Opening Arguments in Favor of Government-Provided Health Care

Editor’s note: Opening speakers in the affirmative for the Allegany County, Maryland, Day of Civility April 8 debate resolution, “Should government provide health care for all citizens?” are Logan Carlile, Delanie Blubauth and Lauren Nordquist, of Frostburg State University. 

Here are some of their talking points for the affirmatives’ opening arguments in the debate…

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), better known as “Obamacare,” survived former President Donald Trump’s promise to completely dismantle and replace it with a new, Republican plan, although with the key provision of the individual mandate having been made ineffective. While President Joseph Biden has promised as part of his agenda to restore such kneecapped provisions, more-progressive congressional Democrats are anxious to take health care reform to the ultimate level: A federal government-backed single-payer plan. 

Affirmatives debating in favor of the resolution, “Should government provide healthcare for all citizens?” in the Braver Angels/Bridge USA/ACTA debate Thursday night have set such a plan as the goal. Here are a few arguments we can expect from affirmatives in the debate …

•Providing universal health care will ultimately cost less than the current “free-market” system. The uninsured in the U.S. cost taxpayers more in the end and giving them government-backed insurance up front leverages taxpayer money, compared with forced emergency services when the illness or injury becomes more severe. 

•Single-payer healthcare is not a forced-government plan. That is, those who have their own health insurance, or employer-provided insurance will not have to give it up, as often claimed by opponents of such a system.

•Universal healthcare in the U.S. will set an example on the world stage that the U.S. is committed to its promises of equality for all and to ensuring a high quality of life through the instatement of resources to support basic right to life.