Debate
We just hosted a debate between Cambridge and Rollins (us.)
The topic: Government has an obligation to provide healthcare for its citizens.
Cambridge was for and Rollins was against.
The Cambridge arguments: government has an obligation to protect the rights of its citizens. Freedom of speech, etc. Government has an obligation to provide that its citizens can actually use those rights -- as in, be alive. Government has an obligation to make sure citizens have access to healthcare. Private sector has obligations to its shareholders, and therefore money, foremost -- not in line with protecting health of citizens. Private sector doesn't provide, and government has an obligation.
The Rollins argument: healthcare is not written in the constitution, therefore not an obligation. Universal decisions are never the correct action because America isn't homogeneous. Individuals should petition the government to get their needs met if they find they can't get access. The government cannot run things correctly -- look at public education.
What I took away from the debate: my school is full of privileged assholes. One of the R. debaters outright said that he didn't believe people who buy private education should have to pay into the public fund.
Rollins also came dangerously close a number of times to saying that the person who buys private insurance has a higher right to not double-pay (use private insurance as well as being taxed for universal healthcare) than a person who cannot afford private health insurance has a right to access healthcare.
Rollins used the "We have the best doctors in the world" argument. Rollins also used the term 'Obamacare' unironically at least five times.
Cambridge relied too heavily on 'providing people with healthcare is the moral thing to do' without properly countering Rollins' arguments.
Rollins outright said that the government fucks things up, but the private sector doesn't fuck things up. ...I might have laughed loudly at this point.
Cambridge pointed out that many other countries manage universal healthcare with lower costs per-person than the United States does with private healthcare.
Rollins believes that on universal healthcare you are locked in without choices (always stuck with the government) while in the private system, you can always find a new provider if you don't agree. I also might have laughed loudly here.
Cambridge said that the government has accountability, because you can vote them out if they fuck up, while the private sector is only accountable to its stockholders.
Rollins said that while we theoretically can just vote out our government, the reality is that we're often stuck between two terrible choices. A lot of cheers to this.
My final take:
Whether or not you believe we are/will do a crappy job does not affect whether we have the obligation to do that job.
I acknowledge that we often have crappy people in office. Simply folding and following the status quo because you're afraid of putting more power into those people's hands /is not the answer./ Your criticizing out system while supporting the continuation of our system. If you don't like how politics work in America, try to change things.
Bottom line: stupidity and greed do not negate obligation. We have an obligation to help each other. Let's put in the effort to make that possible.
((Also: individuals should petition the government. You're saying that we should work together and petition our local governments to get our needs met. How is this different than our /elected officials/ working with the federal government to get our needs met? You kept saying, also, that it made no sense to offer universal coverage since everyone is different. What does this even mean?)
((And, Jesus, Cambridge says that NHS provides basic coverage to everyone and, if they feel the need, they can buy into the private system. Woman in the audience points out that this is a tiered system, that people wouldn't pay extra if they felt the coverage was adequate, and that Cambridge says that "Substandard care is better than no care at all. Well, I don't agree." The number of cheers that got from the audience was frightening.)
The topic: Government has an obligation to provide healthcare for its citizens.
Cambridge was for and Rollins was against.
The Cambridge arguments: government has an obligation to protect the rights of its citizens. Freedom of speech, etc. Government has an obligation to provide that its citizens can actually use those rights -- as in, be alive. Government has an obligation to make sure citizens have access to healthcare. Private sector has obligations to its shareholders, and therefore money, foremost -- not in line with protecting health of citizens. Private sector doesn't provide, and government has an obligation.
The Rollins argument: healthcare is not written in the constitution, therefore not an obligation. Universal decisions are never the correct action because America isn't homogeneous. Individuals should petition the government to get their needs met if they find they can't get access. The government cannot run things correctly -- look at public education.
What I took away from the debate: my school is full of privileged assholes. One of the R. debaters outright said that he didn't believe people who buy private education should have to pay into the public fund.
Rollins also came dangerously close a number of times to saying that the person who buys private insurance has a higher right to not double-pay (use private insurance as well as being taxed for universal healthcare) than a person who cannot afford private health insurance has a right to access healthcare.
Rollins used the "We have the best doctors in the world" argument. Rollins also used the term 'Obamacare' unironically at least five times.
Cambridge relied too heavily on 'providing people with healthcare is the moral thing to do' without properly countering Rollins' arguments.
Rollins outright said that the government fucks things up, but the private sector doesn't fuck things up. ...I might have laughed loudly at this point.
Cambridge pointed out that many other countries manage universal healthcare with lower costs per-person than the United States does with private healthcare.
Rollins believes that on universal healthcare you are locked in without choices (always stuck with the government) while in the private system, you can always find a new provider if you don't agree. I also might have laughed loudly here.
Cambridge said that the government has accountability, because you can vote them out if they fuck up, while the private sector is only accountable to its stockholders.
Rollins said that while we theoretically can just vote out our government, the reality is that we're often stuck between two terrible choices. A lot of cheers to this.
My final take:
Whether or not you believe we are/will do a crappy job does not affect whether we have the obligation to do that job.
I acknowledge that we often have crappy people in office. Simply folding and following the status quo because you're afraid of putting more power into those people's hands /is not the answer./ Your criticizing out system while supporting the continuation of our system. If you don't like how politics work in America, try to change things.
Bottom line: stupidity and greed do not negate obligation. We have an obligation to help each other. Let's put in the effort to make that possible.
((Also: individuals should petition the government. You're saying that we should work together and petition our local governments to get our needs met. How is this different than our /elected officials/ working with the federal government to get our needs met? You kept saying, also, that it made no sense to offer universal coverage since everyone is different. What does this even mean?)
((And, Jesus, Cambridge says that NHS provides basic coverage to everyone and, if they feel the need, they can buy into the private system. Woman in the audience points out that this is a tiered system, that people wouldn't pay extra if they felt the coverage was adequate, and that Cambridge says that "Substandard care is better than no care at all. Well, I don't agree." The number of cheers that got from the audience was frightening.)