Christopher Columbus HS NAnderson

1NC SHELL- OBAMACARE

First ask in Cross-X if the AFF approves of Obama-care. A-Link: The Aff agrees with universal healthcare and agreed Obama-care is the type of universal healthcare they plan to implement. The problem is that Obama-care is not implemented yet. The Huffington Post writes
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/19/obamacare-cbo-report_n_1898370.html

Starting in 2014, virtually every legal resident of the U.S. will be required to carry health insurance or face a tax penalty, with exemptions for financial hardship, religious objections and certain other circumstances. Most people will not have to worry about the
requirement since they already have coverage through employers, government programs like Medicare or by buying their own policies.

B-Impact: We have absolutely no way to evaluate the effectiveness of Obama-care until it is actually implemented. Any sort of argument we can make in favor of Obama-care is pure estimation and not necessarily true because: 1- Promises can be easily broken. For example, if I was running for president I could promise that I will entirely solve the deficit and make sure everyone has a job. Unless I have actually proof that I have done these things, you are relying on the bias of my pure estimations. Estimations are not able to be morally evaluated because they isolate issues without giving the moral side-constraints to the actual real world procedure. For example, anyone can say national self-defense is good. However, to ignore that national self-defense leads to wars that kill civilians, drone attacks, purges, and sanctions makes it not able to evaluated as moral until it occurs. 2- Estimations distorts our belief system overall. Hurley 1 furthers,
Biases are influences that distort the relationship of our beliefs about what should be done to any [and the] truths there may be about [of] what should be done. It is antecedently unlikely that biassed beliefs will constitute knowledge--unlikely, that is, independently of any view about the truth or falsity of the beliefs in question.

Biases are cognitive distortions: they distort the relationship of belief to truth in a way that prevents belief from attaining the status of knowledge. For example, a personal desire to believe that something is true is a biasing influence on belief. If you believe something because you want to [and that] believe it, then even if your belief just happens to be true, it isn't knowledge. Someone whose beliefs on a topic just happen to be true in this way doesn't have beliefs that are [as they arent] reliably true under relevant counterfactual suppositions. That [ones] his own beliefs on this topic are not reliable may mean[s] that they are not a reliable general source of input to deliberation about the truth [in general].
Many but not all desires distort the formation of beliefs and thus are biassing influences, and so does certain information that bears on how such desires can be met. Bias is issue-relative. The same factor can be a biassing [An] influence with regard to certain issues, but not others; love of your spouse, for example, can make for more accurate insights about his character. When a factor is biassing for one issue but not another and both are in the public domain, weighing and balancing is needed. Perhaps a degree of [Likewise,] much may distort[s]

patriotism motivates citizens to the cognitive efforts [of] democracy requires, for example, but too beliefs about the relationship[s with] of your own country to others. [states.]

C-Alternative: The alternative is to delay this discussion until we actually know something besides idealistic figures about Obama-care. We should move the time-frame of this debate topic to November-December 2014, 11 months after the implementation of Obama-care. Debate rounds cannot change the world, however you, as a judge, should focus on what gives your ballot value. Relying on assumptions of domination for your decision calculus is morally reprehensible and deprives your ballot of all meaning. Vote NEG to refuse this model and endorse a critical self-reflective ethic instead. HARZENSKI writes.
PROFESSOR OF LAW AT TEMPLE LAW SCHOOL. [SHARON, POST-COLONIAL STUDIES: TERRORISM, A HISTORY, STAGE TWO, TEMPLE INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW JOURNAL, FALL, 2003, 17 TEMP. INT'L & COMP. L.J. 351,]
[*405] Michel Foucault tells us that even as a child he knew that knowledge could "do nothing for transforming the world."n318 Two years before his death he expressed continuing confidence in his early perception. His personal experience had led him to conclude that knowledge could do nothing for us and that political power might destroy us. n319 Yet Foucault was not decrying the personal search for knowledge that mapped his life.

The knowledge that could do nothing to transform the world was not so powerless when it came to transforming the self.n320 This transformation of self through one's own knowledge is what Foucault refers to as an aesthetic, n321 and what he identifies as a personal ethic. n322 According to Foucault, we are required to build our own ethics out of our examination of the world of our experience

Christopher Columbus HS NAnderson

subjected to our search for knowledge. n323 In his case, as in mine, what was learned in this process of examination and reflection is that we risk dominating others or exercising a tyrannical power over them when we carelessly, inattentively, or indulgently take care of self so that we, our personalities, become enslaved to desire and/or fear.n324 Inverting that statement to reflect the history unveiled in this paper, when fear or desire, a compulsion to control, or greed energizes action that action is already corrupted. In our personal lives, we must learn to manage ourselves appropriately, we must learn to behave independently in relation to external events and responsibly in relation to our emotions. n325 An individual who justifies imposing her wishes and designs on others is overreaching . As Aime Cesaire taught us, a society that justifies imposing itself and its values, its wishes and designs, on others, regardless of the justification, is sick, is morally diseased. n326 What I attempted to do in this paper is document a few of the facts of a process of imposition and overreaching that lasted for
centuries and shaped the world we share presently. And, because the process shaped the world, it shaped the world's inhabitants. In the simplest possible terms, that means each of us is shaped by the forces of that process.

Our lives and our relationships are shaped by that process. Our realities, our perceptions, our beliefs and values, and the way we think about ourselves and others are shaped by that process.
about. To end this paper I want to tell one more story. [*406] And, the story I want to tell comes out of my recent life and is shared with you as a testament to the shaping I have been speaking

Thus, while the discourse of individuals may not be able to restructure the world, an individual is always capable of transforming their self, which produces an obligation to reject justifying tyrannical uses of power. The ballot as a designation of who won the debate round is only relevant in the round. However, using the ballot as a rejection of justified domination over others gives your ballot meaning by enabling you as the judge to use it as a declaration of the way in which you view yourself and others.

Christopher Columbus HS NAnderson

LINK- HOUSE SPEAKER

http://atlantablackstar.com/2012/11/09/after-election-boehner-calls-obamacare-law-of-the-land/ Nick

Chiles is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and New York Times bestselling author. He has written or co-written 11 books and won over a dozen major

journalism awards during a journalism career that brought him to the Dallas Morning News, the Star-Ledger of New Jersey and New York Newsday, in addition to serving as Editor-in-Chief of Odyssey Couleur travel magazine.

President Obamas decisive reelection appears to have brought about instant change in Washington, as House Speaker John Boehner yesterday told ABCs Diane Sawyer that repealing Obamacare would no longer be a priority of House Republicans. Leading up the election, Republican challenger Mitt Romney said at least a dozen times a day that
his first order of business when he stepped into the White House after winning the presidency would be to repeal Obamacare. But Boehner yesterday acknowledged that

The election changes that, Boehner said when asked by Sawyer whether repealing the law was still your mission. Its pretty clear that the president was re-elected , Boehner said. Obamacare is the law of the land. Perhaps realizing that his statement might alarm Republican loyalists, Boehner went on to add some criticism. I think there are parts of the healthcare law
the world is different now. that will be very difficult to implement and very expensive, he said. As were trying to find a path toward a balanced budget, everything has to be on the table. There may be parts of it that we believe need to be changed, he added. We may do that. Under Boehners leadership, the House tried on 33 occasions to repeal the healthcare law, at a cost of $50 million, according to one report, but were repeatedly blocked by Senate Democrats and the president obviously would have vetoed any legislation that reached his desk. After

the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June to uphold the law, it has now passed muster with the nations highest court and with voters. But after the Boehner interview was over, his spokesman tried to do some
backtracking. Maybe Boehnerwho along with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell took some criticism yesterday from Democrats for their refusal to take Obamas phone call after his election night win, with both of them saying they were asleep took a quick poll among the right wing and realized he had gone too far.

Eddie Vale, a spokesperson for the pro-health care reform group Protect Your Care, told the Huffington Post that Boehners remarks were welcome news. Its welcome news that Boehner has finally gotten the message and will stop having the House waste time trying to repeal Obamacare.
The spokesman said the speaker and House Republicans remain committed to repealing the law, and he said in the interview it would be on the table.