[eDebate] health care
Tue Apr 8 22:52:45 CDT 2008
I think a healthcare topic would have NO PROBLEM getting to huge global
impacts. Back on the courts topic I wrote a healthcare DA against state
action affirmatives, basically if you overturned the state action doctrine
the courts would impose universal healthcare. The impacts both directions
a. Economy ---- it could bust the budget but the current healthcare
situation is universally agreed to be terrible ---- can access
competitiveness, healthcare costs as huge internal links.
b. Terrorism ---- specifically global modeling of US health infrastructure
causes bioterrorism preparedness globally or just win attacks in the US.
Great internal link evidence about how universal healthcare stops the spread
of a bioterrorist attack which is uh... big.
c. Leadership ---- soft power ---- plenty of cards that lack of universal
health care crushes US human rights credibility and leadership
d. Disease, obviously ---- Aids is a clear-cut case but also XDR TB which
has some crazy impacts and antibiotic resistance, which also has pretty huge
You can also claim competitiveness impacts from each individual industry.
For example on the energy topic there were cards that auto companies in teh
US get killed (probably true) b/c of high healthcare costs. You can get from
auto industry to military readiness/hard power. Computer/software industry
obviously has huge impacts.
OK, lets even go a step further ---- depending on how the topic is worded if
the aff can get to crushing pharmaceutical industry power the cards that big
pharma is bad for pretty much everything are awesome (they're total lies
written by filthy hippies, but big impacts).
This isn't to say a Russia topic would be bad. I think it would be awesome.
BUT I still favor healthcare. I think the literature is probably a bit
richer, the politics links are certainly better (which should decide
basically everything) and I really, REALLY don't want to hear a year of the
Medvedev disad. Like seriously, every foreign internal politics DA ever has
been totally terrible. If we do have a Russia topic we should nip that one
in the bud.
On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 10:51 PM, M G <malgorthewarrior at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Your arguments bore me. Answered below
> > gotta fight the Russia fight in the trenches--
> > 1. impact magnitude matters because it gives the aff a fighting chance.
> > the health care link to elections is the business, and the impact debate
> > isn't even close. I understand that this is because we prioritize
> > improbable, high magnitude impacts and basically ignore true "alternate
> > causality" arguments, but that structure won't change in time for the
> > health care topic
> The health care link COULD be the business. You are assuming there is
> only one aff under the topic. Let's assume your "devastating link", which
> i'm assuming is a resolution that requires the aff to go in the direction of
> socializing health care. That doesn't require universal health care. That
> would be the only plan that would link so decisively as to prevent the aff
> from link turning. Unfortunately your assumption is lame at best because in
> my experience debate resolutions have more than one viable affirmative. I'm
> pretty sure there are plans to increase access, or government control of,
> health care that are not universally hated by everyone. Don't let
> republican opinion skew your view of what an aff under the Health care topic
> could be. It's not all or nothing.
> Magnitude not even close, perhaps this is true when comparing russia topic
> v health care topic. Russia would likely have more global impacts.
> Fortunately for you, if the health care resolution is chosen affirmatives
> won't have to defend their plan against a "russia counter resolution."
> They'll have to defend their aff compared to viable negative disadvantages.
> The magnitude of affs under HC is certainly sufficient to do this. Are you
> telling me you can't think of an impact to 60 million + americans not having
> health coverage in the next few decades? Since many are not very well read
> in this area (I myself have a relatively limited knowledge) let's use some
> things we all undesrtand
> a) 60 million people is a lot
> b) health care is directly tied to the ability of someone to continue
> c) it's also really expensive to get medical treatment, so most that don't
> have HC don't get such treatment.
> d) virtually everyone will need a major medical procedure or other costly
> HC related service.
> I think that given these facts an affirmative can think of some pretty big
> impacts to not addressing the HC. Crisis. And please Seth, how many rounds
> have you won on the (insert terrible econ impact author) card. I think you
> can hold your own. Remember that impacts are also reciprocal. A domestic
> issue also limits the amount of VIABLE link arguments the neg gets to "go
> And don't forget about impact defense. I know it strains us to think of
> new innovative ways to tackle disads but I bet I can win that if Obama gets
> elected he will not, in fact, get the CTBT ratified.
> > 2. new president puts it too much in flux... combined with argument 1,
> > this is brutal. you have to write the topic to be more radical than the
> > democrat's plan so that we have a topic semester 2, but that guarantees
> > the elections genocide semester 1
> Again, there will be more than 1 aff. A new president, assuming he/she
> can ACTUALLY get a major health initiative passed (very unlikely), would
> eliminate a whopping 1 aff from the topic. Ye also have little faith in the
> topic committee (as someone who served on said committee, this lack of faith
> may be warranted : ). I am confident that we will not make a mistake by
> crafting the first resolution that becomes completely void.
> > 3. Russia might be the most badass shit ever -- you know it, don't lie
> That's why we have a new topic every year! Next time we're up for a
> foreign policy topic Russia would be an excellent consideration. But we
> just had one, so why not change things up a bit. Don't give me any of that
> "I wanna graduate on an awesome foreign policy topic" bullshit either. If
> we allow that to determine our rez then we'd only debate foreign policy
> every year. Instead of letting the Israelyn card determine your opinion of
> a topic, how about reading up on the health care crisis. Then tell me you
> don't think it's something that warrants debate.
> LOVE YOU TOO, CHAMPION!! CONGRATS AGAIN!
> > love ya,
> > seth
> > On 4/8/2008 10:02 PM, M G wrote:
> > > Is health care still an option? I know everyone likes foreign policy,
> > > but we keep ignoring health care despite the fact it is widely
> > > recognized as one of the most pressing concerns in domestic politics
> > > today.
> > >
> > > Why do we only examine debate resolutions on magnitude of the impacts
> > > and never on relevance to the world around us? I'm not saying Russia
> > > or Latin America aren't important, but we just had a foreign policy
> > > topic. More importantly, how many people in our community don't have
> > > health insurance? How many of us know someone who has been personally
> > > affected by the (completely f**ked) health care system?
> > >
> > > Will the HC paper Heather Walters wrote be on the ballot?
> > >
> > > malgor
> > >
> > >
> > > Get in touch in an instant. Get Windows Live Messenger now.
> > > <
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > eDebate mailing list
> > > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
> Going green? See the top 12 foods to eat organic.<http://green.msn.com/galleries/photos/photos.aspx?gid=164&ocid=T003MSN51N1653A>
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman