Vamsi and Grace's French Health Care affirmative

Affirmative

Resolve: That the United States government should implement universal health care modeled after the French system.
There are over 300 million people in America. Of these, 47 million of them, or 16 percent of the population, do not have health care. These people suffer under a society where they are unable to afford essentials, such as health care. Under the French system all residents are provided with basic health care. The Resolution for this debate reads as the following: "That the United States government should implement universal health care modeled after the French system." There are some important terms that need to be defined, implement, which means put into effect according to a definite plan or procedure. Universal, which in the French sense means to all residents, health care which means to promote, restore, and maintain health and modeled, which means to imitate a standard or comparison.
Contention 1: The French Health Care System is more affordable than US health care
According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), in 2005, the United States spent 1.9 trillion dollars on health, whereas France only spent 210 billion. This calculates down to $6 347 per capita and $3036 per capita in the US and France, or almost HALF as much as the US. This directly shows that the French Health Care System is more economically friendly than that of the United States.
Contention 2: The French Health Care System is more effective than US health care
In 2001, the French Health Care System was ranked #1 in the world. On the contrary, the United States of America, took 37th place. Many factors were used to determine these ranks, and in all of these, France outdid the US. For instance, the average Life Expectancy for Females in France is 83.7 years, whereas for in the US it is 80.4. Also, the Infant mortality rate in France is 3.8 deaths per 1000, whereas in the US it is 6.9, or almost double. This is due to the fact that the French Health Care views pregnancy as a precious stage of life. There are months of paid job leave to the mother before and after the baby is born, as well as house calls from nurses to make sure that everything is ready before and after the newborn arrives. Moreover, in 2003, two researchers from the London School of Health and Tropical Medicine challenged the World Health Organization results, and decided to make their own assessment. They made their test on the amenable mortality rate of countries, or basically a measure of deaths that could have been prevented through good health care. Once again, France ranked first (65 deaths per 100,000), and US ranked last (110 deaths per 100,000). Although the US is renowned for its premier Emergency health, France triumphs as the best because it has proven that it is better to prevent a problem, rather than cure.
Contention 3: French health care is given as a human right
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that “everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of oneself and one’s family, including food, clothing, housing, and medical care.” The US health care system is flawed because it views this right as a financial privilege. Although medicare and medicaid are a step in the right direction, they do not go far enough because they only cover certain people. In contrast, this human right is offered in the French Health Care system for the French Health Care system covers all of its residents.

Conclusion:

These three reasons have established that the French Health Care System is superior to the United States Health Care System. Therefore, it is required for the well-being and preservation of the People of the United States of America, that the US Government should implement universal health care modeled after the French System.

Negative

Resolve: That the United States government should implement universal health care modeled after the French system.

Capitalism is the basis of the United States of America. It has enabled us to flourish and prosper. Therefore, when it is challenged by a concept that appears to be beneficial to the society, but is subtly detrimental to it, we must protect and preserve this value.
The Resolution for this debate reads as the following: "That the United States government should implement universal health care modeled after the French system." There are some important terms that are in need of definitions, those being implement, which means put into effect according to a definite plan or procedure. Universal, which in the French sense means to all residents, health care which means to promote, restore, and maintain health and modeled, which means to imitate a standard or comparison.

Contention 1: The French and US cultures are different
French culture is far different than that of our American culture. While the French is geared more towards quality and simplicity, our society has a higher necessity for convenience. Plenty of things in our society do not work towards the preservation of the human body. There are hundreds of products that people around the world use everyday that are harmful, such as smoking, drinking, doing drugs, experiencing sleep deprivation and dehydration, and eating cheap food that can later lead to health hazards, such as atherosclerosis and obesity. Using and abusing these substances is their decision. They hold responsibility for what they put into their body and how they treat it. Therefore, it is ridiculous to assume that after trashing their body their entire life that the government should bail them out. It is their own decisions that have made them that way, not the government. Therefore, the government is not responsible, they are.
Contention 2: The French Health Care system is contrary to capitalism
According to the French Health Care System, health care is provided simply on the basis of residency. This means that anyone, no matter what they do, how much they contribute to society, or who they are, can just walk into a clinic, ask the doctors a few questions, and be reimbursed by the government for the bill. Anyone and everyone. This sounds a lot like communism, a socioeconomic structure that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, society, where all people are treated similarly, by being given the same political, economic, social, and civil rights. Fortunately, the United States of America follows capitalism, or an economic system based on private ownership of capital, or wealth. Hence, the adoption of the French Health Care System, would mean the adoption of a socialistic (based on government ownership) structure with a communistic outcome to it, which is contrary to the capitalistic America. Hypothetically, if we even were to implement this system there would be private insurance companies and such that would wish to stay private. Good doctors would then leave the government system to go and work for these private companies, because they would receive more money than the government standard. This would cause a segregation of the quality of doctors available. Those who are wealthy enough to afford the better doctors would receive better coverage. Leaving the less fortunate with the lesser skilled doctors. This is clearly contrary to our country's ideal of inspiration

Contention 3: The French Health Care system is not financially correct for the USA
Lastly, the reason that the French Health Care System is being considered, is because it was ranked #1 in 2001 by the World Health Organization. Agreed, France surpasses the US in health statistics, but that does not warrant a total changeover, simply because it is not practical. France's health expenditure may be lower, but the for the two countries is totally different. US is almost 5 times larger than France in population, and way over 10 times bigger in size. Also, the US environment is different to France's environment.
Moreover, France's Health Care System had a 9 billion dollar deficit last year. If converted equivalent to the USA, this debt would be massive. Also 21% of resident's income taxes go towards France's health care system, and half of the financing for the Health Care plan comes for employer taxes. With our economy is such turmoil, we can't risk raising taxes on the struggling public and their potential employers. Taking into consideration the current economic crisis, any such hefty plan would be impractical.
Conclusion:
These three reasons establish that the French Health Care System is not a correct option for the USA. Therefore, it is obligatory, for the preservation of the United States of America and its beliefs, to vote negative for this resolution.

BLOCK : Health Care is not a right
A major focus of this resolution is the word universal. Universal, as defined before means prevalent over all, or all including. Therefore, this resolution is suggesting a health care system that is provided to everyone, as a right. Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that, "Everyone has the right to...medical care...". The definition of medical care is professional treatment for illness or injury. On that basis, the USA has cutting edge medical care. What this resolution suggests is health care, not medical care. Where medical care is necessary for the preservation of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, health care, or access to a doctor for general check-ups, physical exams, and bad days, is not.

Mr. A's sample public forum debate case

A VERY rough draft. Hopefully it's useful as an example.


The Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that “everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of oneself and one’s family, including food, clothing, housing, and medical care.”

Thus, I stand resolved that the United States government should implement universal health care modeled after the French system.

To clarify today's debate, I offer the following definitions. The United States government is the federal government and its agencies. "Modeled after" means based in large part upon the core principles. In essence, those principles are:
1. Basic coverage for all legal residents.
2. A mixture of private and public programs.
3. Funding based on income taxes.


According to Medical News Today,

The funding and benefits of the French public health insurance system (PHIS), much like Germany's, were originally based on professional activity. The main fund covers 80% of the population. Two other funds cover the self-employed and agricultural workers.

Once varying depending on the fund, disparate reimbursement rates were replaced by uniform rates. The funds are financed by employer and employee contributions, as well as personal income taxes....

The public health insurance system covers about 75% of total health expenditures. Half of the outstanding amount is covered by patients' out-of-pocket payments and the other half is paid by private health insurance companies. These supplementary health insurance policies can be taken out by individuals or groups.

About 85% of the population own such policies.

The United States government should adopt this system for three reasons.

My first contention is that the French system is, by and large, effective and successful.

My second contention is that under our current system, health care costs have soared, leaving millions of Americans un- or underinsured. Lack of access to health care causes infant mortality rates far above those of our European neighbors, and quality-of-life measures below those same neighbors through the increased incidence of disease and death. All of these would be eliminated should the U.S. adopt the French model.

According to the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured,

Medicaid covers many low-income children, but delaying or forgoing needed care can lead to more serious health problems, making the uninsured more likely to be hospitalized for avoidable conditions. Overall, the uninsured are also less likely to receive preventive care. Researchers estimate that continuous health coverage could decrease premature mortality rates by up to 25% among uninsured adults.

Cost barriers to health care have been growing in the past decade, even among insured adults. But the uninsured have lost the most ground and it impacts even more than their health. The uninsured are twice as likely as the insured to be unable to pay for basic family necessities, like food and housing, due to medical bills—which can quickly grow into medical debt for those with low incomes.

My third and final contention is the moral imperative: health care is a human right. The French system provides basic care for all residents. It is commensurate not only with the values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness guaranteed by our laws, but with the international understanding that all persons deserve access to medical treatment.

Thus, for these reasons, we not only can, but should implement the French health care system in the United States. Vote affirmative.