Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
wayfreshnclean

Immicaid

Recommended Posts

I was wondering how you guys have dealt with this case throughout the year, as it can be pretty tricky to beat. If anybody has any good files, I will be willing to trade big. Just PM me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cut this article

 

Brietta R. Clark, professor of law at Loyola Law School and J.D. from USC law school, " The Immigrant Health Care Narrative and What it Tells Us About the U.S. Health Care System," 17 Ann. Health L. 229, Summer 2008, lexis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The neg strat I have used is

T - Remove barrier =/= increase

Politics

Imm. Magnet

Immigration K (Biopower)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was wondering how you guys have dealt with this case throughout the year, as it can be pretty tricky to beat. If anybody has any good files, I will be willing to trade big. Just PM me.

 

what could possibly link harder to politics than giving social services to illegal immigrants? that's like asking for republican backlash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This case is racist. It assumes that ALL immigrants are poor :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of these posts have been very helpful so I'll go in a little more depth.

 

Neg positions you could use.

1. Topicality - While yes it seems to be at the core of the topic, its fairly untopical. Easy T shells you can find are

1. Remove Barrier =/= T (Or its fx T)

2. Medicaid =/= a S.S.

3. Subset T (The only give the SS to a subset of persons living in poverty)

4. PLIP = FPL (Not all immigrants are in poverty)

 

2. States - This is always an option. The usual states CP with ptx and fism as a net benefit. If you do use this strat you should specifie in CP text that you tax something to pay for plan (to avoid the state budgets advantage). Because this case really doesnt have a federal key warrant. I don't suggest this option because the CP solvency is not that great, but you can always kick it in the 2NR.

 

3. Courts - I really like the courts CP against this aff. You have the courts rule that its unconstitutional to deny the immigrants medicaid coverage because of immigration status because it violates the equal protection clause. I usually put that courts have a political obligation to do the plan.

 

4. Ptx - The plan is hella unpopular. The republicans really freaking hate the plan.

 

5. Immigration Magnet - The link debate is easily won. The only problem here in the uniqueness debate.

 

6. Federalism - The UMICH 7 week neg has a pretty sweet link card or fism.

 

7. Economy - Plan would be really exspensive. Link easily won, but its a spending disad..

 

8. Employer Mandate - This CP is in the UMICH 7 week seniors neg, the solvency is pretty good. I would suggest your better off with Courts

 

9. Cap - Always an option, but is it a good one?

 

10. Biopower - Michigan put out a GREAT case specific kritik. Its found here. Every card in the shell is specific to immigration and the state controlling it. The alt is also amazing. It rejects the citizen/immigrant binary. The alt solve the case better if your against the critical immigration aff.

 

11. Discourse - One of the cards of the AFF has to call them 'illegal aliens' or some otehr racists term. Use this file to turn that into a case turn! :D

 

12. Boarders - One of the neg files has a boarders K that is always nice to randomly pull out. 90% of the time the AFF wont expect it.

 

13. Free Markey - I don't know much about it, but SDI put out an immigration specific FM CP file.

 

14. Case - Is always a must. There is great cards for defense and offense against all their advantages.

 

Those are just off the top of my head. My strats are:

Primary:

T - Remove Barrier =/= increase

T - Medicaid =/= a S.S (the answers to these contradict each other, read the closely)

Imm. Magnet DA

Politics

Biopower (UMICH's file)

 

Policymaker/Lay Judge

T - Remove Barrier =/= increase

T - Medicaid =/= a S.S

Courts CP

Deliberation NB

Constitution NB

Politics

 

If you have any questions, pm me. I've hit this case multiple times and I can explain my strat along with other positions more in depth.

Edited by OHS-Banana

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is universal not competitive against this aff?

 

Also, with the plan text of just saying that immigrants shouldn't have to disclose their citizen or immigration status, how does increase stem from it? Are immigrants currently denied from Medicaid?

 

Also, how effective is Synoptic D against this aff?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is universal not competitive against this aff?

 

Also, with the plan text of just saying that immigrants shouldn't have to disclose their citizen or immigration status, how does increase stem from it? Are immigrants currently denied from Medicaid?

 

Also, how effective is Synoptic D against this aff?

 

I guess universal could be competitive, but I don't think it's very strong against this aff.

 

They say that when they remove the citizenship requirement from medicaid there will be an increase of persons using medicaid.

 

What is Synoptic D?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

They say that when they remove the citizenship requirement from medicaid there will be an increase of persons using medicaid.

 

 

Right, but what he's saying is that the actual mandate of the plan isn't topical because its not actually mandating a direct increase, rather, just removing a barrier (hence T increase =/= remove barrier). The debated "abuse" is that the aff is only increasing after the result of the plan making it fx T. I just feel like no judges ever go for this argument... the way I beat the aff was on ptx and reverse federalism for offense and just case defense. ptx links hard, and the team I faced didn't have many good answers to fed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Right, but what he's saying is that the actual mandate of the plan isn't topical because its not actually mandating a direct increase, rather, just removing a barrier (hence T increase =/= remove barrier). The debated "abuse" is that the aff is only increasing after the result of the plan making it fx T. I just feel like no judges ever go for this argument... the way I beat the aff was on ptx and reverse federalism for offense and just case defense. ptx links hard, and the team I faced didn't have many good answers to fed.

 

You can win on FX T if you provide a good abuse story.

 

Their answers to the normal federalism are crap as well...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Synoptic Delusion is a Kritik which basically says that the government is handling too complex of a problem. That just because the government is centralized and powerful, doesn't mean it can solve for the aff case. I think an author in the file I have says a metaphor of, "It is like trying to copy a 3d design onto a 2d sheet of paper".

 

Do any of these affs actually have disease impacts? If so, how exactly do they win extinction on them? I mean, sure the immigrants may die, but won't the rich people survive with being able to buy vaccines and such?

 

Also, with T vs remove barriers, isn't the fact that they can perm into a lot of CP's kinda significant? They can perm into banning SS CP's, and we can possibly lose links to spending, fiscal D, coercion, and more.

Edited by Tehnikhil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Synoptic Delusion is a Kritik which basically says that the government is handling too complex of a problem. That just because the government is centralized and powerful, doesn't mean it can solve for the aff case. I think an author in the file I have says a metaphor of, "It is like trying to copy a 3d design onto a 2d sheet of paper".

 

Do any of these affs actually have disease impacts? If so, how exactly do they win extinction on them? I mean, sure the immigrants may die, but won't the rich people survive with being able to buy vaccines and such?

 

Also, with T vs remove barriers, isn't the fact that they can perm into a lot of CP's kinda significant? They can perm into banning SS CP's, and we can possibly lose links to spending, fiscal D, coercion, and more.

 

What's the impact story to the K? I can see a "no solvency" arg, but that seems not as much of a K as a case turn, or even defensive. Still, the link story sounds strong for this aff - not only is immigrant Medicaid extremely unpopular, but everytime universal healthcare (this can easily be said as one step towards it) or any sort of health care reform comes up, there is absolutely no bipartisanship, it takes forever, and it almost, if not definitely, wrecks the government agenda. I don't know how that could be framed to fit the language of the K, but it definitely acts as link support.

 

Mutations. If anyone is left without treatment, they are harvesting the disease within them. The disease learns to break vaccinations, and even the rich will become infected. Affs that are left without the possibility of mutations still could probably spin a need to save poor, impoverished immigrant lives, despite the rich with their uber medications.

 

I frame my version as increasing Medicaid coverage, so my answers to those type of questions are much different than other teams. Still, I figure they would defend Medicaid, which would mean they could not perm so easily on a ban SS cp. I guess you could lose those links if they specifically say they won't increase the amount of funding in the SS, but it's not realistic to open up Medicaid to a new, major population and not increase spending for it. Teams are also going to want to take the path of least resistance, and when they know abuse could be major, they'll suck up to some stupid DAs. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we have free market impact cards, because the alt is the FM. The thing is that it works as a case turn with an impact card that is to outweigh the turned case.

 

I know my school, whenever they run remove barrier affs, they go ahead and say "perm--do the CP. The P reduces some restrictions, while the CP reduces more. Normal means is funding for the P, but no part of our P mandates additional funding".

 

The T vs remove barrier affs I always thought was to stop teams from doin that. I know that with that T, it can create competitiveness by stickign teams in a double bind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...