Check out the Tournament Ladder

  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • 2 years ago

    @metant3 @benmouse42

    Please note that the winner for this round will be determined based on the best out of 5 votes i.e. community + 4 judges. Your confirmed judges so far: @matthewhidalgo @tara_kade

    • 2 years ago
      • 2 years ago
        • 2 years ago

          @metant3 Congrats for advancing to the Finals for the second time!!!!

          @benmouse42 Another awesome round :-) Please expect further details on your debate for the 3rd position later today/ tomorrow

        • 2 years ago

          Are use of kittens fair in a debate?

        • 2 years ago

          Great debate @metant3 ! Had alot of fun :)

          • 2 years ago

            Also here is the thing

          • 2 years ago

            @benmouse42 I worked as an insurance agent for a few years and I still hold a license to sell health insurance in CA. My Dad has worked as a health insurance broker for 30 years, primarily for small businesses. So I can tell you from personal experience that the ACA absolutely did increase premiums, more so than the market would have done on it’s own, mainly because the ACA put all sorts of restrictions on insurers, requiring them to provide certain services in insurance packages and requiring that they cover high-risk individuals. We can debate the merits of that strategy as much as we want, but when a company has to cover high-risk individuals, they are at significant risk of losing money to pay the claims for those high-risk individuals.

            In insurance, a company is saying, “if you pay us a certain amount each month, we will offer to cover the extreme cost associated with any future health costs you might experience.” The insurance company is covering the individual’s risk, in exchange for a small payment. But companies would only do this if they think the risk is low enough that they won’t have to pay out too many claims long term.

            This is why they put people in pools, and the larger the pool, the more statistically likely they are to return a profit. If there are 100 people who are all healthy, the odds of them suffering extreme health problems is low, and the company will probably not have to pay that much in the future. If there are 1000 healthy people, the odds are the same, and the risk is minimized by the amount of people in the pool. This allows them to lower premiums for the people in the pool.

            However, if they’re required to cover people who they will likely have to pay claims for, then they’re not likely to make any profit and could even return a loss. So they either go out of business, or they raise premiums to cover the potential risk. When they raise premiums, this helps them be able to afford the potential payouts to the high risk individuals they’ve just taken on, but it also means everybody else has to pay more. Middle class families and small businesses (the ones my Dad works with) are the ones who have had their premiums affected the most, which is part of why rural and middle class America voted for Trump, thinking he’d do something about their rising healthcare costs.

            So while it’s uncertain if premiums would have continued increasing without the ACA, or by how much, we do know for certain that it did increase premiums once it was in place, because health insurers had no choice but to increase premiums to offset their new risk.

          • 2 years ago

            @debateme13 yer but as you admit in your point, the issue is not rising vs falling, its rising vs rising more.

            Also ofc you can drop premiums by not covering people. But then people arent covered... to which those on the pro have no answer

        • 2 years ago

          CON is basically anti-choice and, surprisingly - anti-health insurance. PRO position is more supportive of insurance (as it would fit the definition...). What CON supports - is everyone paying for 'pre-paid health coverage with no added costs for 'pre-existing conditions, no cost differentials for those who have un-healthy life styles vs. healthy life styles. AND - when you have government mandates and requirements, the costs go sky high due to all the administrative overhead.

          Actual 'out of pocket' health care costs to REAL consumers can be kept much lower if the following things are done:
          1. Pay out of pocket for the 'expected things' like basic well-checkups, the visit to a clinic for a possible ear infection, etc.
          2. Have a high deductible insurance coverage for expensive UNEXPECTED things.
          3. Government should require health care providers to have pricing transparency ....i.e. -POSTED PRICES.
          4. Insurance companies should be able to give discounts to healthy individuals, and charge more to unhealthy.....i.e. - stop overeating, lose weight, exercise - and your premiums go down....NOT up

          Fact is - there is a program that closely approximates 1, 2 and 4 - "Christian Medishare"...where people pay out of pocket for normal stuff. Since it is out of pocket - they are incentivized to look for best prices. The number of people needing help (unexpected high costs) is very small - just like the auto insurance company doesn't expect that many claims to be submitted. AND - the #4 - the program has higher costs for people who are obese or overweight, and there are discounts for those working to 'cure' these problems. Good discounts available for very healthy people. AND -they don't provide coverage for problems due to unhealthy or un-Christian lifestyles (no coverage for drug related problems, alcohol related problems, etc.) Those participating - save big time compared to any ObamaCare plans.

          AND - to consider what government can do to health care costs - look at what happens when a FOR-PROFIT hospital doesn't deal directly with insurance companies or the government (Medicare, Medicaid) - Check out the web site of the Surgery Center of Oklahoma....they have POSTED prices on line, AND -those prices tend to be 1/4th to 1/5th of what a normal (and often 'non-profit') hospital charges. I had a relative who needed a pacemaker installed. Normal hospital - the bill amounted to $80K....Imagine if he is forced to pay 20% of the bill - he would pay $16K. The same procedure has a fix posted price of $13.6K at the Surgery Center of Oklahoma. SO - there is a huge amount of 'bloat' that feeds the 7 and 8 figure salaries of huge insurance and health care companies. It pays for large administrative staffs that help cure NO person. You want to fix health care cost problems - get back to free market solutions.

          • 2 years ago

            @mvineyard In this case, I agree.

            I think if Con wants to make the case he's making, he needs to just admit that the ACA has raised premiums, because of course it has. He needs to double down on "but that's better because more people have insurance and people with pre-existing conditions are covered". He needed to do a cost benefit analysis of how government restrictions that create a worse health insurance market are still preferable because it gets more people covered.

            Of course, that's an uphill battle for Con, which is probably why he tried to argue the ACA hasn't actually caused problems, but it has, and Pro is right that increased competition does drive down costs. Is Trump's health care executive order the answer? Eh, on it's own, I don't think it is, but it's probably a step in the right direction.

        • 2 years ago

          Flashbacks to:

          "The lines around the states" -Marco Rubio

          • 2 years ago

            I consider the kitten foul play. I am unwillingly biased...