The NSDA announces the new topic on single-payer healthcare and you don't know where to start, so, naturally, you begin brainstorming some potential frameworks to use in your cases. And then, you hit a roadblock. You realize you don't actually know what a good framework would be to run on this topic. Luckily, you found this post, which will solve your exact issue. This post will outline some potential frameworks for this topic and why they're guaranteed to be effective.

Frameworks for Either Side

1) Justice

The first option is quite obvious, and is a go-to for many debaters. A justice framework can be applied to nearly every resolution, and for good reason. It's a safe option for both new and experienced debaters, and can cover the bases easily in most topics. The logic is simple: whenever the NSDA releases a new resolution, that resolution will, 99% of the time, have the word "ought" in it. Ought implies a moral obligation of actors, and, by definition, moral obligations are a concern of justice. Thus, justice can easily be linked to any resolution. Further, the two most commonly accepted definitions of justice, these being Aristotle's "to each his due" and Rawls' "fairness" can fit like an umbrella value in nearly any debate.

Looking at the single-payer health care topic more specifically, however, we uncover some nuances that make justice even more effective. Consider, for instance, the actors in the resolution. Under a single-payer system, it is clear how justice of the consumer of health care may be grounds for clash. Say the affirmative can prove that more lives are saved whereas the negative proves that the system will cost an exorbitant sum of money fundable only through a tax hike. Is this just? At what monetary point is a life worth saving? Are lives priceless? Is raising taxes unjust? Is it unjust to let anyone die? All of these are realistic and reasonable questions over justice that are sure to come up in the debate.

2) Morality

Another value that can be applied to many topics is morality. Once again, since ought implies a moral obligation of actors, morality is a key value in this resolution. Under this framework, you begin asking questions. What is the government morally obligated to do for its citizens? The affirmative may argue that since the single payer system saves citizens, and since the government should protect its citizens, then the system must be morally good. The negative may counter, however, arguing that the single payer system is not the right way to expand coverage and therefore is not a moral obligation of the government. Thus we find ourselves in a healthy debate over what is and isn't moral - exactly why morality is a great value to run.

3) Institutional Obligations

This framework is uniquely positioned to be extremely effective under this topic because the wording of the resolution is concerned with the obligations of the U.S. government, as well as the obligation of the health care system as an institution. The logic is simple: every institution in society serves a specific function. It is from this function that we derive the obligation of a specific institution. Institutions ought to live up to the purposes for which they were created. If a debater can prove that their side better upholds the obligations of the health care institution, then they should win the round.

4) Consequentialism

A go-to for many debaters, this framework is simple. Weigh the consequences of an action, and if it helps more people than it harms, then it is just and moral. Under this topic, an affirmative can argue, for instance, that by saving more people's lives through the single payer plan versus in the status quo, we help more than we harm, thus meaning that the affirmative must be moral and just. The negative may do the same, arguing that we waste billions of dollars for a less efficient system that only exacerbates burnout and doesn't solve for everyone's needs. Once again, a great framework with room for healthy debate.

Affirmative Frameworks

1) Rawls' Difference Principle

This framework relies on a little bit more philosophical knowledge and some background reading. In short, philosopher John Rawls argues that in order to fix societal injustices, we must take action to help the least well off. If an action doesn't aim to do so, then it is unjust. The affirmative is uniquely positioned to take advantage of the difference principle since it can argue that because so many people don't currently have access to medical treatment due to a lack of affordability for health coverage, and because the single payer system would solve for this, the difference principle is fulfilled, and justice is achieved. In this case, those who are least well off - those who can't afford medical care - are helped, since through the single payer plan, they can finally afford care.

Negative Frameworks

1) Liberty

This framework is also common under many topics, as liberty is a value that is almost always interacted with under most resolutions. Under the single payer topic, however, the negative is uniquely positioned to take advantage of liberty since it can argue that in order to fund the single payer health care plan, we must do one of two things: either raise taxes, or cut into the budgets of other social systems. The former harms the tax payer's liberty. Extreme negatives can go so far as to argue that taxes themselves are infringements on personal liberty, as there are philosophers that believe so. It is not necessary to do so in order to succeed - just arguing that raising taxes harms liberty is enough. The latter also restricts liberty, as taking away from the current systems and safety nets would hurt the liberties of those who depend on them - the least well off.

Thus marks the end of this post. If you have any further questions, please feel free to email us via our email: resources.debate@gmail.com. Please spread the word to other debaters who you think may find this website useful! Make sure to check out our other posts, as they're guaranteed to help.