Affirmatives arguing for the resolution, “Should government provide health care for all citizens?” took a full, universal coverage position in Thursday evening’s Allegany County Day of Civility debate, which means they favor a single-payer system that would not eliminate private health insurance for those willing to pay.

“In America, it has been proven the better your income, the better your health,” argued Jessica Thayer, lead-off affirmative and president of Frostburg State University’s debate club. Health outcomes have “ties with other issues in society,” most notably poverty versus wealth, and race. 

Between 2011 and 2013, 38% of families earning less than $22,500 per year reported being in fair or poor health, while only 12% of those earning $47,000 or more reported the same, Thayer said, and the uninsured rate by 2018 was 9.7% of Black Americans, versus 4.7% of white Americans. Several states, she said, still have not accepted the Medicaid expansion made possible by the Obama administration’s Affordable Care Act.

Meanwhile, the biggest supporter of the health care industry, according to Thayer, the fast-food industry, concentrates drive-through restaurants and convenience stores in poor neighborhoods. 

“Counties with poverty rates of more than 35% have obesity rates 145% greater than wealthy counties,” she said. “Universal health care can ultimately be the only thing standing between life and death for people in poverty.” Thayer added that “universal participation causes no compromises or deterioration of rights.”

During cross-examination in the parliamentary-style debate, negative debater Isadore Johnson pointed to inequalities in such universal care systems as those in England and Israel. 

“We are an extremely wealthy country with great inequality,” Thayer responded. “The poor are left with absolutely no choice at all.” She added that, while universal health care here would not necessarily level the playing field, it would be an improvement over the poor having “no choice at all.”

Brent Thomas asked Johnson whether he would accept subsidized health care as a reasonable alternative.

“It is possible and would be less-bad than universal health care, but would be less good than private insurance,” he replied. Obamacare attempted that, Johnson continued, but was unsuccessful.

The second affirmative in the debate, Logan Carlile of the FSU debate club, noted that the federal government has tried to address the old, sick and poor since the 1930s, and indirectly countered negative debater Johnson’s citation of a long waiting list at the Phoenix VA hospital, saying the Veterans Administration health care has an overall approval rating of more than 80%. 

A system based on for-profit health care is “immoral, leaving people without proper treatment,” Carlile said, noting that 31 million Americans have no health insurance coverage, and 2 million citizens per year die without coverage.

“What would happen to health care insurance?” asked an audience member identified as “H Sack.”

It would not be eliminated as an option, Carlile maintained, though the “middle-class pays a large portion of its income toward premiums.”

FSU debate team secretary Delanie Blubaugh, the third affirmative, spoke of three countries that have had success with universal coverage; Australia, Canada and Brazil. 

All three co-exist with private health care options. In Australia, for example, private insurance pays for faster services for non-emergencies, and the country’s system is decentralized, with a high degree of social participation. 

From the audience, Sierra Widmar asked, “How would universal health care affect the cost people are paying?”

“Consider public health care as equivalent to public education,” Blubaugh responded. 

Lauren Nordquist, the final affirmative, also an FSU debate team member, asserted that “medical costs, in general, would significantly decrease,” to balance the cost of higher income taxes that would pay for the service. Further offset would come from more healthy people able to produce and consume a capitalist economy. But when Kendall Kidwell, a debate audience member, asked whether the federal government might choose specific treatments for those covered by a single-payer plan, Nordquist left that issue open for criticism from the negative side.

“It is possible for one mandated procedure to be chosen,” she replied.

Annette Ritter wrapped up the affirmative-side position on government-provided health care for all citizens – universal care – with this: “The U.S. does not have a health care system. It has a health insurance system.”