Christopher Columbus HS NAnderson I affirm.

First, The word Ought demands examination of an agents function to determine what that agent ought to do. Judgments of good and bad are relative to the object of evaluation. Geach 1 I can now state my first thesis about good and evil: 'good' and 'bad' are always attributive , not predicative, adjectives.

This is fairly clear about 'bad' because 'bad' is something like an alienans adjective; we cannot safely predicate of a bad A what we predicate of an A, any more than we can predicate of a forged banknote or a putative father what we predicate of a bank note or a father. We actually call forged money' bad'; and we cannot infer e.g. that because food supports life bad food supports life. For' good' the point is not so clear at first sight , since ' good' is not alienans-

consider the contrast in such a [the] pair of phrases as 'red car' and 'good car' . I could ascertain that a distant object is a red car because I can see it is red and a keenersighted but colour-blind friend can see it is a car ; [but] there is no such possibility of ascertaining that a thing is a good car by pooling independent information that it is good and that it is a car. This sort of example shows that ' good' like ' bad' is essentially an attributive adjective. Even when ' good ' or ' bad ' stands by itself as a predicate, and is thus grammatically predicative, some substantive has to be understood; there is no such thing as being just good or bad, there is only being a good or bad so-and-so. (If I say that something is a good or bad thing, either 'thing' is a mere proxy for
whatever holds true of an A as such holds true of a good A. But a more descriptive noun to be supplied from the context; or else I am trying to use 'good' or 'bad' predicatively, and its be ing grammatically attributive is a mere disguise. The latter attempt is, on my thesis, illegitimate.)

Anscombe continues, The terms should or ought or needs relate to good and bad: e.g.[for example] machinery needs oil, or should or ought to be oiled, in that running without oil is bad for it, or it runs badly without oil. According to this conception, of course, "should" and "ought" are not used in a special "moral" sense when one says that a man should not bilk. (In Aristotle's
sense of the term "moral" [], they are being used in connection with a moral subject matter: namely that of human passions and [non_technical] actions.) But they have now acquired a special so_called "moral" sense-_i.e. a sense in which they imply some absolute verdict (like one of guilty/not guilty on a man) on what is described in the "ought" sentences used in certain types of context: not merely the contexts that Aristotle would call "moral"_-passions and actions_-but also some of the contexts that he would call "intellectual." The ordinary (and quite indispensable) terms "should," "needs," "ought," "must"_-acquired this special sense by being equated in the relevant contexts with "is obliged," or "is bound," or "is required to," in the sense in which one can be obliged or bound by law, or something can be required by law.

Consequently, an agent ought to act in a way that conforms to its function. Thus, the affirmative burden is to prove that affirming is consistent with the U.S.s function. And moral conceptions of ought fail because states are not moral actors. Gerson writes:
Gerson, Lloyd P. Aristotles Politics Today. Another way to look at this point is to consider that in cases of genuine self-awareness, the subject who has the intentional object, say, a purpose must be identical with the subject who is aware of having that intentional object. But when the nation has a purpose, as expressed, say, in a resolution of a governing body, it is not the nation that is self-aware but the persons who comprise it. And that self-awareness is not of each individuals own purpose, since ones own purposes may be in conflict with those of the nation. Even if they are not in conflict, that is, even if there is 100 percent support for a motion, the

awareness of the nations [its] purpose as expressed in the motion occurs in the individual persons and not in the nation. Unless you can put purpose and self-awareness of purpose in the identical subject, you cannot have a moral agent. And in the case of group action, you can never have the identical subject that both has the purpose and is self-aware of having it. Knowing that my nation has declared war is different from the act of declaring war and occurs in a different subject. Indeed, the nation or the nonmoral agent that declares war cannot know that it declares war any more than the chess-playing robot can know that it won.

Thus I value consistency with the U.S.s function as a sovereign.

Peter T. Geach, Good and Evil. Oxford University Press pp. 64-73

Christopher Columbus HS NAnderson The function of the sovereign is to enable the pursuit of ethical principles that satisfy the collective selfinterest of citizens. Nagel states

What creates the link between justice and sovereignty is something common to a wide range of conceptions [the dependence] of justice: they all depend on the coordinated conduct of large numbers of people, which cannot be achieved without law backed up by a monopoly of force. Hobbes construed the principles of justice, and more broadly the moral law, as [is] a set of rules and practices that would serve[s] everyones interest if everyone conformed to them. [but] This collective self-interest cannot be realized by the independent motivation of self-interested individuals unless each of them has the [without] assurance that others will conform if he does. That assurance requires the external incentive provided by the sovereign, who sees to it that individual and collective self-interest coincide. At least among sizable populations, it cannot be provided by voluntary conventions supported solely by the mutual recognition of a
common interest.

The sovereign is created because absent its binding power on agents, citizens can never realize an ethical good life as moral principles intended to bring about this state of affairs fail to bind agents to a conception of morality. Therefore, the sovereigns function is to enforce the moral claims of the citizens responsible for its existence. Thus the standard is consistency with the states obligation to respect and enforce the moral claims of its own citizens. Note that the burden of proof is upon the negative because no sane historian would begin upon the premise that all functional governments are invalid and inconsistent with their own function. So, you begin with an assumption that the ballot is affirmative until otherwise proven by my opponent. Skepticism also flows aff insofar as this is true. I contend that affirming is upholds the standard. First, an obligation only exists to further moral principles through the domestic institutions that enforce them because these institutions are what enable a relation that allows for the pursuit of an ethical good life. Nagel 2 their existence [of a sovereign state] is precisely what gives the value of justice its application, by putting the fellow citizens of a sovereign state into a relation that they do not have with the rest of humanity, an institutional relation which must then be evaluated by the special standards of fairness and equality that fill out the content of justice.
On the political conception, sovereign states are not merely instruments for realizing the preinstitutional value of justice among human beings. Instead,

Every state has the boundaries and population it has for all sorts of accidental and historical reasons; but given that it exercises sovereign power over its citizens and in their name, those citizens have a duty of justice toward one another through the legal, social, and

institutions that sovereign power makes possible. This duty is sui generis, and is not owed to everyone in the world, nor is it an indirect consequence of any other duty that may be owed to everyone in the world, such as a duty of humanity. Justice is something we [but rather] owe[d] through our shared institutions only to those with whom we stand in a strong political relation. It is, in the standard terminology, an associative obligation.
economic

So, in order for the government to uphold its citizens moral claims, it must do so through the shared institutions that it has within its boundaries, or rather domestic institutions. When citizens are denied access to hospitals and medical clinics for whatever reason the hospital and clinical officials see fit they are denied this relation and thus neglecting the obligation of the sovereign. The only way to guarantee this creation of a relation between

Christopher Columbus HS NAnderson 3 citizens and the government is to guarantee universal healthcare. Thus effectively guaranteeing universal access hospitals for its citizens, and consequently upholding the moral claims of its citizens by enforcing this relation. Second, the actual desires of the people reflect their moral claims insofar as what they want could very well be what they individually claim in a moral system. The American Medical Journal2 polled citizens and:
A law was passed in 2010 requiring all residents to have health insurance. Although low-income residents will receive state subsidies to help pay their insurance premiums, everyone must pay something for health services. The plan will penalize people who are currently uninsured and do not obtain an insurance policy and will charge fees to employers who do not provide coverage. But the law will impose no new across-the-board taxes to reach its objective. This law is a compromise among three ways of solving the problem of the uninsured: an individual mandate, an employer mandate, and an expansion of public programs. It also reflects the fact that no single approach had majority support among the public and that each approach on its own was subject to criticism that substantially reduced public support. Likewise, it responds to the lack of public support for a broad based tax increase to solve this problem. The basis for this compromise can be found in a 2010 survey asking over

[47 percent] said they would like the government to make a major effort to provide health[care] insurance for nearly all of the uninsured, even though that might require a tax increase to pay for it. But a nearly equal proportion [of 34 percent] chose an universal alternative that did not involve a tax increase, either making a more limited effort (34 percent) [and only 11 percent were against it] or leaving things as they were (11 percent) (Blendon et al. 2003).
1000 adults to choose which of three statements came closest to what they thought the government should do for the uninsured. Nearly half (47 percent)

Thus, because an overwhelming 81 percent of Americans believed that the US government should make an effort to insure all Americans, thus it is in the public opinion and the moral claims of citizens, and you affirm because the United States is maintaining consistency with its function. Third, because there is no evident gap between consistent or inconsistent, if something is not inconsistent, it follows logically that it is consistent. So, you weigh Supreme Court decisions as proving either consistency or inconsistency, and prefer its rulings for four reasons. 1) The Supreme Court is the final arbiter in determining constitutionality through judicial review, meaning I link into the resolution the best because I deny inconsistency and prove consistency through means of constitutionality. 2) Supreme Court decisions resolve the states democratic function, and thus provide a metric for what the US ought to do. If the US is inconsistent with Supreme Court rulings it is inconsistent with its function as it is not being constitutional. 3) Once a Supreme Court ruling is made, the US must follow its precedent, providing a clear bright line for what it ought to do. With the clear bright line present in Supreme Court rulings is also a clear bright line as to what is consistent or inconsistent. 4) The Supreme Court resolves the democracy of the United States citizenry. Giles, Blackstone, and Vining state:
3 While the conventional view is that the judicial attitudes are relatively enduring, Cardozos suggestion that judicial attitudes are subject to revision finds support in the scholarly literature. The attitudes of some [the] Supreme Court justices have been found to shift significantly over time (Ulmer 1973, 1981; Baum 1988) and recent scholarship suggests that attitudinal change may be far more common among justices than conventionally assumed (Epstein et al. 1998; Epstein et al. 2007). Moreover, the literature on public opinion and judicial decision-making has picked up Cardozos claim that shifts in judicial attitudes may reflect the influence of social forces. Mishler and Sheehan (1996, 175) argue the
2

attitudes of some justices occasionally may change, consciously

Americans' Views of Health Care Costs, Access, and Quality by Robert J. Blendon, Mollyann Brodie, John M. Benson, Drew E. Altman and Tami Buhr. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25098136
3 The Supreme Court in American democracy: Unraveling the linkages between public opinion and judicial decision making; MW Giles, B Blackstone, RL Vining Jr - Journal of Politics, 2008

- Cambridge Univ Press

Christopher Columbus HS NAnderson 4 or not, in response to either fundamental, long-term shifts in the public mood or to the societal forces that underlie them. Flemming and Wood (1997, 471) likewise suggest that justices may simply be social beings confronted with the plethora of stimuli emanating from American culture, media and politics... Thus, the attitudinal change explanation suggests that the observed direct linkage between public opinion and the behavior of justices arises from the force of mutually experienced events and ideas in shaping and re-shaping the preferences of both the public and the justices. If the attitudinal change hypothesis is
correct, the observed responsiveness to public opinion is not the result of strategic calculations of the justices, but of changes in the preferences of the justices that parallel the changing preferences of the public.

And, you affirm off Supreme Court rulings because in 2011 the case of
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS, ET AL., PETITIONERS 11 393 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL.

[NFIB] v. KATHLEEN SEBELIUS,

Concluded that the Affordable Care Act, the most recent attempt of extending universal healthcare, ended in a supreme court decision against the unconstitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. Meaning that the Affordable Care act and effectively, Universal Health Care, are not unconstitutional and thus not inconsistent with the function of the US as a sovereign and consequently consistent with the United States function as a sovereign. And because this is consistent with the United States function as a sovereign you affirm. Fourth, the United States cant uphold the moral claims of all its citizens if some arent provided for in the system. Universal Healthcare solves for multiple factors that hinder its ability to uphold the moral claims of its citizens. A. Women Women have experienced multiple discriminatory policies as a result of the status quo health care policies. Blumenthal4
Historically, women

have experienced discrimination in terms of their health despite making 80 percent of health care decisions for their families, using more medical services than men, and suffering greater disability from chronic disease. Many women even pay more for their health insurance than do men because of the possibility of pregnancy and otherfemale conditions. Furthermore, until just 18 years
ago, women were excluded as subjects from much of medical research, and the data from studies were not analyzed for sex differences. Men were considered the "generic" humans, and the results were then generalized to guide the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disease in women. In the past, preventive interventions to reduce tobacco use, to encourage healthy diets and physical activity or to lower cholesterol levels often did not include women. Additionally, inequalities

in health care limited women's access to certain diagnostic procedures and therapies proven to be effective for specific conditions. This omission of women as research subjects and as the focus of prevention campaigns, as well as limitations on access to health care services had put women's health at risk -- with rising rates of heart disease, lung cancer, autoimmune illnesses, mental and addictive disorders, and the epidemic of AIDS. Universal healthcare solves these inequalities as well as other social inequalities, which proves that Universal Healthcare is consistent with the function of the United States. Blumenthal 2
However, with the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA), there will be several significant improvements to ensure an efficient, effective, and equitable health care system for women -- and men -- over the life cycle. Currently, only 50 percent of women have employer-sponsored insurance compared to 57 percent of men. One

of the victories of [universal healthcare] the legislation is the elimination of the gender rating on premiums, which will prevent insurance companies from charging women higher rates
4

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/susan-blumenthal/affordable-care-act_b_1954414.html

Christopher Columbus HS NAnderson 5 than men for coverage. Additionally, the legislation allows youth up until the age of 26 to be insured on their parents' plans. As a result of this provision
in the new law, 1 million young women now have health insurance. Thanks to the ACA, an estimated 13 million more women will have coverage by 2016. Furthermore, women can no longer be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions like cancer, asthma, or depression. Additionally, the ACA's "Patient's Bill of Rights" prevents insurance companies from instituting lifetime benefit caps, dropping patients who file reimbursement claims, and spending more than 20 percent of premium payments on administrative costs. Eligibility for the Medicaid program, which insures low-income individuals, is being expanded under the ACA to cover all Americans with incomes at or below 138 percent of poverty level (FPL). Currently, two-thirds of Medicaid beneficiaries are women, If

universal and the majority of the 55 percent of uninsured women who have incomes below 138 percent of FPL will qualify for coverage in 2014. Women whose incomes are between 139 percent and 399 percent of the FPL will be eligible for tax-credits towards the purchase of insurance plans. With greater access to health care, women can benefit from the free preventive services provided
now
Medicaid

by the legislation that no longer requires cost-sharing or paying deductibles. These services include well-woman visits, pap smears, mammography, cervical cancer and colon cancer screenings. Monitoring of cardiovascular health, another preventive service that is now covered under the law, is a particular benefit for women, who die in higher numbers than men from heart disease every year. In fact, heart disease is the leading cause of death among women, and regular screenings can help improve their chances of early detection, avoiding chronic disease or heart attacks. Importantly, women's mental health services will be treated on parity with their physical health as a result of the legislation. Women are four times more likely to attempt suicide than men, and experience depression and anxiety disorders at twice the rate of men. They

are also more likely to be victims of domestic violence, and the ACA covers screenings and counseling for these public health concerns as well. B. Transgender people Empirically, non-universal healthcare discriminates against transgender people. Miller5 Health care is another area of inequality and discrepancy . Sixteen percent of respondents reported being denied medical care due to being transgender or gender-non-conforming, and 28 percent said they postponed seeking treatment for illness or injury because they feared discrimination. "I hear stories about folks who go into a hospital setting and people are using the wrong name, the wrong pronoun, not treating them for what theyve come in with, making it all about the fact that theyre trans. If they have a broken ankle, that has nothing to do with their gender," said Courtney Gray, Transgender
Programs Coordinator at The GLBT Community Center of Colorado.

San Francisco proves that universal healthcare solves the problem. Sankin:
In 2007, San

Francisco became the first city in the nation to offer[s] universal health care to its citizens through the Healthy SF program, which provides government subsidized health services to uninsured residents. Now, with a unanimous vote of the San Francisco Health Commission, the Healthy SF program will extend to transgender patients. "Until now, transgender , [people were denied care] even when the procedures are medically necessary," said Kristina Wertz, director of policy and
Healthy SF exclude d care for iss ues

programs at the Transgender Law Center. "A transgender man may need a hysterectomy as part of his transgender operations and it wouldn't be covered, but a nontransgender woman could need the exact same procedure and it would be covered." The Bay Area Reporter explained that Healthy SF previously offered some services to its transgender subscribers, such as hormone treatment and mental health services, but excluded for them many surgical procedures available to non-transgender individuals. "That to me was just wrong," said San Francisco Supervisor Scott Wiener, who initially proposed the rule change before the city's Board of Supervisors earlier this year. Wiener explained a transgender exemption wasn't written into the initial law when Healthy SF was first proposed. The policy was instead inserted by the city's Department of Public Heath during the early days of the program under the assumption that it would eventually be removed as Healthy SF moved forward.

Under the new system, Healthy SF will cover transgender procedures as long as they are both medically necessary and already covered for non-transgender patients. Fifth, Healthcare has a basis in the equal protection clause making it part of the constitution.
Kathleen S. Swendiman Legislative Attorney www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40846.pdf Substantive Due Process: Impact on Fundamental Rights Despite the lack of discussion of health care rights in the Constitution, arguments have been made that the

denial by the federal government of a minimal level of health care to poor persons transgresses the equal protection guarantees under the Constitution. While the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies only to the states,
5http://www.edgeboston.com/news/local/features/138786/transgender_coloradans_face_daunting_obstacles

Christopher Columbus HS NAnderson 6 similar equal protection principles are applicable to the federal government through the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. For a classification that treats people differentlysuch as health care services for some poor persons but not all who
are in needto rise to the highest level of constitutional protection, the classification must be found to be a suspect classification by the Supreme Court.

According to the Court, the constitutional guarantee of equal protection is not a source of substantive rights, but rather a right to be free from invidious discrimination in statutory classifications and other governmental activity.30 In cases where the Court determines state or federal governmental classifications to be suspect, it will apply the stric t scrutiny standard of review.
Thus, the Court has applied the strict scrutiny test to suspect classifications based on race,31 ethnicity,32 and national origin.33 The High Court, however, has not seen

in Dandridge v. Williams,35 the Court upheld a Maryland welfare distribution scheme whereby an upper limit was placed on the amount of assistance any one family could receive. This meant that larger families with greater need received less aid per child than smaller families. The Court stated the following:36In the area of economics and social welfare a State does not violate the Equal ProtectionClause merely because the classifications made by its laws are imperfect. If the classification has some rational basis, it does not offend the Constitution simply because the classification is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequality. Thus, the Court concluded that
fit to consider financial need or distinctions on the basis of wealth as suspect classifications for purposes of its equal protection analysis.34 For example, while the Constitution may require procedural safeguards for the distribution of economic and social welfare benefits, as it held in Goldberg v. Kelly, it does not empower this Court to second-guess state officials charged with the difficult responsibility of allocating limited public welfare funds among the myriad of potential recipients.37 The Court has reaffirmed this holding in subsequent cases.38 In like manner ,

in the health care area, the Court has again applied the more deferential rational basis standard of review in assessing the constitutionality of distinctions or classifications in the provision of health care on the basis ofwealth. Health care legislation will generally be upheld so long as the government can show a legitimate purpose and a rational basis for carrying out the program. Thus, the effectiveness of the program does not matter as long as the rational basis is to provide equal protection of health. Sixth, Discriminatory access to healthcare is an issue that lies deep in the workings of democracy.
Alicia Ely Yamin, JD, MPH [Harvard School of Public Health; human rights attorney who at the time of writing was working with nongovernmental organizations in Latin America]. The Right to Health Under International Law and Its Relevance to the United States, Americ an Journal of Public Health, July 2005, Vol 95, No. 7.

Discrimination affects multiple social determinants of health in the United States, as well as treatment, and minorities are far more likely to lack access to care than Whites; this demonstrates that discrimination within the health care system must be understood and addressed within the broader society, not just as a health issue but as a democracy issue.67 For example, in his report on his site visit to the United States in 1994, the UN Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance (Special Rapporteur) noted not only the manifold consequences of racism and racial discrimination in the field of health but also referred to the responsibility of the US government for sociological inertia, structural obstacles and individual resistance hindering the emergence of a truly integrated society based on the equal dignity of the members of the American nation.

Christopher Columbus HS NAnderson

Extensions
(_) Recall my definition of ought that states through Geach and Anscombe that theres no such thing as objectively good or bad. We have to evaluate the word ought through the function of objects, for example how a machine ought to be oiled in that running without oil is bad for it. Should and ought are not used in a moral sense. V: Value: (_) Extend that the only value for the round is consistency with the U.S.s function as a sovereign because of the only viable definition of the evaluative phrase of ought which has to conform with the actors function. VC: (_) Extend Nagel that says that the way we connect sovereignty to principles of value is by looking to and upholding the moral claims of the citizens of the United States. (_) So, the only possible criterion for the round is consistency with the states obligation to respect and enforce the moral claims of its own citizens because the purpose and function of the government is to uphold the claims of its citizens. Contention Level 1. (_) Extend the first point that in order for the government to create a domestic relation that allows for citizens moral claims to be realized with in a relation, the government needs to guarantee access to the domestic institutions that create this relation, and within the Nagel 2 card you can see this is true, because the existence of the sovereign depends on the guarantee of domestic institutions. 2. (_) Extend the second point is that the moral claims of the people are mirrored through their own desires. Look to the American Medical Journal poll that shows that 81% of people would agree to a form of universal healthcare and 47% dont care about taxation in the process. 3A. (_) Because theres no gap between the logically consistent and inconsistent, if something isnt inconsistent it follows that it is consistent. So, because Supreme Court decisions prove inconsistency or consistency, and prefer its rulings. 3B. (_) Look to the first reason why we prefer Supreme Court rulings, which is that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter in determining the constitutionality through judicial review. 3C. (_) Look tot the second reason why we prefer Supreme Court rulings, which is that the Supreme Court resolves the democracy of the US citizenry. 3D. (_) Look to the third reason that once a Supreme Court ruling is made the US must follow its precedent, so it has its clear bright line within the argument. 3E. (_) Prefer supreme court rulings for the fourth reason, which is that the US resolves the democracy of the US citizenry, through the Giles, Blackstone, and Vining card that says that theres a correlation between the moral claims of the US citizenry and the US Supreme Court decisions. 4A. (_) Extend the A point and the Blumenthal cards that women are discriminated against within the current system, and that Universal Healthcare solves for this because it eliminates gender rating on premiums. This is why it best links into the criterion of maintaining consistency with the United States function as a sovereign. 4B. (_) Extend the B point and the Miller card that say that the current system discriminates against transgendered people, and the Sankin card that says that through the experience shown in San Franciscos Universal healthcare system we can see that Universal Healthcare also solves for the disadvantages experienced by Transgendered people. So, only Universal Healthcare is consistent with the United States function.

Christopher Columbus HS NAnderson

AT Morality
(_) Recall my definition of ought that states through Geach and Anscombe that theres no such thing as objectively good or bad. We have to evaluate the word ought through the function of objects, for example how a machine ought to be oiled in that running without oil is bad for it. Should and ought are not used in a moral sense. (_) Because should and ought are not used in a moral sense, theres no way to evaluate the negatives offense insofar as his definition of ought isnt consistent with mine, and if his were something viable he could function, but as long as Geach remains and Anscombe draws a conclusion off it that should and ought are not used in a moral sense. (_) Look to the Gerson card that states that the case cant solve as long as it uses that type of evaluation inside a moral obligation, because states arent moral actors, so you cant evaluate the resolution through a moral standpoint.