Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[23]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[8]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[23]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2017-03-04 03:45:09.798
	1	+2017-03-04 03:45:09.0

Caselist.CitesClass[8]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,32 @@
	1	+ACA repeal fails now – infighting in the GOP between the far right Freedom Caucus with the moderate Republicans/Trump prevents action. AOL 2-14
	2	+AOL News, GOP infighting could reportedly stall repeal of Obamacare, 2-14-17, https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/02/14/gop-infighting-stall-repeal-obamacare/21714262/ VC
	3	+Republican lawmakers are reportedly divided over how to repeal the Affordable Care Act, also known as the ACA or Obamacare, notes Politico. This rift is believed to be significant enough that some outside observers are speculating that the drive to overturn the law could, in fact, stall. One of the major divisions within the GOP appears to be between the House Freedom Caucus, a more right-wing section of the party, and moderate Republicans. According to Business Insider, the caucus faction wants to push for a complete repeal that had been passed by Congress in 2015 but vetoed by President Obama. Meanwhile, party centrists reportedly prefer to take a more measured approach which includes having an alternate plan to offer before acting on the ACA. This dispute is likely welcome news to some Democrats who, according to The Hill, "are hoping the GOP divisions mean ObamaCare repeal will never pass." Meanwhile President Trump continues to slam Obamacare. He posted a tweet on Tuesday, "Obamacare continues to fail. Humana to pull out in 2018. Will repeal, replace and save healthcare for ALL Americans."
	4	+
	5	+Universities wouldn’t all allow for free speech; they need to be regulated by the government – it’s either no solvency or a link to the disad. Lindsay 15
	6	+Thomas K. Lindsay, 8-25-2015, "Congress vs. Campus Speech Restrictions," No Publication, http://www.realclearpolicy.com/blog/2015/08/25/congress_vs_campus_speech_restrictions_1399.htm VC
	7	+With this strong move by the House committee, we witness the academic world turned upside down: Academic freedom has always been supported, and rightly, as a defense against anti-intellectual pressure brought on universities by the political branches. The deeper defense of academic freedom is its indispensability to the nonpartisan truth-seeking that defines higher education's mission. But what happens when those who would deprive students and faculty of their First Amendment freedoms are within the universities themselves? This, unfortunately, is the crisis in which many universities find themselves today. For the solution, Congress has taken it upon itself to educate the educators in what those who supervise our universities should already know, namely, that when intellectual oppression rises, scientific progress and democratic deliberation decline. Given the stakes involved, it is encouraging to see that there is growing bipartisan support for restoring freedom on our campuses. While Representative Goodlatte is a Republican, in the past year, two Democratic governors — Terry McAuliffe of Virginia and Jay Nixon of Missouri — have signed legislation banning "free-speech zones" at all public universities in their states. As I have argued previously, in America, under the First Amendment to the Constitution, everywhere should be a free-speech zone, not simply the restricted (and restrictive) spaces that the majority of universities today unconstitutionally deign to provide for students. Although legislative action might prove necessary in the event that universities decline the House committee's plea to follow the Constitution, it would be heartbreaking if these institutions had to be compelled by a political branch to jettison their political agendas and return to disinterested inquiry. It would mean that American higher education has so lost any sense of its defining — and ennobling — purpose that it now has to be guided by those outside it, rather than guiding them, as it ought.
	8	+
	9	+
	10	+Independently, Trump is sending messages to campus administrators – means he perceptually gets tied to the plan. Brown 2-3
	11	+Sarah Brown, 2-3-17, "Trump Can’t Cut Off Berkeley’s Funds by Himself. His Threat Still Raised Alarm.," Chronicle of Higher Education, http://www.chronicle.com/article/Trump-Can-t-Cut-Off/239100 VC
	12	+Back in October, when President Trump vowed to "end" political correctness on college campuses, it was unclear how the then-presidential candidate planned to go about doing that. On Thursday, he dropped a hint: He threatened to cut off federal funding to the University of California at Berkeley after violent protests there prompted campus leaders to call off a talk by a far-right provocateur. Milo Yiannopoulos is a Breitbart News editor and Trump supporter who has for months traveled to campuses to give talks that often draw protests and have sometimes resulted in violence. He was once permanently banned from Twitter for his role in a harassment campaign against the actress Leslie Jones, and he has drawn heavy fire for his insulting comments about feminists, Black Lives Matters protesters, Islam, and topics he considers part of leftist ideology. Mr. Yiannopoulos was scheduled to speak on Berkeley’s campus late Wednesday, as part of his "Dangerous Faggot" tour, and more than 1,500 students gathered outside the venue to peacefully protest. Then about 100 additional protesters — mostly nonstudents, Berkeley officials said — joined the fray and hurled smoke bombs, broke windows, and started fires. The violence forced the campus police to put Berkeley on lockdown and led university leaders to cancel the event. The following morning, a political commentator suggested on Fox and Friends First that President Trump should take away Berkeley’s federal funding. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Trump decided to weigh in. Not surprisingly, Mr. Yiannopoulos liked that idea. On Facebook Thursday, he linked to a Breitbart article about the federal money Berkeley receives, adding, "Cut the whole lot, Donald J. Trump." Others were quick to condemn the president’s threat. U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee, a California Democrat whose district includes the Berkeley campus, tweeted back: "President Trump doesn’t have a license to blackmail universities. He’s the president, not a dictator, and his empty threats are an abuse of power." Later, in a statement, Ms. Lee said Mr. Yiannopoulos "has made a career of inflaming racist, sexist and nativist sentiments." Meanwhile, she wrote, "Berkeley has a proud history of dissent and students were fully within their rights to protest peacefully." Could Mr. Trump take away a university’s federal funding for what he sees as a violation of the First Amendment? Not on his own, and not entirely, some scholars say, though there are ways he could advocate for cutting some of it. Regardless, Mr. Trump’s singling out of Berkeley is worth paying attention to, they say, because it serves as a message to other campus officials that they may soon be put in the position of responding to the president’s social-media whims.
	13	+
	14	+The House Freedom Caucus is super pro-free speech – the plan is popular with them which gains Trump PC – statements from the chair proves. Jordan and Hardwood 16
	15	+John Harwood, 11-7-2016, "On election eve, House Freedom Caucus chair talks about misperceptions of the GOP," CNBC, http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/07/on-election-eve-house-freedom-caucus-chair-talks-about-misperceptions-of-the-gop.html VC
	16	+HARWOOD: Does the Republican Party not have to adapt and change its message? JORDAN: The Republican Party needs to stand for the things we believe in. Stand for limited government, stand for protecting personal liberties like your religious liberty rights under the First Amendment, like your right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment. Defend those rights when this current administration attacked them with the IRS, defend equal treatment under the law when this administration's Justice Department is much more focused on politics than they are on justice. Defend the sanctity of human life, and defend working-class people, middle-class people who are tired of folks going to Washington and not fighting for them. Think about the guy who works a second shift at the local plant here, who's working his tail off. There are folks getting his tax dollars who are able to work, but don't work. We need to have a welfare system that says we're going to help you, but if you are able-bodied in order to get that help, you have to do some kind of work. HARWOOD: What do you make of the idea that millennial voters think the Republican Party and its way of thinking, especially on cultural issues, is just stuck in the past? JORDAN: Folks in the House Freedom Caucus understand civil liberties need to be protected from the government. That is the way we can appeal to millennials. We have some people in the House Freedom Caucus who have been champions of defending your Fourth Amendment rights, defending your First Amendment liberties, defending your Second Amendment. That is where you can connect as well.
	17	+
	18	+Trump plan is ready to roll and hurts low income families – makes it harder to get health care and exacerbates poverty. Levey 2-15
	19	+Noam N. Levey, 2-15-2017, "While Congress struggles to replace Obamacare, the Trump administration is moving to reshape health insurance on its own," latimes, http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-obamacare-stabilization-20170215-story.html VC
	20	+With congressional Republicans struggling to develop an Obamacare alternative, the Trump administration is taking steps on its own to loosen government regulation of the nation’s health insurance markets, a longtime conservative goal. But the Trump administration’s moves to relax rules on insurers appear likely to shift additional medical costs onto patients by promoting higher-deductible health plans. The proposed regulations also set the stage for potential reductions in government aid to low- and moderate-income consumers, another policy favored by GOP leaders, including Trump’s new Health and Human Services secretary, Tom Price, a fierce advocate for reduced federal healthcare spending. The moves drew criticism from many consumer and patient advocates worried that the Trump administration is undermining key protections established by the Affordable Care Act. Chris Hansen, president of the American Cancer Society’s advocacy arm, warned that the new rules could make essential medical care harder to find for many needy patients. Amid Obamacare uncertainty, insurance giant Humana plans to leave marketplaces in 2018 “While American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network appreciates efforts to strengthen the marketplace, those efforts need not weaken access to meaningful health insurance for cancer patients and survivors,” he said. The Trump administration has proposed, among other things, to loosen rules that set minimum standards for the size of health plans’ provider networks and for how much of patients’ medical bills must be covered. Price, who took over the Health and Human Services Department last week, called the new regulations “initial steps in advance of a broader effort to better serve the American people.” Insurance industry groups cautiously praised the proposal, which the Blue Cross Blue Shield Assn. said “would help stabilize the current individual market and are a good start toward improving the functioning of the marketplace.” The Trump administration began working on the new regulations soon after the inauguration amid rising anxiety about the future of insurance marketplaces established by the 2010 healthcare law. The state-based marketplaces, a centerpiece of the law, allow Americans who don’t get coverage through an employer to shop for plans that must meet basic standards. Insurers cannot turn away patients who are sick. And low- and moderate-income consumers can qualify for government subsidies to offset the cost of their premiums. About 11 million people current rely on the marketplaces. And surveys suggest that most consumers are happy with their coverage, even though some face very high premiums. But the high number of costly, sick customers who enrolled in coverage surprised many insurers, prompting some to dramatically raise premiums this year or exit the marketplaces altogether. That has prompted calls from industry officials for new rules to stabilize the marketplaces. The Obama administration was considering some, and Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton indicated that she too wanted to take steps to get more young, healthy people to enroll in the marketplaces. Some of the Trump administration’s proposals — outlined in a highly technical, 71-page proposed regulation — reflect ideas that have been under discussion since before the November election. These include tightening the rules for when people can sign up for coverage. Insurers have complained for years that too many consumers have been gaming the system and signing up for coverage only after they get sick. Under the proposed new rules, people will be allowed to sign up outside the annual enrollment period only if they can prove they qualify because of a life-changing event, such as a move or the loss of a job. Similar standards exist in most employer-provided health plans. The administration is also proposing to cut next year’s open-enrollment period from three months to six weeks. The Trump administration is pushing other proposals, many favored by the insurance industry, that loosen key standards that health plans must now meet. For example, under current regulations, insurers must offer plans that cover a minimum share of patients’ medical expenses. A silver plan — one of four categories of plans available on marketplaces — must currently cover between 68 and 72 of patients’ anticipated medical costs. But the Trump administration is proposing that these plans could cover as little as 66 of patients’ expenses. The administration said this change would allow insurers to design more affordable health plans. “We anticipate that this flexibility could encourage healthier consumers to enroll,” the proposed regulation states. But this change, though seemingly small, could allow larger deductibles that leave patients with a bigger share of their medical bills. The Trump administration acknowledged the looser rules could make patients pay more. “The proposed change … could reduce the value of coverage for consumers, which could lead to more consumers facing increases in out-of-pocket expenses,” the rule notes. Loosening regulations has been a key goal of Price and other Republicans, who have argued that doing so will lead to lower premiums and more choices for consumers. Lower-cost health plans that cover less also could affect the value of government aid that is available to low- and moderate-income shoppers. That is because subsidies are pegged to the cost of less expensive plans available on the marketplaces. If those plans drop even further, the subsidies would be reduced as well. That prompted analysts at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning Washington think tank, to warn Tuesday that many consumers could soon face a difficult dilemma. “The rule would force millions of families to choose between higher premiums and worse coverage,” analysts concluded. Administration officials said the moves — which were detailed in proposed regulations released Wednesday — are necessary to stabilize Obamacare marketplaces that have been shaken over the last year by rising premiums and insurer exits.
	21	+
	22	+
	23	+Poverty causes massive violence racism against marginalized groups. Social Watch 13
	24	+
	25	+Social Watch (International network of citizens’ organizations in the struggle to eradicate poverty) , POVERTY AND RACISM INEXTRICABLY LINKED, SAYS UN EXPERT, 2013. NS
	26	+
	27	+In a report to the UN General Assembly, a UN rights expert has emphasised that poverty is closely associated with racism and contributes to the persistence of racist attitudes and practices which in turn generate more poverty. Racial or ethnic minorities are disproportionately affected by poverty; and the lack of education, adequate housing and health care transmits poverty from generation to generation, a United Nations rights expert has said. According to Ruteere, poverty does not result only from an unequal sharing of resources. 'Discrimination against groups and persons based on their ethnicity, race, religion or other characteristics or factors has been known to encourage exclusion and impoverish certain groups of the population who suffer from unequal access to basic needs and services.' In his report to the UN General Assembly last November, the UN Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, Mutuma Ruteere, was of the opinion that the issues of poverty and racism are inextricably linked. As has been emphasised in the Durban Declaration, he said, 'poverty... is closely associated with racism... and contributes to the persistence of racist attitudes and practices which in turn generate more poverty' (paragraph 18). Ruteere said that as the previous Special Rapporteur on racism underlined in his report to the General Assembly in 2009, 'racial or ethnic minorities are disproportionately affected by poverty, and the lack of education, adequate housing and health care transmits poverty from generation to generation and perpetuates racial prejudices and stereotypes in their regard'. In his report, the Special Rapporteur welcomed the efforts and initiatives undertaken by various states to prohibit discrimination and segregation and to ensure full enjoyment of civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights for all individuals and groups. He noted that certain groups and individuals, including people of African descent, indigenous peoples, minorities, Roma, Dalits and migrants, are still confronted with poverty and discrimination, especially in the enjoyment of their economic and social rights. 'The persistence of discrimination against those groups and individuals remains a challenge to the construction of a tolerant and inclusive society, and only the guarantee of equality and non-discrimination policies can redress that imbalance and prevent those groups that are discriminated against from falling into or being trapped in poverty,' Ruteere emphasised. Poverty and discrimination In his report, the Special Rapporteur discusses the manifestations of poverty and racism in the areas of economic and social rights such as education, adequate housing and health care, and other rights affected in the link between racism and poverty, including the right to work in just conditions, social security, food and water. According to Ruteere, poverty does not result only from an unequal sharing of resources. 'Discrimination against groups and persons based on their ethnicity, race, religion or other characteristics or factors has been known to encourage exclusion and impoverish certain groups of the population who suffer from unequal access to basic needs and services.' Groups that are discriminated against, such as Afro-descendants, minorities, indigenous peoples, migrants and refugees, are disproportionately affected by poverty in all regions of the world. 'The complex relationship between racism and discrimination suggests that only the guarantee of equality and non-discrimination can redress that imbalance and protect such groups from falling into or being trapped in poverty,' the Special Rapporteur stressed. According to the report, a history of discrimination has left a large number of racial and ethnic groups in various parts of the world trapped in conditions of 'chronic deprivation of resources' with limited choices and vulnerable to multiple violations of their rights.
	28	+
	29	+
	30	+Outweighs and turns case – poverty is the worst form of structural violence and magnifies other impacts. Pogge 02
	31	+Thomas Pogge, Poverty and Human Rights. 2002.
	32	+Human rights would be fully realized, if all human beings had secure access to the objects of these rights. Our world is today very far from this ideal. Piecing together the current global record, we find that most of the current massive underfulfillment of human rights is more or less directly connected to poverty. The connection is direct in the case of basic social and economic human rights, such as the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of oneself and one’s family, including food, clothing, housing, and medical care. The connection is more indirect in the case of civil and political human rights associated with democratic government and the rule of law. Desperately poor people, often stunted, illiterate, and heavily preoccupied with the struggle to survive, typically lack effective means for resisting or rewarding their rulers, who are therefore likely to rule them oppressively while catering to the interests of other, often foreign, agents (governments and corporations, for instance) who are more capable of reciprocation. The statistics are appalling. Out of a total of 6575 million human beings, 830 million are reportedly chronically undernourished, 1100 million lack access to safe water and 2600 million lack access to basic sanitation (UNDP 2006: 174, 33). About 2000 million lack access to essential drugs (www.fic.nih.gov/about/summary.html). Some 1000 million have no adequate shelter and 2000 million lack electricity (UNDP 1998: 49). Some 799 million adults are illiterate (www.uis.unesco.org). Some 250 million children between 5 and 14 do wage work outside their household with 170.5 million of them involved in hazardous work and 8.4 million in the “unconditionally worst” forms of child labor, which involve slavery, forced or bonded labor, forced recruitment for use in armed conflict, forced prostitution or pornography, or the production or trafficking of illegal drugs (ILO 2002: 9, 11, 17, 18). People of colour and females (UNDP 2003: 310-330; UNRISD 2005; Social Watch 2005) bear greatly disproportionate shares of these deprivations. Roughly one third of all human deaths, some 18 million annually, are due to poverty-related causes, easily preventable through better nutrition, safe drinking water, mosquito nets, re-hydration packs, vaccines and other medicines. This sums up to 300 million deaths in 17 years since the end of the cold war - many more than were caused by all the wars, civil wars, and government repression of the entire 20th century.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2017-03-04 03:45:11.898

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+XX

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+XX

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+23

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+7

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Harvard Westlake Morganbesser Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+JanFeb - ACA Politics DA

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Berkeley