Arguments that agree with the topic statement:

1
Argument 1: Providing free healthcare improves population health and productivity leading to better econ-
omy because less death and more money the workers have.
Evidence 1: In a study by the Commonwealth Fund, countries with universal healthcare systems had higher
life expectancy rates and lower infant mortality rates compared to the United States, which lacks universal
coverage.

Explanation 1: Countries with universal healthcare systems, such as Canada, the United Kingdom, and many
European nations, consistently outperform the United States in key health indicators like life expectancy and
infant mortality rate (infant death rate). For instance, the life expectancy in the U.S. is around 79 years, while
in countries like Switzerland, Norway, and Iceland, it exceeds 83 years. Similarly, the infant mortality rate in
the U.S. is 5.6 deaths per 1,000 live births, compared to rates below 3 per 1,000 in countries like Finland,
Sweden, and Japan (Commonwealth Fund, 2017). By providing affordable healthcare to all citizens, these
countries ensure access to preventive care, early diagnosis, and timely treatment, contributing to better popu-
lation health. A healthier population translates into a more productive workforce, reduced absenteeism(stay-
ing away from work), and lower healthcare costs, in result as benefiting the economy and society as a whole.

Citation 1: Schneider, E. C., Sarnak, D. O., Squires, D., Shah, A., & Doty, M. M. (2017). Mirror, Mirror
2017: International Comparison Reflects Flaws and Opportunities for Better U.S. Health Care. The Com-
monwealth Fund. https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2017/jul/mirror-mirror-
2017-international-comparison-reflects-flaws-and

2
Argument 2: Free third-level education increases educational attainment and economic mobility.
Evidence 2: According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), countries
with tuition-free higher education systems, such as Norway and Finland, have higher tertiary education at-
tainment rates compared to countries with high tuition fees.

Explanation 2: Countries that offer free or heavily subsidized higher education, like Norway and Finland,
consistently is ranked amongust the top nations in terms of tertiary education attainment rates. For example,
Finland's tertiary attainment rate stands at around 41%, while Norway's is approximately 44%. In contrast,
countries with high tuition fees for higher education, such as the United States and Chile, have lower attain-
ment rates of around 38% and 26%, respectively (OECD, 2019). By removing financial barriers, free third-
level education allows individuals from all socioeconomic backgrounds to have higher education opportuni-
ties, leading to a more skilled and educated workforce. This, in turn, improves economic mobility, as individ-
uals with higher educational qualifications are better positioned to secure well-paying jobs and contribute to
the nation's economic growth and innovation.

Citation 2: OECD (2019). Education at a Glance 2019: OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing, Paris.
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/education-at-a-glance-2019_f8d7880d-en

3
Argument 3: Higher minimum wages and social benefits reduce poverty and income inequality in result to
improve the long term economy of the country.
Evidence 3: A study by the Congressional Budget Office found that increasing the federal minimum wage to
$15 per hour in the United States would lift 1.3 million people out of poverty.
Explanation 3: Income inequality and poverty are challenges faced by many developed nations, including the
United States. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), raising the federal minimum wage to
$15 per hour would directly benefit around 17 million workers, lifting 1.3 million people out of poverty
(CBO, 2019). Countries with strong and healthy social safety nets, such as Denmark, Finland, and Norway,
are consistently ranked among the lowest in terms of income inequality and poverty rates. These countries
provide a living wage that has benefits like childcare subsidies, housing assistance, and utilities support, en-
suring a decent standard of living for all citizens. By ensuring a higher living wage, governments can directly
address poverty and income disparities, promoting greater economic stability and social cohesion.

Citation 3: Congressional Budget Office. (2019). The Effects on Employment and Family Income of Increas-
ing the Federal Minimum Wage. Washington, D.C. https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-07/CBO-55410-
MinimumWage2019.pdf

Arguments that disagree with the topic statement:

1
Argument 1: Providing extensive social benefits such as education,
healthcare, housing can lead to higher tax burdens and harm economic growth.
Evidence 1: According to a study by the Tax Foundation, countries with higher tax rates experience slower
economic growth due to reduced incentives for investment(Motivational factors) and business creation.

Explanation 1: While extensive social benefits can improve the well-being of citizens, funding these pro-
grams require higher tax rates, which negatively impacts economic growth. According to research by the Tax
Foundation, countries with higher overall tax burdens, such as Belgium, France, and Denmark, experienced
slower economic growth compared to countries with lower tax rates, like Ireland and Switzerland (Tax Foun-
dation, 2020). Higher taxes discourage business investment, entrepreneurship(business creations), and inno-
vation, as individuals and companies have less expandable income and fewer incentives to take risks or ex-
pand operations. This, in turn, leads to slower job creation, reduced productivity, and stagnant(not same
flow) economic growth, offsetting the expected benefits of social programs.

Citation 1: York, E. (2020). Tax Policy and Economic Growth. Tax Foundation.
https://taxfoundation.org/topics/taxes-and-the-economy/

2
Argument 2: Free social services can reduce personal responsibility and work incentives that leads to lower
development of economics.
Evidence 2: A study by the Cato Institute found that countries with more generous welfare systems tend to
have lower labor force participation rates, particularly among low-income individuals.

Explanation 2: While social safety nets are designed to support those in need, there is a concern that overly
generous welfare systems inadvertently reduce personal responsibility and work incentives. According to a
study by the Cato Institute, countries with more extensive welfare programs, such as France, Belgium, and
Denmark, tend to have lower labor force participation rates, particularly among low-income individuals
(Cato Institute, 2018). This means that the availability of generous benefits discourages individuals from ac-
tively seeking employment or advancing their careers, as they become overly reliant on government assis-
tance. This can lead to a less productive workforce, strain government resources, and create difficulties on
the economic growth in the long run.
Citation 2: Tanner, M. (2018). The Work versus Welfare Trade-Off: Europe. Cato Institute.
https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/work-versus-welfare-trade-europe

3
Argument 3: Universal healthcare systems can lead to longer wait times and rationed care which can lead to
patients having worser health care that eventually will cause job delays and cause economy of the country to
fall because of the delay.
Evidence 3: A report by the Fraser Institute found that patients in Canada and the United Kingdom experi-
enced longer wait times for various medical treatments compared to those in the United States.

Explanation 3: While universal healthcare systems aim to provide equitable access to medical care, they also
face challenges with wait times and rationing of resources. A report by the Fraser Institute compared wait
times for various medical treatments in Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The study found
that patients in Canada and the UK experienced much longer wait times for procedures like diagnostic scans,
specialist consultations, and surgeries compared to those in the U.S. (Fraser Institute, 2020). This difference
in level can be related back to the increased demand on universal healthcare systems, combined with limited
resources and capacity constraints. As a result, most of the patients experience delays in receiving necessary
treatments, potentially leading to reversed health outcomes and decreased quality of life.

Citation 3: Barua, B., & Ren, F. (2020). Waiting Your Turn: Wait Times for Health Care in Canada, 2020
Report. Fraser Institute. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/waiting-your-turn-wait-times-for-health-care-
in-canada-2020