirements are met, then the recipient will receive $10,000 for each member of his/her household. If the requirements are not met, then no hand-out is granted.As for employed people, we already have an EITC system in place, although I advocate making it substantially more generous, so that no employed household will be earning less than $15,000 per member. Note that EITC *does* target people who actually need their salaries subsidized, but also contains a specialized system for calculating the amount paid in order to minimize phase-out work disincentive effect my opponent described [1].With that established, I will now proceed to go over the benefits of my counter-plan.(1) Welfare DependencyMy plan would vastly reduce dependency. Under both the UBI and the status quo, unemployed people are faced with a choice. Either (1) they don't work but still receive enough money to survive, or (2) they DO work and earn/receive substantially more money. Ideally, welfare recipients will be motivated to choose Option 2 due to the financial opportunity cost of Option 1. However, in reality, many people value the benefit of leisure time over the cost of a lower income, and the result of that is welfare dependency -- a social malady which needlessly eats up tax dollars, creates a large population of economically unproductive people, and has been empirically proven to exacerbate crime rates. And it's a widespread problem too -- in the United States, there are *14 million* Americans who are classified as welfare-dependent [2].Both UBI and Workfare significantly increase the costs of not working (because $10,000 is way less than even a minimum wage salary). However, Workfare also eliminates the *benefits* of not working -- by forcing recipients to spend the majority of their time either working or getting trained, there is no leisure time to be found in remaining unemployed. Therefore, under my plan, the choice that unemployed people face becomes a simple one between an income of $10,000, and an income of at least $15,000 -- they will have to work either way. This creates a much stronger work incentive than UBI does. No rational person who is capable of getting a job is going to abstain from doing so, and that alone will cause an enormous reduction in welfare dependency. Look to Bill Clinton's 1996 welfare reforms as a case-study in the efficacy of Workfare -- as soon as work requirements were implemented, welfare caseloads declined by an astonishing 60% [3]. Some critics of work requirements attribute that decline to favorable macroeconomic conditions, but a carefully-controlled analysis by the NBER revealed that Clinton's welfare reforms were, in fact, directly responsible for the decline [4]. It is obvious that the Workfare system will result in a drastic reduction in welfare dependency and its associated harms.(2) Public WorksA major part of Workfare is employing people in the construction of public works, and public works (as the name implies) benefit the public. Look to President FDR's Works Progress Administration another case-study in the efficacy of Workfare -- it employed 3.3 million people, bringing about the construction of "roads, bridges, schools, courthouses, hospitals, sidewalks, waterworks, and post-offices ... museums, swimming pools, parks, community centers, playgrounds, coliseums, markets, fairgrounds, tennis courts, zoos, botanical gardens, auditoriums, waterfronts, city halls, gyms, and university unions. Most of these are still in use today" [5]. Not only do such endeavors make society a more generally pleasant place to live in, but they also create jobs (from their maintenance and operation), and can serve as sources of government revenue.Moreover, Workfare provides a means for the US to start working on the declining quality of its infrastructure -- "The American Society of Civil Engineers has released its annual infrastructure report card, and the prognosis for the country's roads, bridges, and public facilities isn't good. America's infrastructure has been in bad shape for years, and things don't seem like they will get better anytime soon. Of the 16 categories ASCE graded, all but one got Cs and Ds" [6]. There is more than enough work which needs to be done, and implementing Workfare is an ideal way to go about doing it.(3) Vocational EducationAnother big part of Workfare is having unemployed people receive vocational education -- in other words, providing them with the skills they need to become employed, rather than just throwing money at them. Not only is this better for the long-term interests of the recipients, but it's also crucial for the future of the economy. It's quite well-known that we are currently facing a trade skills shortage due to the decline of vocational education -- far too many people are getting trained for high-skilled jobs thanks to our undue emphasis on collegiate education, and as a result, there aren't nearly enough of the medium-skilled workers which trade schools used to produce [7]. One study from Northeastern University reported that employers in manufacturing & service industries "overwhelmingly prefer to hire graduates from VTE schools or vocational programs ... More than 90% of employers see a need to increase the number of vocational high school graduates" [8]. Workfare is a potential solution to this problem -- it may not be possible to convince college-bound students to settle for a trade school certification, but unemployed people will gladly go for such an offer. By making government-sponsored vocational education one of the options that unemployed people can choose from, Workfare will inevitably produce a large number of the medium-skilled workers which there is so much demand for, thereby filling in the job market's void.UNDERVIEWMy counter-plan is clearly preferable to Pro's UBI plan. -- It keeps most people above the poverty line -- It minimizes wasteful government spending by reducing welfare dependency & targeting EITC hand-outs -- It maximizes society's economic productivity by producing skilled workers & reducing welfare dependency-- It keeps unemployed people occupied (i.e. away from crime)-- It benefits society by providing a variety of public works & improving the quality of its infrastructureOut of all of these, only the first benefit can be said to apply to UBI.The resolution is negated.[1] http://money.howstuffworks.com...[2] https://aspe.hhs.gov...[3] http://www.brookings.edu...[4] https://aspe.hhs.gov...[5] https://en.wikipedia.org...[6] http://www.businessinsider.com...[7] https://www.bostonglobe.com...[8] http://www.northeastern.edu...

Title: Universal Basic Income Content: Con has been very specific with his wording limiting a variety of general objections to his position that are often considered when peeps discuss this. I'm stating this because it 'morally desirable' is a black hole of ambiguity and I do not want to lean on semantics so I will instead try to focus on what is morally desirable in a practical way and what that means in general using standard definitions. I'm not aware of anyone that receives payments in cash or anything that is uncondtional but I do not expect Cob to lean on these too hard. Many things are morally desirable. In a subjective moral world view you can justify torture (USA #1) or killing apostates. Utilitarians, rule based types or even absolutists could as well. It is obviously ideal to ensure that the worst off in our countries do not starve (reach a sub-subsistence level of existence.) The debate here is normally just about to what degree we will do this. We make 'cash' payments to provide roads, hospitals, food banks and shelters to anyone who bothers to use them. They do not get the check directly and That's the lame leg Con is trying to lean on. We already pay for a minimum standard of living just by paying taxes. We make sure all citizens have justice, are not subject to theft or murder etc. We subsidies farmers, factory workers and billionaires. This question has already been decided. Of course we make cash payouts every month to ensure that everyone reaches subsistence, aka doesn't die. It's only a question of degree. Con can only argue the degree to which we support eachother. By setting the bar at morally desirable all I have to show is that some moral code wants to stop people from dying due to poverty. We are all mutually interdependent and even those lacking empathy can appreciate that preventing others from starving to death or dying from the elements is helpful/desirable wherever it falls on their to do list. While, cash payments that benefit you directly vs those you receive directly are obviously different those that cannot use the funds, at least to reach, subsistence are normally subject to guadianship.

Title: Universal Basic Income Content: Yo accepto el debate

Title: Universal Basic Income Content: I. IntroThis debate is not merely about the degree to which we help others, but also how we help others. The resolution is calling on Pro to advocate for a specific policy, namely UBI, as the means through which he will, in his own words, "ensure the worst off in our countries do not starve. " By using this as his metric to weigh policies, Pro has established a consequentialist moral framework for the round. I would like to note now, however, that Pro's first round lacks substance. He provides no data to demonstrate that UBI is effective at achieving its aim of reducing poverty. Merely stating that reducing poverty is UBI's intent is insufficient to justify UBI as a poverty. One could argue that Hitler's intent through the Holocaust was to better humankind, but that does not justify his actions in the slightest. Therefore, it is dubious as to whether Pro has or will meet his burden in this debate. He must use his additional rounds to put forward arguments sufficient to affirm, or he will be unable to meet his burden. II. The Flaws of UBIA. The Cost of UBIEstimates suggest that UBI would cost $3 to 4 trillion per year, totaling $30 to 40 trillion over a decade. That sum "amounts to nearly all the tax revenue collected by the federal government. " [1] Projections show that US federal tax revenue for 2019 is estimated to be $3.422 trillion, potentially less than this single policy alone [2]. It is not plausible that the US could sustain a policy of UBI while also maintaining the various other services and projects it administers. Even if UBI were to replace other welfare programs, the savings from eliminating these programs would not offset the costs of UBI. Currently, welfare not including Social Security and Medicare costs about $1 trillion; Social Security and Medicare similarly cost about $1 trillion [3, 4]. That makes $2 trillion in total current welfare spending. If all of these welfare programs were to be eliminated and replaced with UBI, UBI would still add $1 to 2 trillion dollars to the federal budget (increasing the budget by 67%). However, it would be naive to think that UBI could replace all existing welfare programs--programs to help parents with childcare costs or to cover medical bills would need to be retained in some form in order to ensure the wellbeing of children and those without insurance, with poor insurance, or with sky-high medical bills. Thus, the actual amount that UBI adds to the budget is likely to be larger than the $1 to 2 trillion just calculated. And not only does it balloon the budget, but UBI is ultimately self-defeating. To afford UBI, individuals would need to be taxed at rates of 35 to 40 percent. This means that UBI would cost a taxpayer more in taxes than that taxpayer would receive in benefits, rendering the policy net-harmful. [5]B. Workforce ParticipationUBI is likely to reduce workforce participation. It stands to reason that if everyone receives a salary irrespective of whether or not they have worked for or earned that salary, that people will be less eager to work. This logic is borne out empirically. "In four controlled random assignment experiments across six states between 1968 and 1980, the comparable policy was shown to reduce yearly hours worked among recipients significantly. For each $1,000 in added benefits, there was an average $660 reduction in earnings, meaning that $3,000 in government benefits was required for a net increase of $1,000 in family income. " [6] This has several impacts. Firstly, for UBI to have its intended benefits, payouts will need to be unreasonably large. The goal of UBI is to bring people up to a subsistence threshold. Suppose that threshold is $10,000. To meet this goal, UBI cannot simply payout $10,000, because that will only functionally provide benefits of $3,300. Instead, to functionally provide $10,000, UBI payouts will need to be $30,000. This places Pro in a double-bind. Either he can't achieve a subsistence minimum or he triples the overall cost of UBI, adding to our national debt and magnifying its self-defeating nature. Secondly, UBI leads to the pernicious and repressive effects of dependency. When people become dependent on welfare, they don't take the steps (steps which are often burdensome in the short term) to better themselves in the long-term. This traps recipients in a kind of near-poverty, which is not only degrading to them but also keeps their quality of life low. Thirdly, UBI is socially destructive. "Individuals gain not only income, but meaning, status, skills, networks and friendships through work. Delinking income and work, while rewarding people for staying at home, is what lies behind social decay. " [7] This could be phrased similarly in the statement that by cutting down participation in one of our primary social contexts, we also cut down the social bonds and experience which are integral to a well-functioning cooperative society. Fourthly, UBI is individually destructive. "Work is at the root of a meaningful life, the path to individual. .. flourishing. It is also the distinctive means by which men concretize their identity as rational, goal-directed beings. " [8] "Self-esteem, in the sense of having a perception of the worth of one's own existence, is bound up with the recognition one receives from others of one's competences, achievements and contributions. " [9] Work, by being a central mechanism through which people contribute to society, is crucial to our own self-esteem, self-image and self-respect. Thus, I negate. III. Sources1 - . https://www.cbpp.org...2 - . https://www.thebalance.com...3 - . https://www.budget.senate.gov...4 - . https://en.wikipedia.org...5 - . https://fee.org...6 - . https://www.heritage.org...7 - . https://www.irishtimes.com...8 - Younkins, Edward W. "Capitalism and Commerce: Conceptual Foundations of Free Enterprise. " Lexington Books, 2002.9 - . https://theconversation.com...

Title: Universal Basic Income Content: I. IntroThis was an excellent debate, and I appreciate Varrack proposing the topic. Admittedly, before the debate I knew very little about UBI. This debate has been a great way to educate myself on a very interesting topic. Varrack, if you win this round, good luck in the rest of the tournament. If I win know that this was, as I said, an excellent debate and I'd like to debate you more in the future. With my remaining round I will be presenting voting issues, why they matter, and why they mean that I have won this debate.II. UBI and CapitalismIn my case, I demonstrated how without offering a living wage, UBI means that individuals will still have to work. Per Pro's own evidence, the poverty rate is $12,000 per adult. Pro's plan offers $10,000, meaning individuals will continue to be forced to participate in the market. This means that employers will be able to drive down wages and more "buIIshit jobs" will be created, causing many workers to be in worse conditions and have less satisfaction.Pro's attempt to dissuade voters from evaluating this point was to say I created a straw man out of the purpose of a UBI (in decommodification of labor). However, the purpose is irrelevant, the effects will remain the same. Just because Pro isn't attempting to decommodify labor with his plan doesn't mean we won't see the decrease in wages. Prefer my analysis from leading economists from Cambridge and The London School of Economics to Pro's bare assertion.The ramifications of this are as follows: we strip Americans of their current welfare plans. The government provides a universal basic income of $10,000. Employers see this as supplemental income. Wages are reduced. Americans are far worse off than before. Because UBI will not work unless as a subsidy for a business, this alone is reason to negate. Pro essentially dropped this point, which alone negates the entire case.III. The Current Welfare SystemIn my defense of the current welfare system, there were two repeated themes. The first one was that the "negative incentives" of our current system aren't legitimate challenges faced by those receiving welfare in the United States. To challenge this, Pro mentions his CBO analysis. However, I offer my own source, in which a Forbes contributor comments [6] on analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP). [9] The CBPP analysis proves that the American poor are encouraged to work (through collectivization) more than their more affluent counterparts, and is based on a more recent CBO report (2015.) [10] Pro literally uses an older publication (2012) [11, Pro's Source 6] from the exact same group to attempt to disprove my argument.These "negative incentives" don't exist. Prefer my argument because Pro and I use the same source, but mine is more recent, and in turn more accurate.The second talking point I had was that the poverty rate does not actually reflect what it claims to. It does not account for your income post-welfare reception. I used an incredibly simple example in R3 to show how someone who does end up receiving more than $12,000 a year (between income and welfare) would still be considered "below" the poverty line. This means that any analysis of the current welfare system measuring its effect on the poverty rate is irrelevant. As I have proven, the American system is an excellent safety net with positive incentives toward financial growth. Pro essentially avoided my argument about how inflated our poverty rate was, which is evident in the UC Davis evidence he uses in the closing round.IV. ConclusionIt is clear that you should be voting Con in this debate. In my opening round, I pointed out that because of the incompatibility between UBI and capitalism, Pro must prove that 1. This is not true or 2. Capitalism will be phased out. He did neither of those things, therefore failing to fulfill his burden. I win on these grounds alone. However, if you need an additional reason to vote Con, look at the successes of our current system. We have helped far more people than our inflated poverty rates would lead you to believe, all while providing incentives for those below the line to break through it.Therefore, I negate the resolution. Thank you.Again, thank you Varrack for this debate. I have learned a lot and have enjoyed a stimulating conversation. Thank you voters for taking the time to read this. Thank you 1harder for hosting.V. Sources[9] https://www.cbpp.org...[10] https://www.cbo.gov...[11] https://www.urban.org...

Title: Universal Basic Income Content: I. Intro Thank you Varrack for the rebuttal. I"d also like to apologize for my constructive having issues with use of apostrophes. I"m not sure why it"s replacing apostrophes with quotation marks. I"ve encountered this issue on mobile but never on my laptop, so I"m not sure how to fix it. Hopefully it won"t continue this round. Regardless, I apologize to Varrack and the readers, since it likely causes at least some minor irritation. II. Re: Economic/Societal Impacts As briefly mentioned in my constructive, the examples used in Pro"s case are not indicative of what would occur in the United States, due to the differences between the US and each of the countries. These nations are significantly poorer than the United States. According to the CIA Factbook, the United States poverty rate is 15.1%. The nearest of the three countries Varrack mentioned was Uganda, at 19.7%. [7] This means that each of these nations have significantly more room for improvement than the United States does, so the effects will be amplified. They are all significantly more corrupt than the United States, based on Transparency International"s research. The United States is 16th in the world with a score of 75. Namibia is 53rd with a score of 51, India is 81st with a score of 40, Kenya is ranked 143 with 28 points, and Uganda is 151st with a score of 26. [8] They are also all in more unstable regions and have less developed economies. They"re still developing. Best case scenario, it"s as if you"re looking through a kaleidoscope at the effects of UBI. Worst case scenario, they aren"t comparable at all. These countries also have very limited trials. We"d have a very difficult time applying the micro tests to a country that is very different, be it in poverty rates (and what the poverty level actually is), corruption, economic development levels, or national sovereignty and security. Prefer my tests from the UK, which is much more similar to the US on every count. III. Re: Failure of Welfare Programs Cross-apply Section V. of my case. Though means-based welfare programs have "negative incentives" for earnings, they are at a much lower rate than the rates for individuals who are making more money. I discussed in my case how individuals who make below half the poverty rate (approximately $6,000) have a marginal tax rate of 14%. Individuals who make 50%-100% of the poverty rate (roughly $6,000-$12,000) have a marginal tax rate of 24%. People who make more than that faced a rate of 34%. This means that people that receive means-tested welfare are actually facing far fewer "negative incentives" than those who are making, say, $70,000 a year. To say that they are decentivized due to these marginal tax rates is ludicrous, else we would see the same issues at higher rates among those with greater incomes. We simply do not. Furthermore, an asset cap isn"t necessarily an issue. If there is no asset cap, we face the issue posed in my case: individuals who don"t need aid will receive it anyway, wasting funds. Again, a person who makes a comfortable wage may find an extra $10,000 nice, it is far from necessary. Even an individual making $30,000 (assuming no dependents) may be fine without an extra $10,000. If Pro wants to argue for a higher asset cap, there is definitely an argument to be made. However, an asset cap is not a bad idea, as it avoids allocation of resources to those who do not need it. Finally, as stated in case, the issue with considering the "poverty rate" in the United States is that it doesn"t account for in-kind reception of welfare. As an incredibly simplified example, let"s assume I make $11,000 per year and the poverty line is at $12,000. If I receive $1,001 worth of food stamps, my income is effectively $12,001 per year, above the poverty line, but I would still be counted as below the poverty line. Measuring the effectiveness of the current welfare programs by analyzing the poverty rate is absolutely pointless, because most of the welfare programs aren"t accounted for in the measure of the poverty rate. IV. Conclusion UBI is a pipe dream in the United States. Without first eradicating capitalism, it will do nothing but drive down wages and act a subsidiary to businesses. There have been no tests of UBI that can be applied to the United States which point toward a success. Each of the studies offers a myriad of issues that separate it from America. Meanwhile, the current welfare system is working, contrary to what analysis of the incomplete poverty rate would indicate. It is putting Americans well above their European counterparts. UBI is neither plausible, needed, or likely to be effective. V. Sources [7] https://www.cia.gov... [8] https://www.transparency.org...

Title: Universal Basic Income Content: My opponent has forfeited.

Title: Universal Basic Income Content: There are multiple objectives a welfare program should achieve. Economist Ed Dolan offers the following four criteria in which to evaluate welfare programs:1 1) A good welfare program leaves few, if any, people below the poverty line; 2) Whether or not the program is targeted for those who need it most; 3) A good welfare program would keep work incentives intact, at least as much as possible; 4) A good welfare program would reduce administrative costs and waste. The UBI accomplishes all of these goals except for one, but I will explain this in a moment. M specific UBI involves a minimum income of $10,000—unconditional, you earn it whether or not you are working—and all welfare programs (even EITC!) except social security (would be phased out, I will elaborate if my opponent brings up costs), medicare, and medicaid. This would eliminate all poverty for families of two or more, and eliminate poverty for the vast majority of single person households. The reason I would not abolish medicare and medicaid is because the UBI would likely not be high enough to cover both their welfare and medical needs. We would also eliminate most middle class and upper class loopholes and tax credits in order to increase the UBI funding pool. The UBI benefit will outweigh the loss in credits for most middle class families. 1. A UBI would leave few, if any, people below the poverty line A properly crafted UBI would leave virtually everyone above the poverty line. My proposed UBI would keep anyone who earns just a few thousands dollars a year—something that can easily be done doing odd jobs occasionally—above the poverty line, and people who earn $0 would be only a little shy of it. All households with more than one person would be lifted above the poverty line. A UBI would fulfill this goal. 2. A UBI would not be targeted—and that’s a good thing! This is the only criteria a UBI does not meet, but this is actually a good thing. Why? Because means-tested programs focus on targeting. It focuses on giving aid to only those who need it. But the consequence of this is a decline in work incentives because means tested programs phase out over time and impose high marginal tax rates on the next dollar earned, thus discouraging work effort. Not only that, but an untargeted welfare program increases administrative efficiency because you do not need workers to make sure each family receiving benefits needs it—the untargeted aspect of the UBI means it can be administered through the tax system and be calculated by a computer algorithm. 3. A UBI would preserve work incentives overall, and do so better than any means tested system Implementing a UBI to a society where welfare did not exist at all would reduce work incentives. But a society without assistance for the needy is not desirable. Free markets have made us so wealthy that it is not only feasible to eliminate poverty, it is desirable because no one should starve in a wealthy society like as ours. The UBI would significantly increase work incentives compared to a means-tested welfare system because there is no phase-out of benefits. Phase-outs work the same as high marginal tax rates. In other words, for every extra dollar a poor person earns, they gain less than a dollar of disposable income. Let me give an example. Say we have a phase out of 0.75 cents per dollar earned. This means if I make one extra dollar from work, I lose 0.75 cents in benefits, and only get 25 cents. This means my marginal tax rate is 75%, which clearly disincentivizes work. Is the extra 25 cents worth it? Is it worth working for an extra dollar to only receive 25 cents? For some people, the answer is yes. But for others, the extra work may be worth one dollar, but the extra work is not worth 25 cents. Thus, a means tested system is destined to significantly reduce work incentives. This is not the case under a UBI. People will obtain the $10,000 benefit no matter what—if they earn a million dollars or $2,000 dollars, they will still get $10,000 in benefits each year. There is no phase out. No tax levied on every extra dollar earned. To further analyze this, let's look at economic theory. There are two effects of a UBI (and welfare in general) on work incentives: the income effect and the substitution effect. The income effect generally reduces work. As disposable income rises, people tend to use more of that money to go on vacation and work less. The substitution effect generally increases work effort. As disposable income rises, the opportunity cost of not working grows larger. This increases work effort. Both of these effects work simultaneously. How would it work under a UBI? Look at the following graphic.2 Now assume we are at arrow one before the red and green lines cross (green = UBI, red = means tested, blue = no welfare). For this group of people, the income effect and the substitution effect simultaneously increase work incentives because the opportunity cost of not working grows with an added UBI and the income effect increases work effort. The reason the income effect actually increases work effort here is because having more disposable income means more leisure time in the future, but as you are poor in this part of the graph you cannot afford to take time off. So both of these effects under a UBI serve to increase work effort more than they do under a means tested program. Now look at arrow 2: a person’s income a little above the crossover point. The substitution effect is stronger under a UBI than under a means tested regime because there is no longer a 0.75 cent reduction in benefits for each dollar earned (in fact, the marginal tax rates under the current welfare system often exceed 100%, so by using 75% I am being generous).3 Now the income effect is greater under a UBI at this point of the graph than under a means-tested regime, but the substitution effect is likely much larger than the income effect at this point because it will only be as large as the difference between the UBI and the means tested regime—the income effect between no welfare and a UBI is fairly large here, but that is because earned income is a lot higher under UBI than under nothing. At this point in the graph, the difference in disposable income between a UBI and means tested is not very large, so the positive work incentives will outweigh the negative ones here. Now look at arrow 3. This represents people who wish to work less and qualify for government assistance instead of losing benefits and hopping onto the blue line (which is how it works in the U.S. right now because the phase out eventually ends up being zero). The UBI would remedy this because no phase out means no working less in order to qualify for a benefit—you always get the benefit—so, at this part of the graph, the UBI would enhance work incentives. Now jump to arrow 4. At this point, a means tested system ceases to offer benefits because they have been phased out—the individual at arrow 4 is middle to upper class. At this point, a UBI only has an income effect compared to a means tested system. This means, for the upper and middle class, a UBI would reduce work effort. However, the effects are going to be small because the higher the income, the smaller percentage of that income will come to a UBI. So while it will disincentivize work for these people, the effect will be small, and virtually zero for the rich. Thus, economic theory dictates that a UBI would increase work incentives compared to a means tested system. As Ed Dolan argues, a UBI “would substantially increase work incentives for low-income households while having small disincentive effects, if any, for middle- and upper-income households.”2 For this reason, Dolan believes work effort will be higher on aggregate under a UBI than under a means-tested system. 4. A UBI would reduce administrative waste This is the clearest and least disputable benefit of the UBI. A UBI would require no verification of personal characteristics. A means tested system would: you have to determine whether or not a person actually needs assistance. A UBI would just be integrated into the tax code and calculated by a computer. A person who made $0 would receive the money no questions asked. For people who earn $1 - infinity, you would receive the $10,000 minus taxes due. So a person earning $1 owes essentially no taxes, so he would get $10,001. But a person earning $100,000 will earn $110,000 minus taxes due. The only welfare program that is simple enough to virtually eliminate administrative costs is the UBI. Failures of the current welfare system A UBI is so important because the current system does not work. The poverty rate has remained virtually the same since the War on Poverty was declared, despite trillions in welfare spending.4 As noted in round 1, we have 126 different welfare programs. Each of these programs simply add to the red tape, and with no decrease in poverty since the late 1960s, these programs seem to add little to no benefit. My opponent will likely be providing a counterplan, as the failure of the current welfare state is fairly obvious. The failures of the current welfare system require that we get something done, and an unconditional UBI best protects work incentives, reduces administrative waste, and reduces the number of people below the poverty line 1. http://www.economonitor.com... 2. http://www.economonitor.com... 3. http://www.forbes.com... 4. http://object.cato.org...

Title: Universal Basic Income Content: I. Intro Thank you to Varrack for what promises to be a stimulating discussion, and 1harder for the tournament. II. Cost As of 2012, means-tested welfare in the United States was comprised of 79 programs which cost $927 billion. [1] We can assume it has increased since then, so as a generous figure, we can suppose it currently costs roughly $1.1 trillion. Under Varrack"s plan, each adult in the United States would receive $10,000. Kids Count Data Center estimates that as of 2016, there were approximately 249.5 million adults in the United States. [2] Providing each of these adults with a UBI would cost approximately $2.5 trillion annually, and this excludes all bureaucratic costs. It"s clear to see that the cost is well over double the cost of the current welfare system. Not only does Varrack have to prove that his plan is superior to the current welfare system, he also must prove that it is worth the astronomical increase in the cost of welfare. There is also the negligible harm that it provides an extra $10,000 to individuals who do not need it. Images of Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates receiving this guaranteed income is ridiculous, but the same principle can be applied to individuals making a fraction of what the super-rich make. A family with a combined income of $500,000 may find that an extra $20,000 is nice to have, but hardly necessary. I"m the first to admit that this isn"t a significant harm to the plan, but a harm nevertheless. III. Capitalism is not compatible with UBI Proponents of UBI often argue that UBI is the first step on the path toward de-commodifying labor and allowing citizens the freedom from work that a utopian society promises. However, in order to do this, citizens must be paid a sum high enough to allow them freedom from work. If not, they will be forced to continue working to reach a living wage. According to Professor Daniel Zamora of Cambride, employers know this and will be able to drive down wages, effectively turning this plan into a subsidy for businesses. [3] According to David Graeber, Professor at the London School of Economics, implementation of the UBI without first transitioning away from capitalism would only exacerbate many of the issues capitalism presents, and increase in the number of "buIIshit jobs." [3] Rather than working in the intended manner, UBI would cause businesses to pay less, and end up causing Americans to work less fulfilling jobs just to maintain the same level of comfort that they had before the UBI was implemented. IV. UBI is ineffective Let"s say we implement UBI in the United States. Though Varrack has provided examples of UBI being implemented in other nations, none are comparable to the market tendencies of the United States. Instead, we should look to the micro-implementation case study done by the think tank "Compass" in the UK. By implementing a smaller version of Varrack"s plan, the impact was devastating. Child poverty actually increased by 10%, poverty among pensioners by 4%, and among working class families by 3%. For Varrack"s more comprehensive plan, the analysis points to slight reductions of poverty (7% for children, 1.9% for working age people, and 0.8% for pensioners.) [3] In order to do this, as stated earlier, the United States would have to pay approximately $2.5 trillion, which is over 12.5% of US GDP. [4] 2012 estimates on the price of eradicating poverty put the cost at around 1% of GDP. [5] If we can do so much more for so much less, why don"t we? V. The American System and The American Dream Though individuals on both sides of the aisle attack the current state of welfare (albeit for entirely different reasons) by pointing to poverty rates, what isn"t often taken into account is that this statistic ignores reception of in-kind welfare. It doesn"t consider food stamps, Medicaid, housing vouchers, and the like, when these really put people in a much better situation than what the "poverty rate" implies. Impoverished Americans are, on average, far better off than their European counterparts. [6] Furthermore, the negative incentives "discouraging impoverished Americans from working" simply does not exist. Americans that earn less actually have a greater incentive to work than those in higher tax brackets. Their "marginal tax rates" or losses of benefits due to increased income, are actually significantly lower than the rest of the workforce. An individual below half the poverty line faces a marginal tax rate of approximately 14%. A person from 50-100% of the poverty line has a marginal tax rate of about 24%. Individuals with higher incomes faced a marginal tax rate of about 34%. [6] This phenomenon that Varrack and many pundits tout is actually nonexistent. VI. Conclusion To summarize, our current system works. Critics use inaccurate statistics to discredit a system that is doing wonders. In contrast, the idea of UBI has never been tried in a developed country with a largely market economy, and without first dismantling capitalism, UBI would serve only to subsidize corporations to lower wages. Varrack must prove that 1. UBI is worth the massive increase in welfare costs 2. UBI could be implemented successfully within a capitalist economy and 3. That the limited testing in developing nations would be able to translate into the developed world. VII. Sources [1] http://budget.house.gov... [2] http://datacenter.kidscount.org... [3] https://www.jacobinmag.com... [4] https://data.worldbank.org... [5] http://prospect.org... [6] https://www.forbes.com...

Title: Universal Basic Income Content: Con appears to be interlacing his case with rebuttals of my case; hence, I’ll address them jointly.R1) CostCon states that a UBI would cost $2.5 trillion annually, but none of his sources say this. He references a paper showing the cost of current welfare programs, but there’s absolutely nothing on the cost of a UBI.Estimates that do put the cost of a UBI as high as in the trillions tend to be about the gross cost as opposed to the net cost. The net cost is the one that matters because it subtracts what the receivers of a UBI would pay for it (taxes) from what they would receive. When we subtract government revenue from the overall cost of a potential program, we find (according to Forbes) that it would be $200 billion less than the current system. Another study found that a poverty-level UBI ($12k per year) would have a net cost of $539 billion [10][11]. That’s less than 3% of the total GDP [10], far lower than Con’s estimate.R2) Goal of a UBICon creates a straw man of what he believes my UBI’s purpose is, but I never stated its purpose was to de-commodify labor. My proposal’s end goal would be to (1) prevent or reduce poverty and (2) increase equality among citizens. There is no need to move away from labor at all to improve peoples’ financial conditions; a UBI would only compliment the market. The rest of Con’s point, that employers would drive down wages, lies on the same faulty assumption that a UBI’s end goal would be to control the market. Moreover, this is a slippery slope fallacy in that it assumes a UBI would lead to such; there’s no reason to say a UBI is a step in the direction of a tightly controlled economy.R3) Trialsa) The trials I cited are dismissed because “none are comparable to the market tendencies of the United States”, but no explanation is given as to how those countries’ markets differ in meaningful enough ways to suggest that they are not comparable. Why doesn’t the basic principle I’ve highlighted of increasing fiscal ability via a constant, minimum income not apply to these cases as well. I extend these examples.b) Con’s UK examples would have only given participants a monthly income of $392 and $380, respectively [his 3rd source]. My proposal of $10,000 a year would equate to $833 a month, more than double the incomes his examples used. In that case, it’s not surprising that the first model, which replaced all means-tested welfare programs with that basic income, would result in negative outcomes. The second model, which had existing welfare programs side-by-side with the UBI, did see an improvement in those outcomes, albeit not as strong as they would have been had an income closer to my proposal been implemented.R4) Current welfare systemThis point is just a loose string of bare assertions. Con states that in-kind welfare programs are of a greater benefit than they’re given credit for, but gives no detail as to why this is true. He asserts that Americans are better off than their European counterparts, but his source merely states that we have lower taxes and lower redistribution systems. Neither of those how our welfare systems are “better”, it just means ours are less socialized. Additionally, the U.S. having a better welfare system doesn’t imply that it isn’t in need of reform, or that it doesn’t trap people below the poverty line. Con states that the poor are in a lower tax bracket, and thus pay less taxes. This isn’t the case because welfare programs tack on more taxes, which cause their effective tax rates to soar. I’ve already demonstrated that the CBO has confirmed that their tax rates are as high as 50% [6], which Con ignored. Sources9. https://www.forbes.com...10. https://works.bepress.com...11. https://www.progress.org...

Title: The United States should design a universal health care system. Content: I'll jump to it. 1. I realize that they still can get health care, but the problem is that it is more expensive to them, should they need it. Health care is generally considered to be a basic right, and people should have it. 2. This point was on privacy, not that the burden would be spread to everyone. I simply do not get how privacy is invaded by Universal Health Care. 3. You argued that taxes would be higher, but there is a trade-off. The government as a whole would save some 286 billion dollars annually from a Universal Health Care system from saved paperwork alone. This in turn translates to less required money from the people. 4. <<>> Well I believe that they get into the profession to care for people, and the benefits are just an after-thought and a positive. Barring some evidence into the matter, we are at an impasse. 5. Well, I understand that IF less research is done, there will be less cures. However, I fail to understand how Universal Health Care would cause less research. If anything, it would cause more (See link from round 1 argument). 6. << >> Actually, the report measured several things: Overall Level of Health, Distribution of Health in the Populations, Responsiveness, and Distribution of Financing. The report actually does report on whether the health care is good, thus negating your response. 7. (Democracy) You basically argue that these are biased polls. I'll admit, the CBS poll may be biased. However the Hill poll is a poll of Republicans, not the liberal left. The Third link I provided actually is a poll from the Washington Times, and therefore, if anything, would be biased in your favor. Looks to me like America wants Universal Health Care. 8. (DMV Example) Again, one example that could be isolated doesn't guarentee anything. 9. (Flexibility) I'm sure that the people who want these things (the superfluous things) could pay for the surgeries on they're own. Any extra paper-work wouldn't offset the billions of dollars we would save in a switch. My New Point: Policy Time! So basically, you argue that there is a problem with our health care system, yet the solution is not Universal Health Care. So you concede that a policy option is needed, and it isn't our current system doesn't suffice. So far the only other policy being presented to voters IS Universal Health Care. Therefore, unless you present an alternative option, voter's really have no choice but to vote for the only option presented today (Universal Health Care).

Title: The US ought to provide an universal basic income. Content: Ignore bsh1's stuff, standard rules apply for this debate. Please forgive heavy formating issues, as files are having troubles on my computer. This is written near verbatim from original sources which will be listed below. Contention 1 is Innovation As according to the US Department of Energy, clean energy innovation is the solution to climate change, being key to unlocking new technologies and low-cost clean energy breakthroughs needed to rapidly bend the trajectory of greenhouse gas emissions. innovation drives the cost reduction necessary to transform global energy markets. However we don"t have the luxury of waiting for new technologies to emerge. We need to rapidly accelerate the pace of innovation to meet the challenge of limiting global temperature. UBI is linked to increased innovation in three ways. 1. Entrepreneurship According to Scott Santeens of the Medium, entrepreneurship is currently on a downward trend and businesses are also closing their doors faster than new businesses are opening them. This is because of risk aversion due to rising economic insecurity. When people are financially insecure, they worry more about going from paycheck to paycheck rather than innovation and startups. Incomes adjusted for inflation have not budged for decades, and the jobs providing those incomes have gone from secure careers to insecure jobs, part-time and contract work, and gig labor, decreasing economic security. Decreasing economic security means a population decreasingly likely to take risks. Because of UBI, the fear of impoverishment hunger and homelessness is eliminated. And with it, the risks of failure considered too steep to take a chance on something. Additionally, a basic income is also a basic capital, enabling people to create a new product or service. Such effects have been observed in Nambia and India where markets have flourished thanks to the tripling of entrepreneurs. 2. Education According to Dannielle Douglas Gabriel of the Washington Post, researchers at the Urban Institute found that nearly a third of the 563,000 teenage dropouts left school to work. On average, these teenagers earned almost a quarter of the money their families needed to live, keeping 42 percent of households from falling below the poverty line. UBI helps lower the overall dropout rate by ensuring teens" families are guaranteed a basic income, building up a base for a future generation of innovators who otherwise wouldn"t have the skills go into STEM fields. 3. College UBI provides funds for higher education, increasing innovation as more students become college educated. Contention 2 is Lower Work Hours According to the Center for Economic and Policy Research, western European countries have significantly reduced work hours while the US has not. Western Europe had about the same hours worked per person as the U.S. in the early 1970s, but by 2005 they were about 50 percent less. This choice between fewer work hours versus increased consumption has significant implications for the rate of climate change. Studies indicate shorter work hours are associated with lower greenhouse gas emissions and therefore less overall global climate change via lowering levels of consumption, the impactof reducing work hours by an annual average of 0.5 percent in the US would eliminate about one-quarter to one-half of global warming. If work hours decline even slightly, climate change is averted as american consumerism falls. As Western Europe has had lower work hours than the US for decades on end, it proves that lower work hours don"t draw any significant negative consequences. According to Alicia Munnell, in the late 1960s and 1970s thee federal government sponsored four large-scale social experiments on the negative income tax a basic income program, the largest of whom including 4,800 families over an 11 year span. The experiments caused reductions in work effort, among women 17 percent and among men 7 percent. NIT basic income experiments have empirically decreased overall work. If done at a national scale, UBI would substantially decrease work hours and helping solve global warming through lower overall levels of consumption. Contention 3 is Economic Inequality Income inequality has been extensively correlated with environmental degradation, with] negative correlation between income inequality and environmental sustainability. higher the income inequality the worse the environmental indicators such as biodiversity loss and environmental composite indices [like ones ecological footprint. from an economic perspective income inequality reduces pro-environmental public spending via a "relative income effect" which causes shifts in the preferences of those with below average incomes in favour of greater consumption of private goods instead of public ones. Using data on 19 OECD countries studies found] that wider income inequalities were associated with lower environmental expenditure. According to Dylan Matthews of Box, researchers estimate that UBI would cut the poverty rate for all persons between 40 and 84 percent. Helping eliminating structural violence and poverty and making those formerly poor equals in society. Overall UBI first, increases innovation by increasing entrepreneurship, lowering dropout rates, and increasing higher education, second lowers working hours and by extension carbon emissions, and third, decreases overall inequality. all of whom link back to solving global warming. For these reasons I urge voting for the motion. Sources US Department of Energy, (December 5, 2015), "How We Solve Climate Change", https://www.energy.gov... Scott Santeens, (November 30, 2016), "Universal Basic Income Will Accelerate Innovation by Reducing Our Fear of Failure", https://medium.com... Danielle Douglas-Gabriel, 4-16-2015, "An alarming number of teenagers are quitting school to work," Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com... Center for Economic and Policy Research (February, 2013) "Reduced Work Hours as a Means of Slowing Climate Change " http://cepr.net... Alicia H. Munnell (N/D) "Lessons from the Income Maintenance Experiments: An Overview" http://www.bostonfed.org...

Title: Should universal health care be implemented in the US given current conditions Content: As I believe universal healthcare should be implemented in the United States, I will begin by refuting my opponents arguments. Jumping right in, my opponent says that Universal healthcare should not be implemented because of cost, yet shortly afterwards admits that it could be paid for. If we CAN pay for something that will improve our country and the happiness of our citizens, something that I believe should be a basic human right, then I believe we absolutely should. My opponent also says that there are other healthcare systems that are better and more cost effective; if so, please tell me more about them, because I think Universal healthcare is a good system that is most likely our best option. If you know of a better system, let us know more about it. Furthermore, a properly implemented Universal Healthcare plan would actually help stimulate our economy. The annual cost of healthcare in the US is currently growing at an exponential rate, and a study conducted by the CEA shows that even if we slow that rate of growth by only 1.5%, our countries gross domestic product would increase by nearly 8% by the year 2030. What that means is that the income in a typical American family would be about $10,000 higher annually, and the unemployment rate would go down by about 2%, or 500,000 people every year (1). And that's only with a decrease of 1.5%! It would save the average person money on healthcare, bolster their health, and thus make them more productive workers. It also helps reduce "job lock", and encourages small businesses and entrepreneurs by "leveling the playing field". For many people, their only access to healthcare is as a benefit through their job, forcing them to either stay or lose their coverage. With universal healthcare, it is much easier for people to choose a career they actually like, or start their own business, which helps money flow in our economy (2). My opponent also says that the billionaire class such as Donald Trump should not have healthcare provided for them because they can pay for it themselves. However, the average taxpayer would not be paying for Donald Trump's healthcare, as Donald Trump would theoretically be paying MORE taxes than them, and that extra money would help Universal Healthcare work. A homeless unemployed man can't pay for his own healthcare, but Donald Trump can easily pay for healthcare for dozens of people, and if his taxes are already higher, he is helping insure other people, and healthcare should not be denied to anyone. To address my opponents' concern that Universal healthcare would create a conflict of interests, I will just say that I am obviously arguing for a Universal Healthcare system done right, not simply a corrupt replacement of our current system. Of course if it is not implemented properly, such as in the scenarios my opponent outlined, then the results could be less than ideal. But if implemented carefully and properly, as I believe it should and could be, than these scenarios would all be avoided, and the payoff would be huge. My opponent says that health is more than just having access to a doctor, that the Americans should change their lifestyle, and that the government should regulate food and the environment. While this is certainly true and we agree on this point, it is irrelevant to this argument. Just because having Universal Healthcare won't magically solve all of the health problems in America does not mean that it should not be implemented, and even if Americans all managed to live a perfectly healthy lifestyle and our environmental problems were all solved, people would still need access to western medicine or prescription medication on certain occasions. There is a reason that life expectancy goes up alongside the advance of medical science. The government could easily implement a Universal Healthcare plan AND do more to fix the problems with our environment and food supply. As for the actual implementation of an effective Universal Healthcare plan, yes it might be difficult, but it is not impossible. Every other major western country has implemented a Universal Healthcare plan of some sort, and I believe that if EVERY OTHER similar country has done it, we Americans can probably manage someway or another. Obamacare is an example of a healthcare plan that has many problems, and I agree that it could have been implemented much more effectively, but the fact is, it HAS been implemented, and an improved system could easily enough be put it its place. My opponent also brings up Bernie Sanders; while this debate is not about the election, you cannot say that a candidate can't win when they won 8 out of 9 of the last primaries. And that is a perfect example of how something difficult can still work. However, the topic of this debate is not about if Universal Healthcare COULD be implemented, it is about whether or not it SHOULD be. So for the sake of this argument, we should both assume that proper implementation is indeed possible. Now I will present some of my own arguments for Universal Healthcare: I think that in our economy, all people should ethically be given access to healthcare, and that it should be a basic human right. Not everyone can afford healthcare, but most people need it at some time. Making people choose to either pay thousands of dollars to insurance companies that give them limited benefits, or die of disease is not morally right in my opinion. The pharmaceutical and insurance companies have become much too overpriced and have too much leverage over people, given that their services are often essential. As I said before, America is one of the only advanced western civilizations that STILL does not offer Universal Healthcare, and most countries that do, such as Sweden or Denmark, have happier average citizens. For example, in Denmark, citizens are about 77% happy, and in the United States, only 70% (3). One of the main reasons for this is the difference in our healthcare systems. Given the money that Americans already spend on taxes, we should absolutely get Universal Healthcare coverage without having to pay anything more. Money could be relocated from other areas where tax dollars are spent is excess, such as military spending. So a good Universal Healthcare plan would be essentially free (it would still be paid for by taxes, true, but the amount people are taxed would not increase), and it would greatly benefit our citizens. A properly implemented Universal Healthcare plan would boost our economy, increase the health, lifespan and happiness of Americans, and generally improve our country, all without costing the average American anything more than what they already pay in taxes, bringing us up to par with other advanced western countries. And I can't see why anyone wouldn't want that! (1) https://www.whitehouse.gov... (2) https://www.whitehouse.gov... (3) http://acculturated.com...

Title: The United States should design a universal health care system. Content: Hello Everyone, I want to start out by saying universal health care is not the solution to health care problems. First off, if you a believer that 45 million Americans are uninsured, stop smoking. Mark Steyln, a expert at Harvard University says that in that 45 million, 9 million aren't American, 9 million of them are actually insured, and 18 million of them are young and health and have no need for health insurance. The other millions left show to be wealthier than the average American. It shows that 37% of those without health insurance, that's 17 million, come from households that earn more than $50,000 a year. 19% or 8.7 billion of the uninsured come from households earning more than $75,000. So, for all of you crazy liberals that pull numbers out of nowhere, stop crying. Alright, I don't even know where to start with the problems behind it. First of all, it destroys our privacy. It will make everyone's problems our own. For example, if someone is eating unhealthy all the time, now we have to pay for them when they go to the doctor. Or if someone smokes 2 packs of cigarettes a day, now it will be our problem when they get sent to the hospital. The quality of universal health care would be horrible. The doctors would no longer have an incentive to provide quality care. Drug companies will not be making as much money and will have to cut down on research for new medication. I'm going to give you a perfect example why government ran health care is not the answer. My uncle who is an Army veteran is able to go to the VA which is a hospital that provides free health care to veterans. Two months ago when he had an extreme pain in his arm, he went to the hospital to see what was going on. The doctor he had couldn't figure out what the problem was, imagine that, so he referred him to a specialized doctor. That's great, but the wait for the specialized doctor was 37 days. So, here is my uncle having to wait 37 days for an appointment, while having a pain in his arm. Another great example of why government sponsored health care doesn't work, is Medicare. Under Medicare, the government forces doctors to perform duties at a certain price. For example, there is a set rate they must do surgery at and such. To bypass this, many doctors won't even accept Medicare patients because they don't want to be doing work for less money than it is worth. Now, before you start saying that doctors are too greedy and don't need all the money realize that they must go to school for 8 years and then have 5-8 years of an internship and residency. That leaves doctors no younger than 31 before they can even start to make money. I would like to see how you would react when you have that many student loans to pay off. We are definitely not the first country to think of this universal health care idea. There are many that are using it right now. For example, the great country of Canada. The one or two great stories you hear in the media does not mean it is working well for them. For example, a woman of Toronto had to give birth to quadruplets. The four girls ended up being born at a U.S. hospital because there was no space available at a Canadian neonatal intensive care unit. Is that what you would want to have to do when you're giving birth? Where would you run to, to give birth, can't go to Canada, can't stay here, is Mexico where you would want your kids being born? I sure hope not. On March 19th, 2005 Beth Duff-Brown reported in The Associated Press that a letter from a Canadian hospital to a New Brunswick heart patient in need of an electrocardiogram said that the appointment would be in three months, it also added "If there person named on this computer-generated letter is deceased, please accept out sincere apologies." Well, at least they give their sincere apologies hey? Oh wait, another example of why universal health care sucks. A 59-year old Ontario women on disability for a heart-related problem was complaining of age of discrimination after her local doctor rejected her. This was written on CTV.CA on March 17th, 2006. So, Great Britain is another country with great health care…right? Wrong, John Carvel wrong in the Guardian Unlimited on June 8th, 2007 saying, "One in eight Britain hospital patients still have to wait more than a year for treatments, the government acknowledged yesterday in its first attempt to tell the truth about health services." Another writer wrong in the BBC news on May 9th, 2007 saying that a third of stroke patients in Great Britain are stuck for over 3 months just to hear when they will be given their treatment. I don't know about you, but I don't think I want to be leaving my health care up to the government like that. Overall, you have to be crazy or communist to think universal health care is the key to the U.S. health care problems. There are many options that we can take to fix the problem instead of dealing with universal health care. The main thing we need to do is eliminate mandates. Mandates are things that the state and federal government require insurance policies to include. For example, there might be a mandate to have chiropractic service on your insurance policy. If we eliminate mandates, people buying health insurance can pick the things that they actually need and it will be much cheaper because they won't be paying for stuff that is useless. Another way to fix this problem is to control law suits against doctors. In this sue happy world we are in right now, baby doctors get sued all of the time if anything goes wrong in the labor. This leaves doctors needing more money which they get from the tax payers. I hope you all understand how serious universal health care is and realize it is not something you want to get the United States into.

Title: basic healthcare is a right Content: You idea in the first paragraph would work in theory. However, the reason people want universal health care is because they can't afford the medicine needed to cure their illness. With good reason with the cost of medicine rising, faster than inflation, people are finding necessary and life-saving medicine out of reach. Giving them health care will not solve the answer. Why? who picks up the tab on the medicine because someone has to pay for it, right? the insurance companies, but when hundreds of family's need these life-saving and sometimes expensive medicine these insurers can't keep giving out of charity or they will go out of business.* due to this they hand the cost down to the people it insures, that can be compensated if the poverty rate was kept in check however poverty is on the rise (14.7% or 46.7 Million) and the cost of medicine is going up you can't sustain that sort of trend for very long. The average family that makes between $50,000-60,000 and the cost of the average cost to have health care for that average family is 16,000 a year, do you really think that family can provide with the profit of the money when you add taxes and necessary expenditures? But of course how selfish of that family to think of itself when other people are suffering because those that are suffering wasted their lives not making the most of it and getting a degree and a paying job to pay for their own private health care. the reason other countries do not spend as much on their health care is because they do not offer health services only wait lists.* The reason we spend much more than any other country is because we have not yet realized the cost of having universal health care. We still believe that maintaining the same level and quality of health services will be available if we give it to all regardless of being able to pay it. Do you really believe that a country can maintain that level, that quality of health services; while still being able to pay it's doctors a livable salary (and one that can offset the cost of medical school) as well as maintain a premium that all citizens can pay and not have to sacrifice their family's true rights for the petty and immoral right of a universal health care? A universal health care is immoral, it feeds off of people who have worked hard and made a livable job that can pay for their families expenses; it forces families to give up the dream that America once embodied. The RIGHT to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; not the right to life, slavery, and the pursuit of handouts. *http://www.latimes.com... http://www.theatlantic.com... http://www.forbes.com... https://www.theobjectivestandard.com... http://www.forbes.com...

Title: basic healthcare is a right Content: I would like to know where you go that information or if you are just making the wind blow where you want. America does offer more services in their healthcare but that aside a major reason that it is less expensive is that the government takes care of the cost's. Of course this is not out of charity but comes in the form of a 75% income tax but you know everyone loves to get 25 cents out of every dollar they earn. That is how they are able to afford this way of health care. If you like having everything decided for you and have little to no freedom then universal healthcare is the way to go! Once the system is put into the government's hands then what difference is there in that and a monopoly. If the government has control over the entire system and all insurers fall under their dominion what is stopping them from raising the price of the healthcare. However the government would never do that, right? If some of you are thinking that the government's control of everything would be good than why aren't monopolies good? If an entity has absolute control over an area of life or a good than people would throw a fit that the entity was corrupt and there needs to be something done about it. However when the government does it people are all more than happy to fall in line and celebrate because the people running the government are all "good and moral" citizens. There is no difference between a monopoly and a government gone rampant for power. Therefore the notion of universal health care can not and should not be a right in any sense of the form, people deserve what they work for not what they whine for. http://www.theatlantic.com... http://www.npr.org... http://www.slate.com... http://taxfoundation.org...

Title: let it be resolved that universal health care is a bad idea Content: Universal health care is a bad idea. The best results will be achieved through a market. Instead of having the government pay for everyone's health care people should buy their own insurance for catastrophic care and pay straight up for routine visits.The government does not pay for universal health care. The citizens of the nation pays taxes, which pays for the health care. A market in health care would keep costs down because doctors would compete with each other for who can treat effectively for a lower price. However, universal health care actually would keep costs down. The taxes pay for them, and because everyone pays taxes but not everyone gets sick, your health care costs will be partly paid by someone else. Instead of having gigantic and waste there would be incentives in place for competing health care organizations to stream line and be more efficient.It is not waste. You pay for them using taxes. There will be some tax money spare because not everyone gets sick. The spare tax money can go to elsewhere, like eduation. Instead of it being impossible to find a family doctor - as it is in Canada - everyone who wants one will have one (basic supply and demand, there are no shortages on the free market if demand is high and supply is low price goes up but the service is always available). In Canada, we CAN find family doctors. My family doctor is just blocks away from me. Just because there is universal health care does not mean that alternatives are banned. My arguments are:The universal health care is more affordable. People pay for it with taxes. Due to how taxes work, the rich pays more. With the extra money that the riches pay, we can subsidize those who cannot afford health care. Universal health care also reduces waste, because it us tax money in the right place.Health care on the market is a bad idea, because the poor will not be able to afford it, compared to how the riches subsidize them using taxes in universal health care. Everyone has the right to life. [1] If patients with life threatening diseases were unable to pay and there is no universal heath care, it is effectively violating their right to life by preventing them from accessing the cure. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org...

Title: The United States Ought to Establish a Universal Healthcare Content: I affirm the resolution that the United States ought to establish Universal Healthcare. This will be a values based debate there for my value [premise] for the round is societal welfare. Because when promoting and allowing Universal healtcare to a population it allows people to get a basic need that is no longer based on income. It allows the moral obligation as stated by the word ought in the resolution to also be fulfilled. My value criterion is Healthcare Equality. Based off of the word ' ought ' stated in the resolution , It denotes that there is a moral obligation. In this instance there is a obligation to serve people and allow them the right to health and well-being. As for societal welfare this can allow people to be healthier , and increase lifespans. Contention 1 : The United States ought to adopt universal because it can allow and support the right of well-being. When people have healthcare that is good people are at a lesser risk for diseases that people with poor healthcare do and due to this , it is a given. In the current system , the more money you have the more efficient and comprehensive the healthcare you recieve. It has been proven that people who make $100,000.00 dollars a year will actually live longer than people who make $45,000.00 A year due to the inequalities in care. This alone has been examined here [ http://blogs.wsj.com... ] in this quote "In 1980, life expectancy at birth was 2.8 years more for the highest socioeconomic group than for the lowest. 6 By 2000, that gap had risen to 4.5 years." This alone makes it quite evident that over the course of 20 years , the disparity has actually gotten worse socio-economically. By establishing a system of universal healthcare we can bridge the socioeconomic disparity or decrease the disparity by very sizeable margin. " A major one is that 45 million Americans lack health insurance, while Canada and many European countries have universal health care, they say." Further examination shows that Macau ( China S.A.R ) , Japan , Andorra , San Marino , Hong Kong ( China S.A.R ) France , Switzerland , Sweden , Australia , Iceland , Canada , Italy , Monaco , Liechtenstein , Spain , and Norway all have higher life expectancies than the US and that is 13 of the 41 that rank above the United States in life expectancy. Most of these countries , Especially European ones and Japan , have a universal healthcare system of the sort that makes sure everyone is ensured and given medical care. Contention 2: The United States should support it's moral obligation by supporting societal welfare. The word ought stated in the resolution denotes a undenyable moral obligation. Therefore to not take up the policy of universal healthcare would be amoral and would be unjust. This also means that by not supporting the policy of universal healthcare we are not promoting societal welfare which is what the nation is about. In the end it's a matter of people living longer and healthier lives meanwhile being equal in healthcare. Or using a old system which continues to perpetuate the disparity in which the rich recieve healthcare at a higher quality than those who work hard every single day who cannot afford it. By supporting the moral obligation we can bring in a equality in healthcare that can improve lifespans , improve governmental accountability for it's people , follow a moral obligation , and promote societal welfare . For all of the stated above , I urge you must affirm.

Title: We need a universal health care system. Here's one idea. Content: I have yet to see anyone adequately defend a universal health care system. I propose that we NEED not just a system where everyone is covered, but a single-payer system where the government provides basic coverage for everyone while keeping private ownership of hospitals and doctors' offices. Such a system would weed out administrative overhead, as well as provide adequate leverage to keep drug and device costs down. The private, for-profit system is a perfect example of a market failure which requires government intervention, and is unsustainable in its current form. Therefore, I propose this: We adopt a single-payer national health insurance plan that covers all tax-paying adults up to $20,000 per year. This coverage would be contingent on filing a tax return and would cover all but elective, cosmetic surgery. People could combine their $20,000 coverage when they get married, providing $40,000 of coverage for their family. As of last year, 97% of everyone who sought health care spent just over $21,000 or less, so the $20,000 would cover about 96% of everyone's needs, leaving room for private catastrophic plans. This would function much like life insurance. You don't know when you'll need it, but you most likely will and will be very thankful when you do need it. Medicare and Medicaid will provide catastrophic coverage for the old and poor, and businesses will provide group catastrophic coverage. Since Medicare and Medicaid would have to provide a much smaller set of benefits, resources would be taken from these programs to help fund the national health insurance plan. After that, a plan similar to California's would be used where hospitals and doctors would be taxed to provide further funds for the program. In addition, a sales tax on the advertising, administration and lobbying expenditures of drug and device manufacturers would also be used to fund the program. Should any money be needed beyond that, a tax will be imposed starting at the top tax bracket and working down should more funds be needed. This seems like a good start. I look forward to anyone taking up this debate.

Title: We need a universal health care system. Here's one idea. Content: 1. The first arguement that id like to take up on this point is that yes medicare does help alot of people, lower income etc this just further fuels my point on point 4 so thank you. The second part is that while yes it does work it is not a universal program it only focuses on a section of the people not everyone. Also as a side note one person cant keep an entire system working and by saying you have a good president still wont solve the problem of having a working program, its just to big of a job. 2. The first point on this flow id like to say feeling good because its one less thing to worry about wont protect the people from the absurd taxing like you proposed in the plan. Also they wont be paying less because as it is now the companies help pay and fund the different insurances. In all a unviersal health care would completely collapse our already fraying economy. 3. So this whole argument contradicts the point of a universal health care, to keep hospitals and doctors still private would not reach the perspective of a universal health care since not everyone is entitled to the same thing. Bringing us back to the heart of capitalism, competition which will be lacking if the plan is implemented. 4. Your still missing the point there are systems like Medicare like you mention that cover people who are in need of it. The reason why I mentioned this is because you could argue that if people wouldn't get attention which i was proving incorrect but since you agree theres no need to argue this any more. 5. Really the points you make here are just not true, when funded by the government like every other program ran by the government the doctors will be told what to do and how to do it. I mentioned India because they have a universal health care system and it is one of the poorest in the world this being the leading reason, doctors don't care as much anymore. 6. No it wouldn't lower because in this new system everyone basically pays the same amount, for people like me I go in once a year for a physical other than that I'm relatively healthy so why should i pay that much more, when other people who choose a unhealthy lifestyle and cost more a year eventually raising prices for me to help take care of the unhealthy person thats why a universal health care system would be bad. 7. While that may be true eventually its the transition that will kill the economy before the cavalry comes. Also look to point 8 on the flow and this ties in with this point in the fact that less doctors would want to do the job so they wouldn't be in such large demand. 8. Again look to point 3 and how this contradicts the point of a universal health care if everything is still privatized. To deny the fact that doctors become doctors because of the fame and status is just ignorant, sure some may not fit the type but the vast majority do. 9. So basically your conceding to the fact that since our health coverage is working why change it so thank you. As another side note any country with a universal health coverage none of them have a good system, just a bare system. Also its not a right its a privilege that you should work hard for not be given to you on a silver spoon. 10. The point to this argument here is that health care in other nations like India, see point 5, because they are so poor and ours is so great changing that would hurt everything in our medical infrastructure and see my other points as to how universal cant be socialized or privatized. It may not be everyone which yeah i suppose i can attest to that but in the status quo nothing is broken when you compare us to every other country, just try and name one with a better health system.

Title: basic healthcare is a right Content: I will agree that is is a right of humanity to take what is needed to survive and that has become hard for people to do today due to population. Due to this population increase there are stories and markets that supply our needs to survive however healthcare should not be a basic right and if it were, it would be deadly to the society it was introduced.We see it right now in America where everyone is already or being forced to have healthcare, the average family pays about $16,000 a year.* The average family income falls in between $50,000-60,000.* This high healthcare cost is due to everyone being forced to have healthcare, even those who do not need it, the cost is high because completely healthy people are forced to pay for those who can't afford it. If healthcare were to be a basic right as it is becoming in America the cost of $16,000 per average family would go up drastically and due to the flood of immigrants, who are making a new life and can not be expected to pay anything, and the rise of poverty would add strain to the economy that would break it in the end. Some would retort that the government is there to distribute money to help the poor and underprivileged, raising the income of a family, thereby reducing the strain on the healthcare cost. I put forth this question, "Where does this money come from?" If the government is giving money to the lower classes where does the money to do so come from? It comes from one of two sources, one source is that the government prints from the bank. That brings problems with itself in the form of inflation, the more a government prints money the more the value of the money goes down. An example would be Germany in 1921 After World War 1. Germany under war debts turned to printing money to pay it's debts off but the repercussions were traumatic to the country as at one point 1 US dollar equaled 800 German Marks. * Of course the more favored way is to tax the upper echelon for the money needed to give to lower class. Although there lies the poison apple that many countries are biting today. If one's country puts a heavy tax on the class that is sustaining the economy such as Walmart, Target, Ford, Apple, Xbox, and the "1%" that make all the money and provide all our needs to survive than those businesses and people would be making an income equal to a middle class family but still trying to support their businesses and slowly but surely the business would die off. Plus those working hard in the middle class and being taxed to death for the sake of the poor at one point would say, "Screw this if I am working hard to make less than those who don't work than I would rather not work and get the benefits." This would led to a degenerate culture hellbent on playing the system to get more benefits and money till it breaks. A culture who tries to make everyone have the same standard of living by causing others to fall no matter what it is, whether it is healthcare, income level, or by giving different tax rates for different class levels is doomed to fail miserably. * http://www.ncsl.org... *http://www.mybudget360.com... *https://en.wikipedia.org...

Title: Universal health care can actually strengthen doctor pay Content: If there are more insured patients within a universal health care system, more people will seek health care. As such, there will be more paying patients in a universal health care system, which will result in more income for doctors. Doctors will also spend less time on paper work, be more efficient, service more patients, and so make more money.

Title: Implementing some form of Universal Healthcare in the United States would be beneficial Content: First, I will argue against my opponent's remarks and then make my closing statement. ** Of course not everyone in this country is handicap. I never implied that. I just used that as an example of who cannot "take care of themselves" as you put it, without a little assistance. ** As far as people being "nice" in this country, that is not at all important. If faced with a crisis I would like to think that we would all pull together for the greater good of our country. I really don't think people would be opposed to paying more in taxes to help the elderly, children, and handicapped (those who probably wouldn't be working). ** One of our basic inalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence is life. We have the right to protect our lives and not harm others. I see universal healthcare as a means of protecting life, our inalienable right, by making sure that our health concerns are ALWAYS being met. ** I think the fear of medical records among all other things, being stolen is quite ludicrous. As I mentioned above so much of our personal information is already stored in databases without any problems. ** Other remarks by my opponent will be addressed in the following closing statement: -- In 2007 Director Michael Moore made a documentary called "SiCKO" about the United States failing healthcare system. In SiCKO, Michael Moore reports that the homeless population in Great Britain can expect to live up to three years longer than some of the wealthiest Americans simply because they do not suffer any health problems. The fact that Great Britain has the National Health Service to provide all citizens with free preventative medicine, full prescriptions, surgeries, hospital lodging, and outpatient care has enabled them to live longer than Americans regardless of social class. Michael Moore also discovered that doctors in Great Britain are able to focus on getting patients to stop unhealthy habits like smoking and poor eating because there are incentives for doing so. If we modeled, our system after Great Britain's we too could have those needed benefits and reduce our mortality rates. According to a 2007 CRS (Congressional Research Service) report, "The average life expectancy for a person in the United States is 77 ï¿½ years — slightly below the OECD average, and 4ï¿½ years less than Japan. Life expectancy is nearly 2ï¿½ years longer in Canada than in the United States. The United States is ranked 22nd out of 30 countries on life expectancy at birth, but once people reach the age of 65, U.S. life expectancy improves to a rank of 11th for men and 13th for women out of 30 countries reporting. Between 1960 and 2004, the United States gained 7.6 years of life expectancy — 2years less than the OECD average of 9.7 years of additional life expectancy. Life expectancy tends to increase as countries spend more on health care per capita, except at very high levels of spending, as in the United States". Another feature unique to universal healthcare is a national database of patient medical records (Messerli). Having a national database would link hospitals across the country and enable them to access the patient's medical records quickly and efficiently. There would be no need to fill out your entire medical history every time you move or visit a new doctor. All medical information would be kept in a computer database and updated by medical professionals (SiCKO). I think that eliminating all of the paperwork from medical history, patient update, and billing forms by incorporating universal healthcare would also be a major stride for the Green Movement. -- When it comes to U.S. spending it is a definite fact that the United States spends more than any other industrialized country and gets significantly less. "In 2006, U.S. health care spending exceeded 16% of the nation's GDP. To put U.S. spending into perspective: the United States spent 15.3% of GDP on health care in 2004, while Canada spent 9.9%, France 10.7%, Germany 10.9%, Sweden 9.1%, and the United Kingdom 8.7%. Or consider per capita spending: the United States spent $6,037 per person in 2004, compared to Canada at $3,161, France at $3,191, Germany at $3,169, and the U.K. at $2,560" (Harrison). May I also mention that in France and Canada everyone has healthcare and in the United States there are almost 46 million people under 65 who are uninsured. -- Overall, implementing some form of universal healthcare would be beneficial to the United States both economically and physically. Like the British system, we would have doctors who are able to practice preventative medicine or unhealthy habits, lower per capita spending on health care, and ultimately live longer healthier lives. Although paying more taxes may be a burden at first, the long term benefits for our nation must be considered. Living a life where you do not have to forgo medical treatment because of cost or bankrupt yourself to pay medical bills would be ideal. I believe that a slight tax increase to provide free healthcare to myself to and millions who don't have it is a small sacrifice to make for the greater good of everyone. Resolution Affirmed. References: 1. Joe Messerli. BalancedPolitics.org, http://balancedpolitics.org... 2. SiCKO.Dir. Michael Moore. Dog Eat Dog Films,2007. 3. 2007 CRS Report. http://assets.opencrs.com... 4. Joel Harrison. DollarsandSense.org. http://tinyurl.com... 5. National Coalition on Healthcare. http://tinyurl.com...

Title: Universal Health Care System Content: A Universal Health Care system, such as one present in Canada, is the superior way to provide health services to citizens of a country. First, people from various socioeconomic classes present in society are all guaranteed access to the same levels of health care. All individuals are able to access health care providers regardless of their income or ability to afford care. All citizens have the right to access to specialists. Second, there is less of a divide/discrimination between classes. Every person, no matter how rich or poor, are subject to the same wait times and have access to the same health care providers. A person with money does not have any sort of special privileges in accessing health services. the rich are not able to access quicker care simply because they can afford to do so. A person cannot jump the queue simply because they can afford to do so. This increases the fairness of how care is distributed amongst the members of a society. Third, the health of a population is overall better with universal health care. People that previously may not have accessed care simply because they cannot afford to so are, are able to express their health concerns and receive treatment without the worry of finances. Overall, Universal Health Care is a superior way in providing health services to a population.

Title: The U.S. ought to guarantee Universal Healthcare to its citizenry Content: For this Round I shall be defending my own case, in response to the Con"s rebuttal. The Con begins by claiming that I fail to warrant why UHC allows us greater freedom to engage in society. My Sub-point C, however, clearly explains the warrant for this. Furthermore, it stands to reason that healthy individuals, individuals who are not constantly afraid of becoming sick because they could not afford treatment, and individuals who are not forced by necessity into paying usurious private healthcare premiums will be more able to do the things they want to do, both physically, financially, and emotionally. I will now offer a point-by-point defense of my case. One: Uninsured (A) My opponent cites two statistics to lessen the impact of the number of uninsured. Firstly, I would point out that the $50,000 represents a household income that has to support all of the family members of that household. It is therefore possible that this income is stretched thin to provide for everyone. Additionally, that number says very little about where people are actually living"certain neighborhoods will cost more to live in than others. Consider that most Americans homes, according to the source she cites (Figure 3), make $75,000 or more. That"s a $25,000 spending difference, and indicates that the Con is not necessarily correct when she states "do not have [UHC] because they don"t want and don"t need it."In fact, it is very possible that many still can"t afford it, even at that income level. This seems even more plausible when you consider that, according to the Cato report she cites, the average cost of health insurance in the U.S. for a household is $12,106"24.2% of those families net income. Finally, even if we buy that 37% might be able to afford healthcare"which is a stretch"that still means that 63% are far less likely to be able to afford it. Then, the Con goes on to talk about how 40% of the uninsured are between 18-34. Yet, that means that 60% are not. Additionally, younger individuals tend to lack stable incomes, and, according to her source, tend to come from minority groups that historically and statistically have fewer resources. They may be "healthier" but they"re not impervious to illness"even the young need healthcare. (B) 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"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. Similarly, a RAND Corporation study found serious gaps in the quality of care received by American children." She claims higher survival rates outweigh my evidence, yet her survival rates are for very specific ailments, and are not indicative of the system in general, nor do they take into account the problems her own source observes in the U.S. system. Finally, I have yet to see a warrant for the taxi cab argument. (C) Firstly, I discussed the notion of solvency in my earlier remarks. Secondly, according to the Nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, 30 million people will remain uninsured under Obamacare. Therefore, all of the harms of uninsurance remain in existence. Also, the "comparatively cheap" fine will increase over time until it becomes a rather large one. Furthermore, the Con cannot solve because of the 50 million currently uninsured, Obamacare will still leave 60% of them uninsured. (D) Her evidence for her "20%" assertion is a study conducted by LocumTenens.com. This firm, lobbied Congress through the GA Chamber of Commerce to reject Obamacare because of what it called, "economically harmful" practices that would be emplaced. It seems then that this "20%" study could have been more a tool to save it from having to pay out additional funds, rather than a legitimate study. Furthermore, the survey polled doctors who practiced mostly in the South. This tends to be a more conservative area, which would bias the study and make it inapplicable to the nation as a whole. (E) My opponent seems to agree that uninsurance is a problem. She claims, nevertheless, that UHC is not the answer because it create worse outcomes, and that I have no evidence to prove otherwise. However, both in my round one and round two statements, I have providence evidence about the benefits of UHC, in particular citing how it would actually benefit the economy, how it would reduce emotional suffering, enable more people to receive care, etc. I have also shown that the Con"s plan of Obamacare would leave huge numbers uninsured"that it is not "universal." I have also demonstrated, through Kao-ping and Casoy specifically, how uninsurance actually produces the "worse outcomes." Ultimately, it is by eliminating uninsurance that UHC solves the problem. Two: Security (A) The WHO evidence I provided in round two is clearly analysis "on outcomes from countries with UHC to see if they"re any better." Furthermore, just making things cheaper doesn"t solve the problem. If I can"t afford a drug at $100, but still can"t afford it when the price is reduced to $75, then I haven"t been helped. Everyone still needs insurance. (B) Obamacare does not solve, as I discussed earlier. Additionally, I provided more information on the impacts of the economics argument at the close of my round two statements. It also stands to reason that communicable disease will spread if people can"t get care because they lack insurance. My opponent never attacks this line of reasoning. She merely claims that, while that might be true, I offer no concrete impacts. However, even without those impacts, it also stands to reason that the spread of disease is something that we should attempt to reduce, regardless of the extent of the threat. So, you can accept the logical warrant for why UHC (by enabling more care through providing insurance) would reduce the spread of disease, which provides a reason for why UHC is good. (C) The Murray evidence is not reliant of testimony, and shows clear economic benefits to UHC. Additionally, here is some more information on Thorpes study, as researched and reported by the CBO: "This study did not just focus on expanding access; it also assumed significant systemic changes including administrative simplification, computerized physician order entry, an automated patient safety/error reporting system, reduction in inappropriate clinical practice variation, and controls of provider payments and premiums to reach target goals in expenditure growth. According to Thorpe"s analysis"[universal healthcare] would save between $320.5 billion"and"$1.1 trillion." (D) The NPR source only lists concrete economic problems in France and the UK"two countries cannot be used to condemn UHC as a whole, especially when the NPR source notes that Germany, by making several reforms, is doing better. In fact, the report never states that any of these systems lack viability. Rather, it seems to point out that with some tweaking, UHC could work fine. Three: Self-esteem All address all the points as one. All of this information illustrates and emphasizes the harms of uninsurance"the major problems with the Con. Taken in conjunction with other evidence I have provided, it does show why UHC is needed, from a moral perspective. It is what we "ought" to do. It"s not just the contagiously ill, but the disabled and chronically ill who are ostracized, and that"s something we should seek to minimize in a democracy. Universal care and universal insurance will combat this, and solve the problem. Finally, I don"t need to offer a system because we agreed that we weren"t talking about particular systems or forms of UHC. With that, I look forward to Round Three.

Title: The U.S. should have Universal health care Content: No problem my fellow opponent, I realize that everyone has busy schedules, including myself. Nevertheless, I will continue to back up my previous arguments and also introduce new ideas. Universal Health Care ideally works to improve the overall health of a nation by covering everybody. As I mentioned before, Universal health care does not cover eveything such as prescripted drugs in countries such as Canada. In Canada, Universal Healthcare is funded through cash and tax transfers from the provinces and territories to help pay for health services. Therefore, Universal health care would improve the overall health of a nation such as the U.S. and would also help the U.S economically by decreasing medical debt. Universal health care is better than the current health system in the U.S in three fundamental aspects. It covers virtually everybody, covers more services, and covers one hundred percent of the cost for health services. Universal health care is successful in a number of countries, so there is ample evidence that it could work in the United State. Universal Healthcare works in a number of countries, so there is ample evidence that it would work in the U.S. The question I ask to my opponent is: " Why shouldn't the U.S. have Universal Healthcare?"Sources:http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca...http://www.livestrong.com...

Title: Universal health care nuts should also be in favor of universal food, shelter, clothing, etc. Content: So it seems I've taken the resolution a little off-topic from where the instigator intended for it to go. Very well, I do not think it will hurt my case or my position in this debate -- As Con, I must prove why advocates of universal health care should NOT also be advocating for universal food, shelter or clothing. Got it. Well consider R1 to be a detailed explanation of why advocates of UHC are calling for it in the first place, and they are not "nuts" but rather concerned (and sometimes desperate) Americans who are enforcing their constitutional right to call for change. In terms of this debate, Pro has asked that I explain the so-called inconsistency of singling out health care by wanting to make health care universal, whereas other basic human needs like food and clothing are above health care in terms of the hierarchy of necessity, yet people aren't advocating for socialized shelter. First, as I've pointed out, universal food, shelter and clothing are already provided to those in need by the government. Pro notes, "But none of these programs provide these core necessities to everyone universally." This is true; one must qualify and meet the living standards deemed appropriate to receive "free" food and shelter. However this is because there is not enough funding in the tax budget to distribute to everyone but those who are deemed in dire need. #1 - Americans don't want to raise taxes for universal food, shelter and clothing, because that would essentially turn us into a communist nation. Specifically making health care universal would NOT turn us into a communist nation, as is demonstrated by other countries who implement universal health care and are not communist (i.e. Canada, Britain and France). #2 - One could buy food to live with just a few dollars a day; however, some medical care and costs can be thousands upon thousands of dollars, putting families into debt and/or causing them to seek no treatment at all (which may cost them their health/lives). Prescription drugs, operations or other medical procedures, doctor visits, etc. are all a lot more expensive than these basic needs, especially because there are often no alternatives. ... For instance, if I broke a bone and needed surgery, there is no getting around that. But if I'm hungry and can't afford a gourmet meal or even a fast food meal, there's always the option of buying a bag of Ramen noodles for 25 cents, or in a moment of desparation, even taking left-over food out of the trash (such as some homeless people often resort to). However while one can build a make-shift place to live (even from a cardboard box) and survive, one cannot perform heart surgery on themselves, for instance, thus making health care a greater need. The same example applies to buying a t-shirt at a craft store for $2 as opposed to an Armani shirt for $200. Third, keep in mind that not only the impoverished can benefit from universal health care. The middle class often cannot afford health insurnace while they CAN afford food, shelter and clothing. Thus my opponent has tried to conclude that it is not logical for one to support universal health care and not support universal food; however, he is trying to draw a link where there is none. While I do deem food a greater necessity than health care in general (in terms of life or death), that does not mean that we - as a nation - need universal food more than we need universal health care. So again, offering universal food, clothing and shelter would turn us into a communist nation. We already have programs that offer assistance in these areas to those in dire need. However the establishment of universal health care would NOT turn us into a communist nation. Instead, it would eliminate the high cost charged by insurance companies, and we'd pay less money for (at least) equal or better health care. Everyone would receive this benefit - not just the rich, and not just the poor. Keep in mind that making health care universal could/would probably increase the salary one earns, because offering health insurance would no longer be a perk of a job offer. They'd have to find other incentives to reward their employees with. Hmm. All-in-all, I have pointed out why universal health care is a good idea, while offering universal food, clothing and shelter is not. Universal health care would SAVE people money, whereas the taxation from all of those other goods would cost people money. It also just doesn't make sense in general, whereas universal health care does make sense. So basically, even if you don't agree with universal health care, that's fine... but to say that supporters of UHC should also support other universal programs is presumptious and frankly kind of absurd.

Title: Universal benefits of human rights Content: The recognition and enforcement of fundamental human rights would and does not benefit everyone equally. For example a strong man in a society where he can use the threat of his strength to cause others to serve him against their will stands to lose his comfortable life, in which he is happier, if the weaker men's right to security of person is guaranteed. This loss is a far greater harm to him than the small potential that he might be replaced by an even stronger man who appears. Therefore not everyone benefits from the recognition of fundamental human rights, and so they cannot be termed either fundamental or universal, as they advance the interests of some at the expense of others. Similarly the international examples show how those in famine-prone areas benefit at the expense of those in more prosperous areas. Moreover, the excuse of 'protecting human rights' can be used as easily to advance neo-colonial or imperial ambitions on the part of one nation against another as it can be used to justify intervening in famines, so the net gain is far from clear-cut.[1] [1] Bosco, David “Is human rights just the latest utopia?” Foreign Policy Magazine. Tuesday, July 5, 2011.

Title: The US Government should grant universal healthcare to its citizens. Content: Since my opponent has fore-fitted this round I will take this opportunity to voice my opinions on the topic without sources. I feel the first 2 sources were compelling enough in my opening statement. I feel that there is a bias of social class when it comes to health care to begin with. The low income jobs that actually offer benefits are very few and far between. That being said when benefits are offered to low income individuals the premiums(in my experience) take roughly 1/10 of income for decent coverage. Along with the minimum wage guidelines it would be near impossible to maintain a steady household with insurance and other necessities. Basically I'm saying that if you have a high income job you probably have great coverage on insurance. Therefore never having to worry about if you get hurt. If you were to become ill without insurance you pay an astronomical bill. It's a system of maintaining the social classes with minimal opportunity for advancement.

Title: Universal healthcare Content: Thanks for the pleasantries. I am against universal health care, but not because it doesn't sound nice. It certainly does. We're all liberals at heart. In fact universal housing, food, clothing, cars, college, income, etc.(etc, etc, etc, ad nauseam) also sound very attractive. The only problem is this: no one has a right to any of it. This country currently confiscates gobs of money from its rightful owners to provide a plenitude of unearned goods and services to undeserving and largely ungrateful recipients. Do we really need one more form of wealth redistribution in this country? Might we stop before there is nothing left to distinguish us from your average European country?

Title: Basic income tax should be abolished Content: Yes Reasons

Title: The U.S. should have Universal health care Content: Universal Healthcare should be established in America for the following reasons. First of all, Universal healthcare provides basic, satisfactory healthcare to those who can least afford it. For example, if a homeless person got stabbed and needed urgent medical help, a country such as England or Canada would give emergency aid and it wouldn't cost a cent. In fact, in Canada, the only thing you have to pay for is perscribed drugs and medical casts. Also in 2001 study in the U.S., up to 46.2 percent of bankruptcies were because of Medical debt. This was when the economy was decent.Does the U.S. really need anymore debt than we're in right now? Medicare helps lower debt since you do not have to pay for the majority of medical expenses. Universal Healthcare works in a number of countries and would help the U.S. socially and economically. Not only that, but it is fair and equitable for everybody.It certainly would help the U.S and I don't see how America's current health care system would be any better than Universal Healthcare.Sources:http://www.livestrong.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...

Title: Implementing some form of Universal Healthcare in the United States would be beneficial Content: Obviously I agree that people with a handicap can't take care of themselves. However, not every person in the country has a handicap. You said that people would pay through taxes for the health care for themselves, and others because it's the right thing to do. I hate to be the one to point this out, but not everyone in this country is that nice. No one should be "entitled" to anything. We should ALL work to achieve what's best for us individually. As for the preventing ailments, I stick by what I said. Even with what you just said. With having there be no lab fees, no co-pay, no monetary worries, people will still take advantage. They will be more inclined to see what they can get out of the system. I still find the always available records are dangerous. I will agree that they would be handy for patients and doctors. However, having a "lock and key" doesn't guarantee safety of records. I can tell you that if I was a patient, I wouldn't allow my information to be posted on these records. I don't trust the security that you are suggesting. I don't think that universal health care would reduce mortality rates. Having unlimited access to doctor's won't do anything. It isn't going to cure cancer patients, or any other incurable disease.

Title: Universal Health Care Content: The Hippocratic Oath is very relevant. The doctor are in the moral obligation to treat anyone. Not only those who can afford it. A person who owns a humble job and just earn enough to live cant afford 17.000$ on medical bills -which is the main cause of bankruptcy in america by the way*-, now, not earning more than 70.000 a year is a reasonable reason to not get access to medical care? 25 million people had lost their jobs due to the economic recession, with no job they cant afford it, is that a reason to not get medical care? And if someone think they like to be unemployed. Who likes to be unemployed? There are people outside looking for job, company's cant hired them due to slow economic. If is only in the individual hands to be responsible; what could a man do to make more money without a job and no one who hire him? The answer is: assaulting, stealing,thieving. Is not a coincidence that the poorest neighborhoods are the most dangerous. It would be just moving backwards.

Title: The United States should design a universal health care system. Content: I'll get right to it also. Thank you for such a challenge. 1. I don't know if you understand this, but telling me that the uninsured can't afford health insurance means nothing to me. I realize that and I know we need to change things so they can get health insurance. Examples would be withdrawing mandates for individual insurance policies, fostering Health Savings Accounts for day-to-day medical expenses, making health insurance true indemnity insurance and not health maintenance. 2. Why are you avoiding "he burden would be spread to everyone." I think that is part of privacy. Now your health problems are mine and mine are yours. Whether it is part of privacy or not, why did you avoid the argument I was making in my second round? 3. Do you have any kind of evidence for the mentioning of saving $286 Billion on paper work? What kind of paper work does that consist of? Do you realize how many law suits are going on right now because of health care. I stated it in my opening argument. If we have universal health care, people will be going to the doctors that much more because it is free. They don't have to worry about deductibles or anything to that such. Therefore with more people being at the doctor, there is more chances of the doctors being sued which is a huge cost to doctors and the government. 4. As far as doctors go. I found an article that did an actual survey on a certain amount of doctors. It is located here: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com... It basically says that many doctors admit to turning there head to medical errors that are done. They are suppose to report every serious medical error, and in the survey done, some doctors admitted that they don't do that. If the doctors were basically only concerned about the care of patients (like you said) then why would this be happening in hospitals? 5. You fail to understand? Is that because you just don't want to understand or you actually failed? If you are actually a failure at understanding, I don't get it. It makes perfect sense. You can't tell me that they are going to raise our taxes to 40 % of income, because that would make people go crazy. So, to account for this, they are going to have to raise the taxes somewhat and then cut on other spending so taxes don't get to ridiculous. Therefore, they are going to have to cut spending on something. Whether it is medical research, defense, education, whatever, there are going to have to be some cuts in something. 6. Whether that is true or not, that study was from 2000. I'm not sure if it has changed or not, but that is 8 years ago now. And it came out in 2000 so that means that research had to of been done before 2000 and that had to take awhile. None the less, you don't have to tell me twice that our health care system is bad. You wouldn't even have to tell me once, because I realize that. Now, are you able to tell me that ALL those countries ahead of us have universal health care? Probably not therefore leading to my point that universal health care is not need to be said to have the best health care accord to "WHO". 7. Yes, I did argue that they are somewhat biased. I never voted in any of those polls, so that's leaving out at least me. Maybe everyone else in the U.S. voted on those polls but not me. I don't find that realistic. Saying the U.S. wants universal health care because of an internet poll or what some reporter says, really does nothing to me. I can go out and talk out of my butt and probably get some people to believe me. But I am not going to do that, instead I am going to sit here and talk the truth and try to educate people. The democracy and everyone has a right to health care point that you were trying to make, makes sense to me. But realize, everyone DOES have a right to health care right now. Some may have to pay more than others, some not. Everyone has the right to insurance, somewhere. You can bring up the movie Sicko that says some people were denied insurance, but overall that is not true. I work in the insurance field and I deal with things like this all the time. Some companies may deny them, but there are always companies that will take people in. 8. As far as this goes, look at other countries with universal health care, they are put on lists just to get looked at. Come on, why should we be doing this to ourselves? I look at the DMV and VA and realize that those are 2 government ran agencies near me and people HATE going to both of them. I don't want to hate going to the doctor. 9. Please explain to me what paperwork are we loosing when we have universal health care. Does that still cover all of the paper work for the patients, the health care cards that need to be printed for everyone, the more law suits that will be happening, and all of these expenses? I think you should think about that number a little more. Is the GOVERNMENT really spending that much money on paperwork right now? I think more like the insurance companies might be spending a lot of money on paperwork, but I don't see how the government can be responsible for all THAT much paperwork that will now be gone. Your New Point - As far as that goes, there are many options that we can go about using to fix our health care. Some that I said above. For you to say that you know of no other options, that sounds like a very liberal remark and maybe you should stick your head out of the liberal media box and get welcomed into the real world. Do you listen to our great President George W. Bush talk? Maybe you should because he has mentioned many new ideas. Do you listen to the presidential debates for the republican side? Maybe you should because the talk about many options available to us. I would like to say that I have talked a lot to your very little, you were just saying how I am wrong with the things I brought up and nothing really to say other than "Your Wrong, Next". I appreciate you taking part in this debate and hope I maybe helped you swing to the other side a little bit and opened it up a little more for you. Good luck and thanks!

Title: America should have universal healthcare Content: Would encourage people to go for healthcare when they need it.

Title: There are basic standards of justice which merit global application. Certain crimes against humanit... Content: There are basic standards of justice which merit global application. Certain crimes against humanity offend against basic and universal norms of justice. Therefore, all people have an interest in seeing them upheld and should have the legitimate expectation that this will happen. It is a fallacy to argue that asserting universal rights is a form of cultural imperialism. As long as the universal jurisdiction is focused on serious transgressions that are clear violations of the global judicial code (e.g genocide, torture mistreatment of prisoners of war), issues of differing cultural practices are irrelevant.

Title: Universal Health Care in the US Content: Okay, but not everyone has access to these religious places as you have stated. In my area, there aren't any churches because my cities and the ones around it aren't religious. I am ultimately really confused by what are you trying to say. Because you say, "people should be encouraged to have health care (what does that mean? What if they can't afford it?)." Then you say, "I simply think that there are other more moral ways for the money to be raised for those that can't afford it." Can you give some examples? And then you talk about the churches, but as I have already stated, that isn't the most reliable way to help poor people.

Title: basic healthcare is a right Content: medicine is cheaper in universal healthcare countires too. the main reason it's cheaper in those places along with healthcare in general is because the government negotiaties and sometimes regultaes the prices lower. and lower administrative costs getting rid of the insurance middleman. that also rebuts your ideas for why you think it's cheaper... not because of rationed healthcare. though if you are poor, rationaed healthcare is better than none. and in those counties that have waitlines and such, you can buy supplemental insurance and get bettre faster care. but single payer countires like france are rated better than the USA in terms of healthcare. countrary to myth, france for example has less wait times than we do, less paperwork, and better choice of doctors.

Title: The U.S. should have Universal health care Content: It is unfortunate that my opponent forfeited this round. My only question i this: "Why shouldn't the U. S. have a health care system covers every medical service except prescribed drugs for every man, woman and child, regardless of their financial circumstance or age. Therefore, I conclude that Universal Health Care is better that America's current health system and is even the best type of health care system in the world.

Title: let it be resolved that universal health care is a bad idea Content: Universal health care is a bad idea. The best results will be achieved through a market. Instead of having the government pay for everyone's health care people should buy their own insurance for catastrophic care and pay straight up for routine visits. A market in health care would keep costs down because doctors would compete with each other for who can treat effectively for a lower price. Instead of having gigantic and waste there would be incentives in place for competing health care organizations to stream line and be more efficient. Because they are bill patients and not the government doctors will be less likely to price gouge. Doctors who were trained in other countries would be able to practice because we would eliminate licensure and take away the special privileges of the doctor's cartels. After abolishing licensure pharmacists could also compete with doctors. Instead of rationing health care - as all nations which practice socialized medicine do - we would not ration health care. Instead of it being impossible to find a family doctor - as it is in Canada - everyone who wants one will have one (basic supply and demand, there are no shortages on the free market if demand is high and supply is low price goes up but the service is always available).

Title: All people should receive the same income Content: Alright, I shall respond to the questions as a refutation. "How would this fixed sum be defined?' It should be defined by the government in accordance with the pricing of economic output. For example, if all employed citizens got an income of $25 an hour, which would mean $4000 a month on average over the course of a year which would be $48,000 a year would be effectively eliminated because everyone who has a job will be able to pay their bills and satisfy their needs and, to a degree, their desires including savings in which people can become successful by merely saving such income. Thus, employed people would no longer live in poverty. " Is it really justified for someone who say is, a waitress/waiter to get paid the same amount as a doctor or lawyer?" That is subjective, however both individuals are contributing to satisfying the desires and needs of the population and thus should get paid the same amount an hour. And you might think this would be a disincentive, however this is not the case. For one, you would still have to work to earn a wage and a lot of people, and if not they took an oath to do it until they die, enjoy their work. As a result, not many doctors would leave because they still get paid and still work more hours thus they would make more than the McDonalds employee. A doctor who works 12 hours a day will earn 300 more dollars than the McDonalds employee. Not to mention, this actually would expand job growth to some level because if you're going to quit your job because you aren't getting paid a certein amount, you must hate it in the first place and thus you probably are terrible at it. This actually opens up more people to work in other vital industries such as agriculture and food distribution, and other jobs for people who want that particular one. A lot of people would happily work for a hospital for FREE, and many people would also work as a lawyer for next to no pay. People do things and like to do things, and open access to higher education free of tuition would make this a lot better and expand economic growth overall. So not only would this resolve many of the pyschologically destructive nature of economic inequality, this would also bring us closer to a moneyless society. Not to mention, ceterin economic preconditions such as establishing democratic workers self-management in industries would create a bigger incentive to work. Your third question, I baisclaly anwsered this. However, my official position is there should be a minimum and maximum ratio of pay (a universal minimum and maximum wage if you will) in regards to the difficulty and time put into a job but if should slowly move into equal pay for all. In regards to your last question, I believe fees for human rights such as education should be paid by taxes. Also, we speant trillions on nonsense like increasing military speanding. We have the money for this, we just don't use it wisely.

Title: The United States should replace Obamacare with a universal Medicare for All System Content: I am not going to provide any definitive arguments until the second round after my opponent clarifies his premise.Challenged Premise: Everyone needs to be under one universal healthcare system.Why does everyone need to be covered under a universal system, be it Medicare or single-payer? Once, my opponent answers this, I will offer all of my arguments in Round 2.

Title: Universal Healthcare be provided to all American citizens Content: 1) The Senate voted in 2007 to discontinue a number of government organizations that have added onto the already dismal economy and guess what. They voted to not discontinue any of them, so your arguement, while sensible, is unrealistic with our current government.* 2) You said that the government-run healthcare system would be non-profit. This is again unrealistic, because an average of 45% of donations to non-profit organizations goes to funding basic costs, and believe it or not, salaries of workers. ** 3) This claim is completely false. Hospitals are required to treat every patient, regardless of their financial status. So they are definitely not excluded. here are three new points... 1)Patients aren't likely to curb their drug costs and doctor visits if health care is free; thus, total costs will be several times what they are now. Co-pays and deductibles were put in place because there are medical problems that are more minor annoyances than anything else. Sure, it would be nice if we had the medical staff and resources to treat every ache and pain experienced by an American, but we don't. For example, what if a patient is having trouble sleeping? What if a patient has a minor cold, flu, or headache? There are scores of problems that we wouldn't go to a doctor to solve if he had to pay for it; however, if everything is free, why not go? The result is that doctors must spend more time on non-critical care, and the patients that really need immediate help must wait. In fact, for a number of problems, it's better if no medical care is given whatsoever. The body's immune system is designed to fight off infections and other illnesses. It becomes stronger when it can fight things off on its own. Treating the symptoms can prolong the underlying problem, in addition to the societal side effects such as the growing antibiotic resistance of certain infections.*** 2) Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care. When government controls things, politics always seep into the decision-making. Steps will have to be taken to keep costs under control. Rules will be put in place as to when doctors can perform certain expensive tests or when drugs can be given. Insurance companies are already tying the hands of doctors somewhat. Government influence will only make things worse, leading to decreased doctor flexibility and poor patient care.**** 3) Healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc. Universal health care means the costs will be spread to all Americans, regardless of your health or your need for medical care, which is fundamentally unfair. Your health is greatly determined by your lifestyle. Those who exercise, eat right, don't smoke, don't drink, etc. have far fewer health problems than the smoking couch potatoes. Some healthy people don't even feel the need for health insurance since they never go to the doctor. Why should we punish those that live a healthy lifestyle and reward the ones who don't?**** * www.usc.edu/econdept/healthcare **www.balancedpolitics.org ***www.universityofchicago.edu/levitt/essay4 ****www.usatoday.com/health

Title: Universal Health Care Content: \\\You should get your facts right. What Universal Health care does (or at least the one proposed in America) is it requires people to buy health insurance. It doesn't give it to them for free. You have to pay it either directly or through taxes. The public option might be cheaper, but it still costs money, which some people don't have. /// My facts are right sid. You pay through it in taxes, of course. Chain of events: Your company does not need to give you health insurance because of bill, the company no longer loses money by paying for your health, therefore they can pay you more in salary. You brought up new arguments in your rebuttal, so I must refute those. .. *sighs* \\\Lenin said, "Medicine is the keystone in the arch of socialism. " The government should not be in control of medicine and should generally not be in too many features of our lives. It is both inefficient and an intrusion on our fundamental rights. /// First of all you quoted Lenin, second of all this is irrelevant because this does not influence the debate at all because it is one man's opinion who lived once upon a time in a land far far away called the Soviet Union. \\\We'll be depending too much on the government. What if the government collapses or becomes corrupt? We can't always depend on the government. The government should depend on us/// If the government collapses, I think the last thing we'll be worrying about is our doctors appointments. Business is already corrupt, better start fresh! \\\With fewer financial incentives, fewer individuals would decide to become physicians in the first place. Talent would be lost from the industry and the quality of doctors and health care would fall. /// You shouldn't use money as the reason you're a doctor, it should be for REAL reasons like compassion and caring. \\\The markets are better at providing quality; same with health care. The markets and competition generally help produce higher quality goods for the least money (the highest value). The same applies to health care. /// The markets can provide quality, but if you have: Pregnancy * Obesity * Diabetes * Arthritis * Depression * Fibromyalgia * Asthma * Thyroid Disease * Kidney Disease * High Blood Pressure * Cancer * Back Problems * Lupus then YOU WONT GET ANY INSURANCE AT ALL! The debate goes to the pro.

Title: The US Government should grant universal healthcare to its citizens. Content: When someone becomes ill whether it be with the flu or a disease and doctors or hospitals turn them away because they can't pay, wouldn't that be stealing someone's life? For someone who worked their entire life and can finally retire and, yet can't pay for medical coverage then has to get another job in case they get sick what type of country is that we live in? Your attacking the fact that they are only taking money from the rich to provide for the poor, they take from every class; upper class, middle class, and yes in fact the lower class contributes as well. When all is said and done we can look at the countries now that have universal health care, none of them have went bottom up and the "upper class" has never complained they were taxed more heavily. Also when looking at it when everyone is covered it would be cheaper then the health care system we have now. Universal health care is the belief that all citizens have access to affordable high-care medical service; i.e. smokers etc.

Title: The United States should adopt Universal Healthcare Content: .

Title: The United States should replace Obamacare with a universal Medicare for All System Content: Challenged Premise: Everyone needs to be under one universal healthcare system.This is a United States specific debate as clearly stated in the resolution, "The United States should replace Obamacare with a universal Medicare for All System." Not one of my opponent's arguments relate to the United States. I asked specifically, why does everyone need to be under one universal healthcare system? My opponent never answered it. This is clear at this point my opponent has lost the debate. He has created solutions to something that has no problems. My opponent is arguing for the sake of arguing. My opponent has not offered any statistics on how many people are uninsured in the United States since Obamacare has been implemented. Obamacare allows any person to get health insurance who needs it at a relatively low price. My opponent did not offer anything dispelling how Obamacare does not satisfy the needs of people who need healthcare. My opponent did not offer us any cost estimates of this universal healthcare overhaul either. In fact, my opponent has not offered any statistics related to the United States at all. I would state emphatically, my opponent has not offered any premise to stand on. My opponent did not show there was a need for a universal healthcare system at all. I have shown that Obamacare makes healthcare available to anyone willing to spend a little bit of money."Argument 1: Countries with universal healthcare have the highest iHDI (inequality-adjusted human development index). Argument 2: Countries with universal healthcare spend less per capita on healthcareArgument 3: Despite spending less per capita on healthcare, countries with universal healthcare have higher life expectancies" This is an appeal to popularity, "just because other countries do it so should the United States[1]." It is fallacious to say the least. [1]http://www.nizkor.org...;Debunking Pro's Arguments:#1 The United States is the most dominant country in the world, not Norway, not Germany, not Australia, not the Netherlands, not Sweden, not Denmark, not Canada, and certainly not Iceland. Who controls the World Bank with the most shares[2]? Who has the most votes in the IMF[3]? Who leads the largest military agreement in the world, NATO[4]? Where do most of the Fortune 500 companies come from[5]? Who has the world's largest economy[6]?Who spends the most on foreign aid[7]?The answer to all of these questions is simple, the United States. The other countries my opponent refers to are inconsequential and hardly play a role in global affairs. Inequality is merely the result of being so great. If the United States was medicore and ranked high on that list, the United States wouldn't be leading a single one of the statistics I just offered. Those countries are medicore and are synonmous with being water carriers.[2]http://www.worldbank.org...[3]http://www.imf.org...[4]http://www.history.com...[5]http://fortune.com...[6]http://www.wnd.com...[7]http://www.theblaze.com...#2 The United States does not control its' healthcare industry. The United States only subsidizes health insurance companies with Obamacare. Unlike countries with universal healthcare, private firms spend as much as they wish on healthcare. #3 Correlation is not causation as those who deal in statistics will often state. None of the statistics my opponent offers prove that high life expenctacy is the result of universal healthcare. None of my opponent's data include lifestyle or diet. How do we know lifestyles and/or diets cause high life expenctacy? My opponent just tells us, high life expentacy is the result of universal healthcare. This is simply not true, this is just merely correlation. None of my opponent's data point to the exact cause of high life expentacy, we only see correlation. Correlation is not satisfactory. A universal healthcare system does not change American consumption levels. Universal healthcare also doesn't mean reduced stress. It would be far more authoritative for someone to state that Americans should eat and live like Canadians and Japanese or these European countries Pro mentioned. Why? Their diets and their consumption levels are significantly different than Americans[8][9][10]. Universal healthcare would not stop obesity.[8]http://www.fredericpatenaude.com...[9]http://www.livestrong.com...[10]http://renegadehealth.com...;Vote con.

Title: Universal Health Care Content: People who are working low-wage jobs did not choose to do such. Some people who work low-wage jobs have college degrees and a family, But can not put that degree to use due to the lack of jobs available in a certain area. Yes, Fast-food low wage jobs were seen as student jobs, But students now are not working these jobs anymore. This in turn, Makes adults have to fill these empty jobs and can not find another place to work because of a certain background, Etc. However, These fast food CEO"s make more money than you and I will ever see in life, Why don"t they provide benfits? The lack of available benefits for a wide range of jobs cause this healthcare breakdown. If it was required to provide benefits to your workers, Then we would not have this "universal health care. " I highly dissagree that someone must "earn" healthcare like you are implying. Everyone should have access to affordable health care. Period.

Title: The US should not have universal or publicly funded health care Content: TheLibertarian has failed to respond to any of my points or ideas; which are, in brief: 1. No industrialized nation except for us lacks some sort of universal health care system. It's a basic right. We are the richest nation in the world, and yet 47 million of us lack any health care. 2. No industrialized nation in the world spends more of its GDP per capita on health care than we do. If socialized medicine is so expensive, than why does the rest of the world spend less? Because hospitals transfer the free emergency room costs onto the medicare plans, because medicare cannot negotiate its drug or hospital costs. With a mandate for health care, there will be fewer costs at the hospital level, because everyone will have health insurance. Period. 3. This is not socialized medicine. A true socialist model is single-payer government, this is blatantly not. This is basic subsidization for those in greatest need. Everyone should be able to have access to quality health insurance. Thank you for reading.

Title: US healthcare should be made universal Content: Just because a person has health care does not mean they will live longer happier lives. People do have the "right" to health care it mores of a matter of they can not afford it. Plus I don't want my taxes to go up because the junky down the street who has been in rehab multiply times is still being given treatment and medication though they chose to not change their lifestyle that will help them to stay away from their habit. There would still be a wait time because every emergency that happens that will be one more person in front of someone that has been on the "waiting" line for who knows how long. There are plenty of people out there that just chose not to have health care because they feel they do not need it. So now you would be forcing money out of their pocket for system they do not want in the first place. Then requiring more money in fines and possible jail time because they don't want to be in the system.

Title: US healthcare should be made universal Content: Health care is a right for all Americans, the Preamble of the US Constitution states that one of its purpose is to "promote the general welfare" of the people. Just as all Americans have the right to a public education to help them in their future careers, they should have the right to health care because that promotes a healthier life. The United States is one of the few, developed nations in the world that does not guarantee health coverage for its citizens. Also by providing all citizens the right to health care it will stimulate growth for economic productivity. When people have access to health care, they live healthier and longer lives, they can then add to society for a longer time. The wait time would not be an issue if we had universal health care, once we start it everyone will be healthier because they have coverage so down the road fewer people will need to be waiting because they will be healthier from the start.

Title: Universal Health Care Content: I will acknowledge my opponets deffinition for a Human right, but I will respectfully disagree. In my opinion, everyone should have access to medicine, and to a further degree, good health. I believe that everyone has the right to go to the doctors/hospital without fearing a bill. And the U.S. does remain the only Westeren Industialized nation that does not have universal health care for all of its' citizens. A couple of things that make this debate: *Cost Concerns *Socialism/Communism *Stripping Freedom of Choice *Wait Times for Medical Attention Cost Concern: My opponet breifly brought up the term free market solution. Remeber, this isn't a discussion about Price Chopper vs. Hanaford in the free market. This is not a free market issue. When someone in the middle to low ecconomic class gets hurt or ill, they are hesitant to go to the hospital because the "Free" market put a price on medical help. Now, how do we pay for Universal Health care, before I get carried away with the evils of HMOs. The fact is Federal studies by the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting office show that single payer universal health care would save 100 to 200 Billion dollars per year despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits. The costs of health care in Canada as a % of GNP, which were identical to the United States when Canada changed to a single payer, universal health care system in 1971, have increased at a rate much lower than the United States, despite the US economy being much stronger than Canada's. Universal Health Coverage is achievable, espically with the war ending, we could ensure the entire country, and have cash left over. HMOs are the current way of Health care in this country. These are corporations out to make and save money by dening people of medical care. This is the Free Market solution. Yeah but isn't this the first step to Socialism? Well, I don't hear any complaining about our Police Departments, Fire Departments, Public Schools, and Libraies. All socialized fractions of our great and free society. So if public schools and police departments are ok, than I guess medicine should be too. Stripping the freedom to choose what kind of plan you want. The...Free Market system, or a government run system. I think Obamas plan makes the most sense here. People can choose (under his health care plan) either to stick to their HMO or buy into the Governmentas universal coverage. Wait Times for Medical Attention. Americans alrewady wait for emergancy service in America. The ERs are full!! Sorry but I left this up for a little bit to go eat, and now I must get off the computer so I know this was short a sweet but...yeah. Thanks.

Title: the USA should have universal background checks Content: the USA should have universal background checks while it may be disputed the exact number, the commonly cited stat is that ninety percent of people support background checks, at least in general there's plenty of potential here- over 40% of gun sales involve no background checks. http://www.nij.gov... at the point of sale, back ground checks stop tons of people.... http://www.timesdispatch.com... what about the idea that they can just go get em illegally? or that we're stopping law abiding people? it's not even like people can't get access to guns, it would just limit who can get them so easily, or perhaps at all. not all criminals (or more often normal people who turn to criminals) are die hards who will stop at nothing to get a gun. The mother of the sandy hook shooter could have been someone who was rejected for a gun, and we have no reason to think she'd have been a black hoodie and went and got one, and by that the sandy hook shooting might not have occurred... just an example. if we've restricted the access to guns, surely it will have some positive effect. besides common sense, here are some points to consider as more evidence that not all will run to get an illegal gun. the more likely a person, state, or nation is to have guns, the more likely they are to have not just gun murders, but murders in general: the more likely you are to have a gun, the more likely you are to use it, or to have problems related to it. http://aje.oxfordjournals.org... a large study done at harvard showed that the more guns a state or country has, the more overall deaths they have. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... also. what effect the overall national decline in firearm ownership from 1981 to 2010 had on gun homicides. The result was staggering: "for each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of household gun ownership," Siegel et al. found, "firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9R43; percent. the more likely a state is to have guns, the higher their gun homicide rate is.. in fact, up to twice as high. if the above link is established to be true, this should be self evident. https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net... and, you can argue 'people will just find other ways to kill' but it's contrary to the evidence above.... isn't it fair to conclude that the more likely you are to have a gun, the more likely you are to murder someone? In fact, our serious crime rate is about even with countries like Germany and Denmark, but our homicide rate is three times higher than either, largely the result of guns being used in criminal attacks. we might find outliers, state or city anecdotal evidence, but the overall picture is painted with the above evidence. think about common sense points too: -think of someone on jerry springer having their arguments in the front yard. don't you think they'd be more likely to run in and get a gun if they had one? do you think they'd run in and get a knife? not as likely. and even if it was just as likely, they'd be more likely to kill someone with a gun.... guns kill automatically, other weopons don't. -i know plenty of people who don't have guns, and when they get guns, are prone to talking about using it. this is a common mentality among street and poor folks. it's almost even human nature. -true, if you are dead set, pardon the pun, on killing, you can. but not having a gun to begin with, lowers the chances that you would kill. -and, are you willing to admit that one hundred of the people who are denied one would go get one? -and, are you willing to admit that having a gun doesn't cause anyone at all more prone to wanting to use it or kill someone? -if there's any doubt about whether checks will make a difference, why not just give it the benefit of the doubt given the only cost is mere inconvenience? the evidence is overwhelming.

Title: Universal Health Care Content: Taxes is how the economy works, We may not like taxes, But it is an obligation to pay our taxes and respond accordingly. If there was a income-based health care tax, We would be able to use universal health care, Which was the ultimate goal of the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare). I can argue through this logic that if we can enact a health care tax so people without coverage, Can afford coverage without emptying their pockets. Every American deserves not to have health care bills that are astronomically high.

Title: obamacare Content: Thanks for the quick reply 16kadams. ==Procedural note== Please disregard my opponent's videos. He can use them as sources, if and only if he advances their argument himself, in written form. I should not have to use my character limit to refute videos that are subject to no such limit. ==Burden of proof== My opponent says in round 1, "I have to give a healthcare plan that will help everyone." It's easy to poke holes in a plan, but much harder to offer a viable alternative for universal health care. My opponent should already lose since he failed to offer an alternative. I only accepted this debate because he accepted the burden of proving there was a better universal health care regime. ==Rebuttal== R1) Mandated Insurance My opponent argues that mandating minimum coverage raises costs because people have the right to have crummy insurance. However, Obama answered this objection at the Blair House Summit. He explained that the goal of ANY universal health care system is to ensure that everyone has insurance that will cover them if they get ill. Obamacare requires people to have a basic level of insurance since certain insurance plans are hardly any better than NO insurance. The example Obama gives is the "ACME" insurance he had on his car when he was a young man. He got in an accident and called the insurance company and they LAUGHED IN HIS FACE. The insurance met the requirement of the law that "everyone have car insurance," BUT his deductible was so high that the insurance didn't really cover any damages. Obamacare remedies this: it requires you get an insurance plan with a reasonable deductible. If someone had a deductible of $2 million, this means that their insurance will not "kick in" and start paying until they accrue $2 million of medical expenses. This is effectively the same thing as being uninsured. No "universal health care" regime could claim to be "universal" without this requirement. ACME insurance companies would merely spring up so people could meet the law's requirements, without "actually" being insured. The last important response is that this "minimum coverage" doesn't raise costs for people who are already insured. If you have insurance through your employer, your insurance DEFINITELY meets the minimum requirements. The mandated insurance only raises costs for people who currently pay nothing (are uninsured), since paying some premium is more than paying nothing. But Obamacare DOES lower the cost of insurance for these people, compared to what they would pay now. It does so in three main ways: 1) it provides 4 million tax credits to small businesses so they can insure their employees; 2) for people this doesn't cover, it sets up State Insurance Exchanges that aggregate individuals into a collective so they have the purchasing power to demand lower rates, much the same way large companies can demand lower rates in a competitive bidding process; 3) it offers a tax credit to families earning less than $88,000 per year. A study by the Department of Health and Human Services (using CBO data) found that State Insurance Exchanges would decrease the cost of purchasing insurance by $2,300 for a middle-class family. [1] The study further found that a low-income family of 4 could save $14,900 a year through the use of tax credits. [1] And the small business tax credits will save small businesses $6 billion a year. [1] In addition, Obamacare results in cost savings to people who are currently insured. There are two main ways: 1) by forcing young people to have insurance, insurance companies can reduce premiums for everyone since this low-risk group reduces the total liabilities an insurance company faces; 2) uninsured people cost insured people a lot of money. When an uninsured person needs medical care, they go to the emergency room (ER). 85% of ER visits are for such non-life threatening conditions. Since the hospital cannot recover their costs from the uninsured, they compensate for this by charging their INSURED customers more. This forces insurance companies to raise premiums. When the uninsured STOP using the ER as their free primary care facility, hospitals can start charging everyone normal rates and premiums go down. The HHS study found that employer insurance premiums would decline by $2,000 per family by 2019. [1] R2) Preventative Care Raises Costs My opponent argues that Obamacare REQUIRES preventative screening. This is untrue. It doesn't force anyone to get preventative screening. It merely forces insurance companies to waive the co-pay of APPROVED preventative screening (such as breast cancer screening when you are over 50). A few things to consider: First, co-pays are relatively small. My co-pay is $10. Waiving a $10 co-pay on my annual colonoscopy when I'm over 40 is HARDLY going to force insurance companies to raise premiums. Second, co-pays are only waived for APPROVED preventative care . The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has approved breast cancer screening for women over 50, for example, because it saves lives and money. [2] In fact, 12.5% of breast cancer survivors owe their lives to breast cancer screening. [2] Catching it early saves costly interventions later on down the line, like expensive experimental drugs. R3) Age Rating Bands My opponent discusses age rating bands, which mean that the elderly cannot be charged more than ______ times more than a young person. My opponent's Heritage evidence says a ratio of 3:1 was considered in the House, but never says whether this ratio made it into the final bill. I was unable to locate any such provision in the final bill. [3] In addition, many States already have age rating bands of 3:1 or even LOWER. [4] Nationally, premiums for the elderly are currently around 3 times that of premiums for people 18-24. [5] Thus the huge rate increases that Heritage cites are highly doubtful. In addition, Obamacare will also save people A LOT of money on their premiums. Obamacare requires that insurance companies spend between 80 and 85 percent of their money on medical care. No longer can they reap huge profits by dropping coverage for sick people and giving ridiculous bonus packages to executives. The General Accountability Office states that the 80 percent requirement is already forcing insurers to cut broker commissions and lower premiums; the new rule will save 9 million Americans $1.4 billion in the first year alone. [6] [7] R4) Excise taxes, etc My opponent claims Obamacare will tax the medical industry, which will raise premiums by 2.5%. This is a TINY increase in premiums considering the cost savings from the 80% rule and the uninsured no longer using the ER as their free primary care facility. This 2.5% increase would be MORE THAN offset. My opponent claims he will offer an alterative plan that can insure all Americans. I'm curious to see how he pays for it… R5) Covering pre-existing conditions Most people agree that forcing insurers to cover people with pre-existing conditions is an unqualified GOOD THING. It is one of the things that Republicans and Democrats both agreed on. For pre-existing conditions, not only did insurers used to refuse to cover the uninsured who had pre-existing conditions, but would also REFUSE TO RENEW coverage for people diagnosed with certain diseases (cancer, diabetes, etc). [3] What is the point of having insurance if they can DROP you when you get sick, as soon as your policy comes up for renewal? [8] Again, I'm curious how my opponent's universal health care system deals with this problem. The "death spiral" my opponent cites assumes that people will remain uninsured until they NEED coverage. This makes no sense – under Obamacare, people are REQUIRED to have insurance. There is no option of remaining uninsured. R6) Decreased quality of care My opponent claims there will be "government-mandated procedures." Nowhere in Obamacare are doctors or patients forced to undergo certain procedures. My opponent claims, "Rules WILL be put in place as to when doctors can perform expensive procedures." Two problems with this: first, Obamacare doesn't do this. My opponent uses future tense because this is not intrinsic to Obamacare. Second, insurance companies ALREADY do this. Nearly all insurance companies DO NOT COVER expensive "experimental" drugs or procedures (which is pretty much anything "new"). People can still attempt to pay for those procedures on their own, as they do now. ==My case== Obamacare is good. Insurance reform is key to saving the economy. Half of all bankruptcies are caused by medical bills. [9] I've already provided most of the reasons Obamacare will lower fees. By extending employer insurance to dependents up to age 26, Obamacare puts more young people in the insurance pool, thus lowering the overall liabilities of the insurance industry, meaning lower fees for everyone. Obamacare offers massive tax credits to help the poor afford insurance. Obamacare offers tax credits to small businesses so they can offer employer insurance to their workers. Obamacare creates State Insurance Exchanges so individual purchasers can use aggregated purchasing power to barter for lower fees, the same way large businesses do currently. Obamacare massively lowers premiums by preventing the uninsured from using the ER as a free primary care facility. And Obamacare caps industry profits by requiring that 80% of insurance companies' money goes to medical care, as opposed to corporate pay and hefty bonuses. Lastly, Obamacare requires insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions and does not allow them to drop coverage, which is the only fair thing to do. I eagerly await my opponent's counter-proposal on how to cover everyone. [1] http://www.healthcare.gov... [2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [3] http://www.healthcare.gov... [4] http://bangordailynews.com... [5] http://www.ahipresearch.org... [6] http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org... [7] http://www.healthcare.gov... [8] http://www.collinsbenefits.com... [9] http://www.msnbc.msn.com...

Title: Is the Right Wing Better Than the Left Wing Content: I would like to argue your point that all three are key strengths in the free market system. Yes, a little welfare is fine. One trillion dollars of it? Not so much. I like how you referred to minimum wage as a "living wage". In all honesty a person does not need $10.25/hr. to live. People are doing just fine on the current one. Everyone would like to think that raising the minimum wage is such a wonderful and righteous thing to do. In fact, it would damage much more than it would help. UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE- Why should the government pay for your health care? Look at the countries you have provided in your little story abouy Walter White. Each of the economies is going to Hell in a handbasket. This is partiallly attributed to each providing health care to their citizens. It's funny you should bring up this fact. The only place I could find talking about the link between health care and mortgage default was SSRN. This is not exactly unbiased information, considering the whole organization was bulit upon how "good" social security is. Distributing universal health care has many downsides that you conviently side-stepped. Yes, it would dissuade people from clinging to low-end jobs. However, with universal health care comes great taxation. Especially on the small business owners. The small business owners happen to be the mostly the ones offering jobs that aren't considered low-end. if the small business owners get hit hard by the new tax, they will not keep offering those jobs. Thus leading to higher unemployment and fewer quality jobs. This point furthur points to the current incompatece of the Obama administration. If they facts you present are true, then why doesn't Obama (an undoubtly left-sided president) revoke the ACA? Your facts don't solidify the benefits of universal health care, they point to Obamacare's failure. WELFARE- The most overused word in the welfare arguement is opportunity. Why on Earth should a hard working business owner pay for a lazy bum's nessecites, when the bum isn't making a solid effort to find a job. Take Star Parker, an ex-welfare recepiant's, words as an example. "The welfare system enslaves the poor on a subsidized plantation." She is 100% right. Look through the eyes of the welfare recipient. Why should they get up and find work if Uncle Sam is going to send them a check twice a month. They're the ones not taking the initiative to get a job, not recieving unequal opportunity. If a government is to cut back welfare spending, this is the idea. The market provides people with equal opportunity, some just don't take the innitiative. Free market capitalism has lead to the highest standard of living, for the mosft number of people, since the history of mankind. Liberalism is based on "Robin Hood" ideology; Take from the rich and give to the poor. Liberalism limits the upward progression of the masses. Why would anyone look for work if they recieve a check on the first and fifteenth of every month. A relocation of cash only reduces the already dim initiative of the 'less fortunate" MINIMUM WAGE- Why on earth would someone doing fine on thier minimum wage salary suddenly get paid almost a 50% increase. They are doing a job that most likely is unskilled labor. (i. e. McDonalds) They are doing a job that pays quite handsomly for the amount of training and experience required. The more you pay a worker, the less you can afford to pay other workers. If you pay too much, you can;t fill other jobs. That is the main problem with a raise in the minimum wage. Unemployment will take a turn for the worst if the minimum wage increases, only putting more people on government subsidized programs. Do CEOs get payed a lot? Yes. Is it too much? Probably. However, the people working at McDonalds and the CEO of McDonalds have very different workloads.The CEO deserves to get payed many times the salary of the cashier. You seem to be preaching a less harsh punisment for petty crime. Petty crime that's left alone can grow into something much more malicious. I have upheld burden of proof that right wing governments are far more beneficial to a country than it's counterpart.

Title: The United States should replace Obamacare with a universal Medicare for All System Content: Again: Challenged Premise: Everyone needs to be under one universal healthcare system.I will await my opponent to reply one more time before I go and post my arguments.

Title: Welfare Shouls not Be Abolished Content: Con claims that the option of welfare allows people to choose not to work for less than what they would get on welfare which decreases production, but even those who work for less than what the government offers in welfare qualify for welfare assistance. Why? Because freedom to contribute to production means nothing if one cannot excercise it. A minimun condition for contributing to production is that people must have their basic needs met. So to illustrate, a homeless person's job choices will be severly limited by his lack of address for correspondence or place to change and shower. Giving a person his basic human rights allow him to participate more productively in society. As in the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, basic needs are typically understood as "food, clothing, housing, and medical care." All people have a right to such goods, and they should be provided if they do not already possess them. Therfore government is responsible for organizing the redistribution of the goods necessary to satisfy all society members' basic needs or of the money to purchase these goods—hence, the social welfare system. The satisfaction of basic needs is of greater moral importance than an individual's right to spend earnings as he or she freely chooses. This is not merely a clashing of societal rights but a matter of life and death, malnutrition and nourishment, disease and health, ignorance and education. The study, Making Ends Meet: How Single Mothers Survive Welfare and Low-Wage Work, examines another significant barrier: the costs associated with going to work. Many women report difficulties in managing the hidden costs of working, including increased expenses for child care, medical care, transportation, housing and suitable clothing. Non-economic costs such as accommodating parenting responsibilities and other family management issues were mentioned. The study noted that women who were able to work steadily benefited from a combination of "special circumstances," such as co-residence with relatives, free childcare by a friend or relative, receipt of regular and substantial child support, and access to transportation. (Edin & Lein) Thus, those who don't have such special help from relatives and friends must be aided by the welfare system. This is not a case of women just choosing not to work willy-nilly, but mothers with real difficulties and no other options. In Personal and Family Challenges to the Successful Transition from Welfare to Work, 90% of welfare recipients analyzed from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth experience barriers that limited their employment. Barriers noted in the report, in rank order, were: low basic skills, substance abuse, a health limitation, depression, and a child with chronic medical condition or disability. The most prevalent logistical barriers to successful employment, noted within this study as well as within the national Family Support Act are: child care, and transportation. (ibid) The Institute for Research on Poverty did a seven-study review to outline and understand factors that prevent welfare recipients from working steadily and earning a living wage. Based on the review, nine sets of potential barriers to employment and self-sufficiency were identified: low schooling, little work experience, lack of the job skills and credentials employers value, lack of "work readiness," worries about employer discrimination, mental health problems, alcohol and drug dependence, physical health problems and family stresses, and experiences of domestic violence. (Kalil) I agree that some of the above may be the result of bad choices, but not all, and we can't punish genuine cases of unavoidable need in order to punish those who made silly choice. Also, there are social forces that push people into making bad decisions. Because of how one was raised and limited resources, education etc, one can't be blames for making certain mistakes. Deep depression can naturally cause peeople to become drug dependant. There are genuine sorrows in life that lead to depression. What kind of unforgiving, loveless, me-first-screw-everyone-else societies are we building when we say "you make your bed, lie in it!" to these people? Do we not at times need a little help to? To remove welfare is to take the humanity out of society. Data from the Urban Institute in Washington D.C.profiling the U.S. welfare population shows that welfare recipients are mostly single mothers in their 20s-30s with one or two children; 90% of welfare recipients are single mothers, 10% married, 36% divorced/widowed/separated, 54% never married. What is a single mother to do with her two children when the only jobs she qualifies for can't even afford to pay both day care for her kids and the rent at the same time? I believe the need justifies the welfare offer. We can blame her for her decisions, be she is only human. So she believe him when he said he loved her, she moved in with him and gave him two kids, then he abandons her. He leaves her with two kids and rent ot pay. Blaming her solves nothing. What of women who are raped and get pregnant that way? Will we now say that was her fault too? 84% of welfare recipients have no college education. Many things in life hinder one's education, so its not their fault they can't get a big time job. But contrary to the stereotype that most welfare recipients are lazy and unwilling to work, majority of welfare recipients (70%) have recent work experience. In 2004, according to the National Survey of American Families, of the total number of African-Americans receiving AFDC or TANF benefits, about 28% were working full-time and about 26% were working part-time, bringing the total of African-Americans on welfare who had some form of employment to 54%. The National Survey ofAmerican Families, in 1997, reported that about 40% of all welfare recipients reported genuine barriers to employment which include poor eduction, lack of child care, and poor physical and mental health. These statistics flatly contradict the claim that the typical African-American welfare recipient is unemployed and unwilling to find work, and reveals the underling gross over-generalization in the elaboration of the anti-welfare campaign myth. The notion that the typical welfare recipient is lazy and unwilling to work ignores the fact that welfare recipients have significantly higher barriers to employment than the average of the population. The level of educational attainment and not laziness is a significant predictor of whether a woman would be a welfare recipient or not. Most welfare recipients qualify only for jobs in low-wage secondarymarkets with the jobs being often temporary and seasonal or part time nature. The jobs offer unstable hours and with no health-care nor family leave benefits. The need for child care and transportation assistance is also a major barrier to employment. About two-thirds of welfare recipients tested on the Armed Forces Qualifying Test, which is considered a strong measure of future employment earnings, show that most individuals on welfare score on the bottom quartile (lowest 25%). Low scores correlate to low-wage jobs and, therefore, a need for continued welfare income support. Women with low skills find it very difficult to find steady employment and generally tend to long periods of unemployment interspersed with short periods of low paying seasonal or unstable jobs. In short, most women on welfare are on welfare because they are largely unemployable rather than lazy and unwilling to find work. Many opponents of expanded welfare program complain that welfare recipients stay on welfare for too long and tend to become addicted to welfare and and are unwilling to find work. But official statisticshave shown that 80% of recipients spend five years and below on welfare and that only 20% spent more than 5 years. The poor aren't lazy, just unluky. Life is unkine to the best of us.

Title: All Countries Should Use the Same Currency Content: Thanks DoctorDeku. He mentioned that he will not be focusing on a specific currency. I’d just like to reiterate that my arguments are not bound to the Euro. It is just an example because it is the only modern example we have of a universal currency. I. A Universal Currency Would Be Convenient Eliminating exchange rates is not a good idea. They deprive countries of the ability to control their economic policy. If a country is experiencing a recession, it should depreciate its currency so as to make exports look more profitable to foreigners and to discourage imports, in order to create a trade surplus. However, eliminating exchange rates ends this. Countries can no longer set exchange rates to help in recessions. If exchange rates are too high forprofitable exports, then it’s too bad for that country. The problems with this can be seen in Spain.[1] I’ll concede that using a foreign currency at home may cause tension, but no system is perfect. However, having a universal currency would not affect tax revenues. For example, a 10% flat tax on income is 10% of all income, no matter the medium. II. A Universal Currency Would Solve Dishonest Trade Tactics First of all, as the article points out, China is not suppressing its currency: “But there is little evidence the central bank is intervening on a large scale to suppress the value of the renminbi… The renminbi has been under downward pressure because Chinese businesses and households have been moving more money out of the country to diversify their investments and hedge against the possibility of a political change at home.”[2] In fact, “When a boom goes bust, devaluing currency is the least bad way for governments to rein in wages and prices that are suddenly too high. But if you use the same currency as another country that isn’t in dire straits, good luck convincing them to accept devaluation on your nation’s behalf.”[3] There’s nothing really wrong with devaluing a currency to get out of an economic recession. Finally, I see no correlation in dishonest stockmarket tactics and many currencies after reading his two articles (well reading the abstract of the first one). I ask my opponent give more information on this supposed correlation. III. A Universal Currency Would Encourage Cultural Diffusion I admit, it is a hassle to go to another country and have to use a different currency. However, it’s not the end of the world. It’s easy to get Sweden’s currency made into Norway’s (as long as you are in either country). These days, currency “vending machines” are everywhere. It is easier than ever to change your dollars into, say, Euros. Next, it is also not that big of a hassle to use money in other countries. Every time I have traveled, I have had such an easy time getting currency that I wouldn’t even consider it a hassle. It’s a price we have to pay for having the right to dictate our own economy in the ever-globalizing world. And with that globalization, it has become easier than ever to get the currency you need at the proper exchange rate. A universal currency would not encourage cultural diffusion any more than we already have it. IV. A Universal Currency Would Encourage Equality I don’t understand why my opponent thinks that we cannot clearly see another countries’ standard of living and classify people on a global scale because of separate currencies. All you have to do is divide a countries’ GDP by its population and translate that value into the currency you want through exchange rates. We do it for all countries. And again, I don’t understand why my opponent thinks that we cannot see that the US is better off overall than many countries. We don’t need a global currency to see that. That’s what GDP percapita statistics are for. In fact, by putting the world under a universal currency, it will harm smaller economies that have not taken off yet by disallowing them from devaluating their currency to expand their economy, thus making the gap bigger. Conclusion While presenting a solid case, my opponent has several fallacies in his case. For example, many of his sources only back up half or less of his argument. For example, his sources 4 and 5 mention various forms of dishonest stock market tactics, but do not attribute it to separate currencies. My opponent has never proven that point, and several other points in that fashion. He also contains a few fallacies where he thinks a universal currency will help promote equality. One, he hasn’t proven that a universal currency will help us see our position in the world better, and he hasn’t proven why a universal currency would promote equality in the first place. I even showed how a universal currency harms equality. Not one of his arguments that even make sense hold a candle in comparison to countries being able to dictate their own economic-policies; not a one-size-fits-all policy that will screw up most countries under it. That is vitally important to a countries’ well-being and eventual prosperity, no matter the size or condition.Sources [1]: http://www.nytimes.com...[2]: http://www.nytimes.com...[3]: http://www.wired.com...

Title: The US Government should grant universal healthcare to its citizens. Content: The government should only protect the basic rights of people, to protect the pursuit of happiness and prevent theft. Murder is stealing another's life and scams steal people's money, but who steals when one becomes ill? No one. Many governments will do more than protect its people's rights; they do charity work by giving people things they never worked for. Now I'm all for charity work if you are a charity organization or you are a person willingly giving up money to another out of compassion. However, what dignity is gained by giving money unwillingly to the government so that the government may act out its people's charity. Univ. healthcare is a charity in that the government takes more money from the rich to pay for the healthcare of the poor. Univ. healthcare is not free, it will in fact be more expensive. The healthy will pay the burden of those living less-healthy lifestyles, i.e. smokers. Finally, its such a complex process that will never be efficient and is better left alone.

Title: The US Government should grant universal healthcare to its citizens. Content: Universal health care should be open to all citizens. The United States has made health care for many residents unaffordable; even through businesses. People who are sick are not focused on getting better anymore, they are focused on whether or not they can pay for treatment. Doctors as well are also focusing on whether or not they will receive payment for this treatment. Knowing that many other areas in the world have universal health care shows it's not impossible for the United States to inquire; the transition may be a tough one as well as a shock to many, but it is definitely something the United States can do.

Title: USA should have universal background checks Content: ok

Title: Universal health care nuts should also be in favor of universal food, shelter, clothing, etc. Content: "they are not "nuts" but rather concerned (and sometimes desperate) Americans who are enforcing their constitutional right to call for change." But you could say the same of those who would call for universal food, clothing and shelter-- the likes of whom me and most of America would consider a little "nuts." So I see (and many others) the UHC crowd as no different. They don't deserve preferencial treatment. "But none of these programs provide these core necessities to everyone universally." You reply: "This is true....because there is not enough funding in the tax budget to distribute to everyone." So you think we should implement universal health care simply because we can afford to. I gather you would also be in favor of universal food and shelter if we could afford to do that too. The truth is we can. We can afford to do it all. We can actually afford (if we pooled all our resources) to create an entire country full of dependents and provide their every need. And again, that is called communism. Just because we(or the unfortunate minority you will have paying for this)can afford something is not cause enough to implement it. "Americans don't want to raise taxes for universal food, shelter and clothing, because that would essentially turn us into a communist nation." Why not? If their in favor of doing it for health care, then why not for the more important needs in life? You still fail to address this inconsistency. "Specifically making health care universal would NOT turn us into a communist nation, as is demonstrated by other countries who implement universal health care and are not communist (i.e. Canada, Britain and France)." But it we know they are capable of it, and it could be easily argued they they should go all the way. After all it doesn't make any logical sense to offer one of life's needs over those that are more important. They, like UHC proponents in our country are simply inconsistent. And, as I have said, if they were consistent, they would be communists. "One could buy food to live with just a few dollars a day; however, some medical care and costs can be thousands upon thousands of dollars." When is the last time you saw the price of house? Clothing, rent and rood are by far more costly than private health insurance currently available. Policies for young people are particularly affordable (from as little as $80-$150 per month depending on coverage). Most of the 18-to-25-year-old whiners who are pushing for Obama and his assortment of freebies are simply blowing off getting health insurance and opting for car payments and cell phone bills instead. You for instance-- I'll bet you had no health insurance at the time of your accident but were able to use your Samsung text your friends and family to let them know you were okay. "The middle class often cannot afford health insurance while they CAN afford food, shelter and clothing." Yet I don't know many middle class without nicer cars than they really need, cell phones for most every family member and DSL service for their multitude of home computers. Let's not forget video game equipment and flat-screen TVs. The people in this country who TRULY cannot afford health insurance are a very small minority of those who do not have it. And these people (just as those with no food, shelter, and clothing) should have some TEMPORARY relief available if their situation truly warrants it. There will always be poor people (by choice or circumstance), but that is no excuse for socialism. "my opponent has tried to conclude that it is not logical for one to support universal health care and not support universal food; however, he is trying to draw a link where there is none." I thought you would need to get creative to reconcile the inconsistency we have been discussing up to this point, but denying the inconsistency exists at all is a bit of a stretch. After rounds of discussing the inconsistency we have both already acknowledged, you are now claiming there is no inconsistency whatsoever because "no link can be drawn" between one human need and another. I'm going to give you a hall pass on this one and move on with our debate. "While I do deem food a greater necessity than health care in general (in terms of life or death), that does not mean that we - as a nation - need universal food more than we need universal health care." There's that inconsistency again. But again, no real defense for it has been put forth. But at least you're acknowledging we still have a debate topic at all.

Title: Universal Health Care Content: I think you hit the nail on the head when you asked why overpaid CEOs do not offer their employees benefits. This is a great question as it is not the government's responsibility to provide health benefits, But the employers. The employer should be doing this, But this does not absolve the employee from personal responsibility for attaining healthcare. By the time someone is 28, They should be able to care for them sufficiently to find a job with benefits. My mother has worked at Walmart for over 30 years, And my younger brother for probably 20. Both have healthcare benefits. Not everyone there gets benefits as most are part time and/or temporary, But if you are full time, You can receive benefits. Most people work within driving distance of a Walmart. Costco, Lowe's, REI (best outdoor store), Target, Trader Joe's, Staples and Whole Foods all offer health insurance, Including to part time workers (but by 28 you do not have an excuse to not be working full time). For fast food, In-N-Out (best burger chain ever), And Starbucks, Offer benefits. I believe you would be hard pressed to find anywhere in the USA that did not have a Walmart or Starbucks within a reasonable commuting distance, Then you throw in all the other shops, And one is left without excuse. If the burger joint, Or retail store you are working at does not offer benefits, Take responsibility for yourself and find one that does. Better yet, Move outside of fast food and get a career. Move if you need to. Citizens should not be forced to cover the cost of health care due to others their lack of accountability on finding health care. Regardless of this, Fast food and retail is not a career. Yes my mother has worked at Walmart for a long time, And I guess for her it has become a career, But she does it in order for the family to have benefits, While my father works (actually retired) at a higher paying job. If you have a two income family, At least one person can get benefits for the both of you at a minimum at somewhere like Walmart. The question to me is not only about taking funds by force and redistributing it, But also how the cost will be covered. In 2015 our government spent 3. 8 trillion dollars. Universal healthcare is estimated to cost 32 trillion dollars over the course of ten year. This would not double our taxes, But pretty close. Our country already spends more money than it brings in with taxes, Can we really afford to double our spending?

Title: The US Government should grant universal healthcare to its citizens. Content: Thank you for the opportunity to express my views on the issue of why the US Government should grant universal healthcare. My opponent states that "Universal healthcare should not be granted by the US Government". Although the reasoning is unclear, I would like to point out that universal healthcare is already implemented in some countries along with private healthcare optionally available(a). The main focus should be the well being of American citizens. If one were fall ill, or to injury, they should have access to be treated, otherwise who knows what other problems will arise from one incident.According to (b)over 15%(46.3 million) of Americans are uninsured, 10% of which have been uninsured for over a year. There is also much to be said about low income jobs with insurance availability, unpaid medical expenses, and healthcare cost in general. A: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_healthcare B: www.emaxhealth.com/1506/cdc-number-americans-without-health-insurance-coverage-

Title: Universal Suffrage in Hong Kong Content: Here are my rebuttals: "There seems, therefore, little need for a welfare state in Hong Kong - only the minority of people at the margins of society would benefit from a welfare state whereas the majority of citizens have no need for state welfare and would not, therefore, vote for a politician that argued that taxes should increase to pay for it. " Not only the minority benefits from a welfare state. Everyone does. When taxes are decreased, everyone pays less; when healthcare is increased, everyone gets more benefits. Although there might seem to be no need for a welfare state, that will not stop people from wanting one, as everyone welcomes policies that benefit them. Taxes will actually increase, as the tax rebate percentage will become lower, the money used for welfare. "Regarding tax, Hong Kong has one of the lowest rates of corporate and salary taxes in the world. " Hong Kong has very low tax, but that does not mean prices of products will not increase because of a slightly higher tax rate. It"s all simple math. The tax increases by ten dollars; the price increases by ten or even more. The cost of production increases by one dollar; the price increases by one dollar or more. In the end, the consumers/customers still suffer. "So we can see that the average person in Hong Kong earns a very good salary and pays very little tax and, therefore, has a high disposable income. Property is expensive in Hong Kong, true, but it is still less expensive than London"" No, the average person in Hong Kong does not earn a very good salary. The average annual income in Hong Kong is 530,530 HKD, which is 66,316 USD. However, the average annual income in New York, another metropolis, is 87,026 USD! In New Jersey, it is 76,962 USD; and in Washington State, 77,584 USD. The average annual salaries in Rhode Island, Nevada, Utah, California, Colorado, Georgia etc are all higher than that in Hong Kong! (Refer to: www. averagesalarysurvey. com) The reason why Hong Kong has a high average salary is because of a few billionaires, such as Li Ka Shing, the 8th richest person in the world according to Forbes, having a net worth of US 31 billion, the world's largest operator of container terminals and the world's largest health and beauty retailer. Li Shao Ki, another billionaire, has a net worth of US 17 billion, is ranked the 24th, and the Kwok family ranked the 26th . However, not many billionaires live in the mentioned places that are as rich as Li, and considering that Hong Kong has a smaller population than a state in the US despite having a dense population, the average salary is pulled up. (Refer to: . http://www.forbes.com...) Secondly, I would like you to check out this site: . http://www.thepovertyline.net... You will find that, to be under the poverty line in Hong Kong is easier than in the US, and if you click into the respective "countries" under the Developed Countries tab, you will find that things are cheaper in the US than in Hong Kong. I would like to note that my opponent has not rebutted my point about a universal suffrage election in the LegCo leading to the emergence of populism, and that although there might not be need for Hong Kong to be a welfare state, it does not mean the people will not want more welfare.

Title: Universal Health Coverage Content: "What about the people who work two jobs and can barely feed their families? What about all of the factory workers being laid off? What about the millions of unemployed Americans who cannot afford health care?" -Im not saying they dont need it. They do. Ive already addressed that. What I'm saying is, How is it fair to those who have earned enough money to pay their own way that those who haven't win a free ride? "This is the slippery slope argument, making a last comeback from the grave. I do not propose that we pay people's bills for them, nor does anybody. What I do propose is that we provide health insurance for all of our citizens, based on need. If you want a country example, look at the booming economies in Germany, or Britain, or Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Italy, Spain, The Netherlands, - Oh, that's right! The USA is the only developed country not to provide health care for those who can't afford it!" - but thats just it!! you ARE proposing we pay everyone's bills. Need I remind you??? You said, "I propose that it [the government] purchase insurance (at discount, because of the number of plans that it would purchase) to cover those who cannot afford" insurance." Insurance is a bill. What makes it any different from paying their water bill? They still need water to survive. Furthermore, my point is that if you start giving away free money, IT WILL NEVER STOP. Also, all of the countries you listed do have universal healthcare. They all also have poor economies and more civil unrest than we do. The United States may not have univeral healthcare, but we have a thriving economy and a good work ethic. The reason for that??? We haven't submitted to socialistic views on citizenship. Our free-market economy continues to thrive because we have not given free money. We have not SPOILED our citizens and we should not start now. "OK. Now who's proposing socialized medicine? How much would this cost? Where does the money come from? It's millions, maybe billions or trillions more than my plan. This creates a massive government bureaucracy, and I thought that conservatism was against massive government. Oh, pardon me." - Maintaining low quality clinics would not be any more than paying monthly fees for insurance until the end of time. It would be next to nothing to fund anyway. With the removal of Medicare, you could already almost fund it. You under estimate how much we pour into medicare every year. That tied onto your proposed tax repeals and outsider donations would easily cover those costs. Also, My plan is not by any stretch of the imagination socialism. It is quite the opposite. It leaves people insentive to move up without a government piggy-back. It encourages people to work harder for better things. Your plan just wants to ride through the streets on a giant bus throwing money out to the poor. Giving free money is socialism. Not encouraging people to work harder. I would like to emphasize the difference again My plan gives people who need it healthcare, but leaves plenty of incentive to move up. Your plan just gives everyone free money. How can you honestly say that mine is socialism and yours is not??? Giving people free healthcare, will lead to them want more free government giveaways. The more they whine, the more people give it to them. It is the first step down a road we DO NOT want to go down. Socialzed healthcare is NOT the answer, and your plan IS socialized healthcare.

Title: USA should have universal background checks Content: USA should have universal background checks while it may be disputed the exact number, the commonly cited stat is that ninety percent of people support background checks. there's plenty of potential here- over 40% of gun sales involve no background checks. at the point of sale, back ground checks stop tons of people.... http://www.timesdispatch.com... what about the idea that they can just go get em illegally? it's not even like people can't get access to guns, it would just limit who can get them so easily, or perhaps at all. not all criminals (or more often normal people who turn to criminals) are die hards who will stop at nothing to get a gun. if we've restricted the access to guns, surely it will have some positive effect. besides common sense, here are some points to consider as more evidence that not all will run to get an illegal gun: besides states and countries, i can also cite a study that says that the more likely you are to have a gun, the more likely you are to use it, or to have problems related to it. http://aje.oxfordjournals.org... a large study done at harvard showed that the more guns a state or country has, the more overall deaths they have. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... what effect the overall national decline in firearm ownership from 1981 to 2010 had on gun homicides. The result was staggering: "for each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of household gun ownership," Siegel et al. found, "firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9R43; percent. i can also cite a study that says that the more likely a state is to have guns, the higher their gun homicide rate is.. in fact, up to twice as high. if the above link is established to be true, this should be self evident. https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net... and, you can argue 'people will just find other ways to kill' but it's contrary to the evidence above.... isn't it fair to conclude that the more likely you are to have a gun, the more likely you are to murder someone? In fact, our serious crime rate is about even with countries like Germany and Denmark, but our homicide rate is three times higher than either, largely the result of guns being used in criminal attacks. we might find outliers, state or city anecdotal evidence, but the overall picture is painted with the above evidence. think about common sense points too: -think of someone on jerry springer having their arguments in the front yard. don't you think they'd be more likely to run in and get a gun if they had one? do you think they'd run in and get a knife? not as likely. /// i know plenty of people who don't have guns, and when they get guns, are prone to talking about using it. this is a common mentality among street and poor folks.it's almost even human nature. -and, are you willing to admit that one hundred of the people who are denied one would go get one? -and, are you willing to admit that having a gun doesn't cause anyone at all more prone to wanting to use it or kill someone? -if there's any doubt about whether checks will make a difference, why not just give it the benefit of the doubt given the only cost is mere inconvenience? the evidence is overwhelming.

Title: The United States needs Universal Healthcare. Content: I will take it easy on you. Lets face it man, we all want to help people and everyone should be given care in our society. We try and do what we can but everyone cannot be happy. It is ridiculous the amount of money it costs for things these days. Some would say that is because only the strong can survive. I know this cynical but it really is the truth. I wish that people could afford care but sometimes technology use causes payments to excessive. Many people are extremely quick to jump on the "free" health care bandwagon. The only thing that attracts these people is one word, "free". What these people fail to realize is that with free health care comes inadequate doctors, third-rate facilities, months of waiting for care, and a higher cost of living in general. Though it is easy to say the government should be expected to pay for health care, it is not so easy to tell a doctor who has dedicated his entire life to medicine, that he does not deserve to get paid for his efforts. The reason we find the majority of the best doctors in the United States, is because they get paid for their craft, and they get paid well. Why would a doctor who has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in schooling, and the better part of the first thirty years of his life learning, go work in a place where he cannot maximize his income, or make a greater benefit to his cause? There is enough need in the United States and the rest of the world for any doctor who wants to donate his service for free, to do so, and they do. I can only assume that most want to get paid. History has shown that socialized health care does not work. If we had free health care in the United States, our economy would pay the price, as would the people. We complain about having to wait three or four hours to see a doctor, could you imagine waiting three or four months to see a doctor who you knew wasn't the best? We would wait a lot longer than a few hours if nobody was paying for their services. The reason we have so many hospitals, and doctors to fill them, is because we pay. Before you ask for something for free, make sure you see what you're getting.

Title: The US Federal Government should implement universal college for all. Content: Ive only done one debate before, but I'll do it!

Title: The United States should implement universal health care modeled after the french system. Content: Sorry for the confusion. Billy is still alive (although maybe like the guy in Monty Python and the Holy Grail), he just can't work. Second, don't defer me to a website like that. I don't defer people looking for facts to Michael Moore (although he is amazing). But anyhow, the edges of the spectrum like to stretch the truth, and that is no exception. I found the article, and, since I haven't found that "fact" anywhere else, I find it hard to believe. And the average cost of healthcare, for Billy, might be 300% of his paycheck. It might cost more to the rich guys, but you can see how beautifully the Bush tax cuts worked, based on the same principle that you speak of. It is a sad thing, there really is no such thing as free healthcare. Somebody has to pay. Truth is, just as the French have to pay for extra coverage, we don't need a comprehensive system. We just need basic necessities, paid for in a fair way. I wish I had more space, but basically, health is something we all deserve.

Title: Universal Health Care Content: In the past 4 years the unemployment rate has increased more than 4%*, that means more than 25 million people lost their jobs, it wasn't their fault, that current government made decisions that were "supposed" to improve economy,but it result in the opposite: the economy fall. Now even some people who have stable jobs cant afford a medical treatment, cholesterol prescribed drugs average is about 80** dollars a month, the government has to respond for all those people. It shouldn't be guaranteed for people with high incomes, but its a necessity for the all the unemployed people. The doctors is an essential issue in the free health care. The Hippocratic oath*** is an oath they take,swearing to practice medicine ethically; in that concept ethically means with no distinction of class,sex or race. That doesn't mean they have to it freely or obligated. Theirs jobs are not going to be paid less, a economic principle is that the higher demand of the service, the higher it should be payed.

Title: The United States ought to guarantee universal healthcare for it citizens Content: C1. The State must provide HC It is a part of its obligation to protect citizens, Gary E. Jones, professor of Philosophy explains, "the proper function of the State is to provide basic protection to its citizens (then) there seems to be a basis for the right to at least minimal health care. At the national level, the State is charged with the protection of the national citizenry. In so far as this refers to the citizenry taken as individuals, it would seem that the State has an obligation to protect individuals from threats to life. At local level, the existence of publicly funded protective services suggests that at least health care for imminent threats to life from illness or accident should be publicly funded. It is flatly inconsistent to publicly fund protection by police and fire agencies of not only life but trivial forms of property, and yet place medical treatment in emergency cases on a fee for service basis. Consideration of either level of government shows that some governmental responsibility for health care is indicated." As it is generally agreed that the state has an obligation to protect its citizens from substantial threats to life and it has been agreed upon that this encompasses police force and firefighters it would rightly follow that this too must encompass health care, if lack thereof is deemed a substantial threat to life in the country. C2. Our Current System is Bad a.The US TRAILS MANY OTHER COUNTRIES IN MULTIPLE HEALTH INDICATORS, Lobosky explains, " The WHOs data bank provides a reasonably accurate accounting of the health status of member countries. How does the American health system measure up? Life expectancy is a place to begin. American men can expect to live seventy-five years and American women eighty years. Those figures tie for twenty-ninth and thirtieth in the world. Infant mortality in the US ranks thirty-third in the world. Maternal mortality rates are not much better; the US is ranked thirtieth. Canada, with the so-called horrendous health system, loses 5 mothers per 1,000 live births. Select almost any of the parameters studied by the WHO and the US system falls short in almost every single category: cancer-related deaths (ninety-ninth), deaths from heart disease (twenty-sixth), childhood deaths from pneumonia (twenty-fourth), mortality rates from traumatic injuries (fifty-seventh) These figures are unsettling," The United States ranks poorly in relation to the rest of the industrialized world (on a side note the United States is the only industrialized nation in the world to not have universal healthcare and to view access to healthcare as a commodity) b.US HEALTH SYSTEM BROKEN " SPEND MORE FOR A LOT LESS THAN OTHER COUNTRIES Handler, a Medical Professor explains, "The health-care delivery system in America is indefensible. $2 trillion fuels the system, some 16 percent of our national productivity. If we were all covered, that"s more than $6,500 per person. About 40 percent of us can"t afford the care we are told we need, either because we are inadequately insured or payments out of pocket would bankrupt us. Medical bills broke the back of over 40 percent who declare bankruptcy, this sorry state continues to deteriorate. Clearly the cause is not a lack of money. Every other resource-advantaged country indemnifies their entire population with less, usually far less, than half we expend " and with better national health statistics" The United States is currently spending more than any other country yet trails in multiple health indicators. c.Approximately 100,000 people die annually in the U.S. due to lack of universal healthcare. A study done by Boyd in 2012 explains, "of the 19 industrialized nations studied, the United States came in dead last , Researchers tracked deaths that could have been prevented by access to timely and effective health care, They estimated 101,000 people die prematurely in the United States each year because of lack of timely access to medical care.. Almost 50 million Americans lack insurance, and in a private health care system like ours, that means they also lack access to effective and appropriate care. The fact that other countries are reducing these preventable deaths more rapidly, yet spending far less, indicates that policy, goals and efforts to improve health systems make a difference. As shown in Subpoint a, the United States ranks poorly in regard to health indicators, as shown by subpoint b the United States spends more, now as shown by subpoint c many people are dying as a result. d.NUMBER OF UNINSURED AMERICANS CONTINUES TO GROW " UNIQUE AMONG DEVELOPED COUNTRIES. Derickson, professor of Labor relations at Penn States explains, "Since 1980, the number of uninsured Americans, the vast majority of whom are members of working families has risen. The revelation that the ranks of the uninsured swelled from 33 million in 1983, a year of severe recession, to 37 million in 1986, a year of buoyant recovery, underscored both the immensity of the problem and the degree to which this problem afflicted the employed as well as the unemployed. Canada, France, Germany, Italy, every other country in the civilized world provides its citizens with the dignity of accessing health care without having to beg for it." The United States" problem is only getting worse C3. Universal Health Care is good a.Health is a prerequisite to achieving ends and exercising rights, Hurley explains, "Health is ethically good to the extent that it contributes to the realization of the ultimate end sought-happiness, capabilities and functionings, fulfillment of a rational life plan, health is often accorded special ethical significance because it is necessary to achieving most intermediate and ultimate ends. Ill health represents a time of considerable vulnerability and dependency on others, giving society's response to those who suffer illness and injury particular ethical salience. " When one is unhealthy one is impeded from achieving their own ends and pursuing happiness. When one is ill, liberty and responsibility quickly turn to dependency therefore health is necessary to achieve most ends while retaining independence. b.THE ADVANTAGES OF UNIVERSAL COVERAGE ACCRUE TO EVERYONE, NOT JUST INDIVIDUALS WHO USE THEIR INSURANCE, Murray explains, "Major advantages from universal or near-universal coverage of the population accrue to virtually everyone. In regard to efficiency, these include more accessible preventive care, lower inappropriate use of emergency rooms (which operate as providers of last resort for the uninsured), freedom from financial and care-giving burdens placed on others by the uninsured, and lower absenteeism and more reliable productivity from a workforce that can access basic health services. In regard to justice, these advantages include the presence of well and ill alike in a common pool for sharing the costs of care, so that no one finds fair equality of opportunity in life blocked by the direct expense of illness or insurance. This avoids situations where people fail to pay into insurance pools because they believe they are well enough not to need insurance, only to have to be bailed out by others who end up providing them significant care." Universal healthcare would be beneficial to everyone c.Upholding life is the ultimate moral standard. Rasmussen a Professor of Philosophy at Bellarmine and St. John's explains, "the ultimate end as the standard by which all other ends are evaluated. Life as the sort of thing a living entity is, then, is the ultimate standard of value, and since only human beings are capable of choosing their ends, it is the life as a human being-man's life qua man-that is the standard for moral evaluation. " Therefore because life is the ultimate moral standard, and universal healthcare upholds life, then Universal healthcare is indeed a moral obligation of the government to guarantee. I urge an affirmative ballot.