The Proposition describes a complex system for billing a universal healthcare plan, but doesn't do a good enough job of explaining how those costs relate to existing coverage: How does the cost of the system you propose compare to cost of medicare + private insurers right now? Does medicare exist in your world?
I conclude that either
Proposition removes medicare and other existing public insurance and shifts to paying a percentage of all private insurance costs. I don't know why such a system would increase access for low-income people, and as the Opposition argues it might increase those costs
The Proposition supports a true public option, where there would be a supplemental insurance plan like medicare expanded to cover costs for all citizens. I think that would trigger all of the Oppositions arguments about how increased medicare billing will destroy quality of care, meaning if more people access it it won't be good.
Proposition needs to be clearer on what their system is and how their systems costs and function compare to the critiques the Opposition forwards. In conclusion: You say that the Proposition is not what the Opposition has described it as, but I don't know why that is true.
Don't worry about asking questions, it is of course your right and I want to assist as I can.
I found what you proposed unclear because I do not understand what it means for existing government programs. When explaining why it wouldn't cost as much as your opponent is saying it would, explain to me why, instead of simply asserting it is different. Explaining why it is different will help me to understand the difference and help me vote for you.
For example, does your Proposition eliminate medicare? If Medicare doesn't exist anymore because the government is exclusively paying on a per capita basis according to the terms you gave, what is the estimate of costs that would be incurred? Is it more, or less than the cost of the current system, and why? Answering these questions makes it clearer for me what you're defending, and why the Opposition's arguments don't apply. This should make it clear for other judges as well.
As to your opponent not "blocking" your speech points, I believe the Opposition's points are responsive. For instance, the Opposition Constructive provided multiple pieces of evidence estimating that taxes and additional costs borne by families for government-payer healthcare systems could be too expensive for them to bear, and that government payments can be too low for private healthcare to be profitable. That argument was later extended in the Opposition Rebuttal & Closing when discussing how doctors reported cuts in profits from government payouts would cause doctors to cut quality of care, close blood labs, or leave the industry. These kind of arguments I believe are responsive and paint a picture for why the system you're proposing might be worse than private healthcare without government involvement.
You did say, as you should, that the Opposition's arguments don't apply. Now you need to explain more of what you do and why their thesis is wrong. That will provide next level clash, make the debate more engaging, and clarify what I'm voting for.
Thanks for a good debate. Let me know if you would like any more information, or if I can help by providing any other feedback! - Trevor Reddick on May 17, 2020 at 07:12PM EST
P.S. I am not trying to be a bad sport or change your decision, I was just wondering. I hope to become a better debater through your response
Lucas Hinds - Lucas Hinds on May 17, 2020 at 06:26PM EST
Why is my system "unclear." Even if we assume this is true, my opponent blocked none of my first speech points. Also, there isn't a true way to say how much it would cost, but my point was that as I explained in my second speech my plan would be less than the plans she presented and attacked. Also, my opponent has to make a point that it would be unclear, and she didn't do that. - Lucas Hinds on May 17, 2020 at 05:53PM EST