Resolved: Obama should be re-elected

===(A)-Health Care=== A1.Extending Coverage My opponent argues that without healthcare reform, many citizens would go bankrupt in order to get care. I agree that in too many instances this is the case. However my opponent must show why Mr. Obama's specific reform plan is the best way to deal with this. Just the fact that it IS a way doesn't help my opponent's case. There are many other ways to successfully lower costs, for instance lowering government restrictions on the ability for new or experimental drugs to go to market and allow the patient and their doctor decide between themselves whether or not the amount of risk associated with the new drug is sufficient or not to warrant using it. Presently, clinical research and testing required for FDA approval cause the average drug to cost 802 million dollars and 90.3 months[1] before they're set to go to market. Obviously drug companies need to make a profit and thus they're forced to pass the cost of this on to customers, resulting in higher prices. Eliminating these restrictions would lower costs without sacrificing the safety of consumers. Private certification agencies would be given the chance to develop, wherein products who's quality is up to some set standard is officially recognized by the agency as a means of being able to gain the trust of customers with various risk assessments. Some agencies like this have already developed such as OK Kosher Certification[2] and other Kosher certification companies. A2. Insurance Industry Abuses I'll be brief on this point as my opponent was. My opponent was ambiguous and unclear on how the AC Act will do the things mentioned. Just posting a link for an argument will not suffice and as my opponent said he would have more on the point, I assume he will be coming back to clarify the point. A3. Growth Curve of Healthcare Spending My opponent in this point ignores the reason why healthcare costs are correlated with the government's deficit. This is because the government already provides a large amount of free-of-expense healthcare services, as in cases of emergency care. When the uninsured go to the ER for care they may not be turned away.Therefore the cost of their care is passed on to either the taxpayer or the deficit. De-socializing the aspects of the healthcare industry which were already socialized to an extent would in itself lower the deficit by discontinuing the practice of assuming the cost of coverage for the uninsured. My opponent is attempting to resolve a problem caused by government intervention with more government intervention when simply de-socializing the aspects of the healthcare industry which already are would fix the problem in itself. A4. Pre-existing conditions As I already responded to my opponent's point on coverage, I'll respond here to his arguments about (A) pre-existing conditions and (B) staying on a parent's health insurance plan. On (A), my opponent provided no reason why insurance companies don't have the right to not cover someone from a pre-existing condition that they may have. So long as this is written into the terms of the agreement between the patient and the company, there is no reason transaction like that ought not to be allowed. If the insurance company lies about whether they treat such conditions, that's a clear case of fraud and may be prosecuted in either civil or criminal court. On coverage for children to the age of 26, lowering costs as I argued de-socialization would do would do much to help young adults afford healthcare of their own. ===(B)-Wall Street Reform=== B1. My opponent misunderstands the initial cause of the financial disaster, which was the Federal Reserve distorting (artificially lowering) natural interest rates in the economy. This lead to increased investment in longer term investments which did not correspond to real change in investment. Malinvestments were created and the economy had to correct itself in the form of a recession. The fault mostly lies with the Federal Reserve, an institution which Mr. Obama has done next to nothing to stop. More on this on my refutation of my opponent's 'Recovery' point. B2. My opponent has not shown how this contributed to the current financial crisis. B3. Mr. Obama actually presided over one of the largest bailouts, over 700 billion dollars in fact.[3] Moreover, even if Mr. Obama stopped the policy of bailing out firms, my opponent has not shown why simply refusing to prop up failing businesses will stop them from being "too big to fail". ===(C)-Recovery Act=== On the creation of jobs as an act of recovery, my opponent misunderstands the nature of the economic crisis experienced recently. Its not as if Mr. Obama can misdiagnose the disease and then treat the symptoms correctly. Mr. Obama is working on creating jobs while ignoring what caused the recession in the first place, the Federal Reserve. The economic recession which we now find ourselves in is merely the bust end of the boom.[4] In short, expansion of the amount of credit available by the Fed distorted the natural interest rates on the market.[5] These interest rates, like prices, are vital tools for investors to determine the optimal place of investment at any given point. When they are lowered as they were by the Fed, it appears as though people are saving more when in reality the content of investing decisions hasn't changed in the way it appears. Investing in capital goods (longer term) thus appears more profitable as investors believe enough revenue will be generated so as to pay back their credit loans. However, since the signals they were basing their predictions on were not based on reality, but in an illusory picture of the economy, the Fed simply ends up breeding malinvestments. Eventually, this leads to a bust in which the malinvestments and loans must be liquidated so the economy can start functioning again. Mr. Obama is trying to get people to work again, however he totally ignores the reason for the crisis in the first place and has done little to nothing to actually stop the policies which gave way to it. All we can hope for then is that the symptoms of the crisis are temporarily mitigated while the disease continues to flourish. ===Sources=== [1] http://healthcare-economist.com... [2] http://www.ok.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://mises.org... [5] http://wiki.mises.org...