This healthcare proposal is better than any healthcare proposal my opponent can come up with.

I will go over the flaws in my opponent's case and the strengths in mine. My opponent's case 1) Allow insurance companies to compete across state lines. My opponent drops this point. He concedes that his proposal will not lower medical costs or even insurance premiums, in reality. 2) Government Handouts The current plan, as my opponent has proposed, implements, would grant those without insurance a reward. This reward is one-time. Again, the result will be that people will get off of their insurance, though only for a day, to recieve this subsidy. Its corrupting potential is enormous. The true way to encourage Americans to purchase health insurance would be to mandate it, which would cause premiums to go up and the individual to be screwed by yet more government-sponsored monopoly priviledges, which my opponent is against. Another way would be to give continuous tax credits to individuals who buy insurance (not those who don't), which would inevitable lower the real cost of insurance to the consumer. Even though such a proposal would lead to a burden-shift through the subsequent raising of insurance premiums, this would actually have an effect on the buying of insurance. Again, this proposal simply grants a reward to those without insurance, encouraging individuals to get off of the insurance program and recieve a payment. The argument from this one, that an increase in people on insurance would allow for lower costs, is nullified in respect to my opponent's case. "My opponent thinks anybody who doesn't have insurance is a welfare mother mooching off of the government." Absolutely false. I have made many statements to the contrary, and firmly believe that it is not in the individual's best interest to invest in collective insurance. My opponent misrepresents my arguments, perhaps intentionally. On the issue of whether or not the tax credit is from a "tax credit" is a subsidy or not: This is perhaps one of the saddest instances of equivocation in existence. On the spreadsheet, no additional theft results from the existence of a tax credit, but the tax credit is never accompanied with a decrease in government spending, as a tax cut; therefore, the tax credit is simply a disguised increase of burden on the rich for a subsidy on a favored group. My opponent can deny it all he wants on equivocation, but the reality remains the same. 3) Government Regulations My mentioning of marketing appears to simply be a misunderstanding of my opponent's proposition. The summary of my opponent's rebuttal here is that such and such proposition will require companies to give information. Again, they already do, in contracts. My opponent then points out that this information is indiscernable. Well, my opponent's proposition does not fix this problem. No change comes into effect whatsoever in reality. The information has always been disclosed, and will be continued to be disclosed in the contract, as my opponent proposed, as indiscernable information, as my opponent conceded. This proposition reduces down to nothing. Now, to my proposals. 1) Cutting monopoly benefits for insurance companies This was conceded in round 3. 2) Occupational Licensure My opponent appears to be advocating the mandatory medical training of every individual with his statement, "emergencies don't just happen in hospitals". Besides this, he equates good doctoring to good lawyering. This is great for me, because I can now refute occupational licensure from this analogy. Making all lawyers "good" by requiring thorough education runs up their price considerably, as my opponent had mentioned passively in a different contention. It is not necessary for all doctors to be "good", here meaning "well-rounded", because this is contrary to Division of Labour [1], the specialization of the labourer, which, throughout history, has created a wealthier society. Combining multiple professions into one is NOT beneficial to society, due to its inefficiency. Using violence to make healthcare less efficient, more expensive, and less specialized is generally a harmful thing. We have seen the effects (expensive and low-quality healthcare), which have been artificially imposed by occupational licensure. My opponent still holds that some natural right exists to be birthed by a licensed doctor. Again, no such natural "right" can exist, and it is absurd. My opponent's premise lies on the assumption that less specialized doctors are preferable to highly-trained and specialized midwives, which is false. The specialized individual's midwiving is more likely to be successful than the well-rounded individual's midwiving. My opponent's rebuttal essentially lies on the unwarranted assumption that a government license means quality. Disregard this assumption, and know that the principles of Division of Labour and competition work otherwise. My opponent brings up the issue that some people cannot afford an operator. This problem is due entirely to occupational licensure, which forces up the price of medical workers, as my opponent conceded in Round 3. My opponent also asserts that "liability... won't pay for all of it". This is, by definition, false, because liability requires that all damages be paid. 3) Eliminating the FDA My opponent's rebuttal is based in two Marxist fallacies: a) "the government favors the citizen" Historically, this is false. No example can be given, from Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia to American Fascism. This is because government is guaranteed an income through the violence of taxation. Government only needs to meet its "customer's" needs to an extent that mass armed rebellion will not occur. Government resents its consumer, which it sees as simply a drain on the budget. [2] b) "the private sector favors profit" While true, the private sector can only obtain profit through voluntary transaction. It cannot use violence. This drive for profit forces competing companies and individuals to meet the demands of thsoe purchasing their goods and services. This eternally and continuously favours the individual [2]. My opponent's premises should call for the immediate Socialization of the entire healthcare industry. This in itself negates the resolution, for from my opponent's own false premises, I can develop a better healthcare proposal than my opponent. However, his premises are false, as shown above. The drive for profit means that companies cannot allow mistakes leading to lawsuits and class actions, diminishing profit. Therefore, my opponent's claim as to private companies rushing through an HIV vaccine is easily refuted. To rush through such a harmful vaccine to an eager populace would mean an end to any company involved in addition to the public humiliation of the individuals. On the contrary, when we assume that the government has control of such a vaccine, all it has to lose is a little public favor. Government officials are highly susceptible to bribes, which can either harmfully speed up the approval process, as in the case of DDT, or cause perfectly safe drugs to be stalled or banned, as is currently being done with diabetes treatements [3]. CONCLUSION My opponent has dropped one of his proposals and conceded one of mine. The rest of my opponent's case ignores the primary reason for high medical costs, monopoly priviledges, and argues for an ineffective means of lowering government losses in bankruptcy claims. My case offers a means of lowering medical costs and allowing efficiency through market specialization found in the principles of Division of Labour. My opponent's rebuttals lie in fearmongering (operations with a rusty spoon) and the guaranteeing of nonexistent rights. VOTE CON. [1] Adam Smith. The Wealth Of Nations, Book One, Chapter 1. [2] Murray Rothbard. For a New Liberty, Chapter Thirteen. [3] http://finalcurefordiabetes.blogspot.com...