You surmise, I decide.

I like your style... So, if you don't mind, I'll mimic it. Rebuttal to Contention 1: The government has no Constitutional authority to provide health care. This is simple enough... the Constitution was designed as a framework for our government. It specifically outlines what the government (specifically Congress) may do, and denies to it all other powers. Article I, section 8 list these granted powers; the wording of the document as well as the contemporary Federalist papers holds this list to be exhaustive. According to Article I, section 8, all powers not specifically delineated in this section are reserved to the states or to the people. Nowhere in this section does it speak of health care, or safety as it relates to health care, for that matter. The only place in the Constitution that might even be construed into health care is the "general welfare" clause, which does not fit what would be necessary to allow federal health care provisions or insurance. If the Constitution were intended to give the government unlimited power based on the "general welfare" clause, why would it list out specific powers and deny all others in Article I, section 8? Contemporary writings of the framers support this; they all denied that this clause would give the government a "super-power" when arguing in support of the ratification of the Constitution in the Federalist papers. Therefore, it is clearly not the proper role of the government, especially not the Federal Government, to directly provide health care or health care insurance. Secondly, to quote, "Why have to waste all that money on surgery from an accident that threatened your life/safety, when these protections should come free [as possible]?" You must realize that just because the recipient of the care is not paying for the care (directly) in full (or at all), it is not FREE. There are materials used and goods consumed when health care is delivered; even if it is just soap and a pair of latex exam gloves. This materials and goods must be paid for; that is to say, they have a cost. So, if free care (or cut-rate care) is given, either the doctor, insurance agencies, or the government (if the care is subsidized) must pay for them. To focus on the government (as that is the topic), they must get the money to pay for the goods and services (or money to create such goods, if you like) from somewhere. They have three options, and I will discuss each separately. The first option is that they simply print more dollar bills, or write a check on themselves, to pay for the goods and services. This is a horrible idea; it simply cause or exacerbates inflation by increasing the money supply, devaluing each dollar. In times of economic difficulty with inflation presenting a problem as it is, one can clearly see how this would be a devastating consequence. The second option is that they, the government, increase taxes to generate revenue to pay for the goods and services. This is basically theft; taking from one person by force to give to another. Even though Robin Hood was giving to the poor, he still stole, and thusly was still a thief. Taxing one person to provide for another is similarly theft. I am coerced to pay that money; it comes directly out of my check and I go to prison if I refuse. You could use that money to do whatever you wish, it does not change the fact that I have been stolen from. If I choose to donate, or choose to help, that is noble and great. Imagine if I walked down the street and saw a homeless man begging for change. It would be noble of me to give him a dollar, right? What if I pick-pocketed the man next to me and gave that money to the hobo? Would that not make me a criminal? We ought to hold our government to the same standards. Furthermore, increased taxation puts an undue burden on the economy, which is already in an unstable position. The final option is that the government takes out loans from domestic and foreign lenders to pay for goods and services. I hold this option to be obviously bad. I have no problem with your second contention in principle; I agree that providing health care to some but not all is bad. The government, however, ought to provide it to no one; as I have argued above and will continue to argue. So, now for some contentions of my own. Contention 1: In the case of health care, free markets can provide health care at a lower cost than can managed or subsidized care. This is a fairly simple argument. In a free market, providers must compete for the business of those seeking care. This causes each provider to remain competitive by maintaining service standards but lowering their overhead by working more efficiently and being less wasteful. It would not, as some would claim, lower standards of care universally; just as you would not patronize a dirty but cheap restaurant, you would not visit a doctor who had a reputation of shoddy performance. Contention 2: In the case of health care, free markets can provide health care in a better quality that can managed or subsidized care. Similar to contention 1, this is easy. As health care providers compete for business, they may begin to offer premium service, luxe accommodations, or other benefits to customers while not raising prices; just in an effort to remain competitive, they have to serve us better to serve themselves. Contention 3: With a combination of contentions 1 and 2, free markets make health care more customizable and tailored to each individual. By providing a mix of low cost or high accommodations (or both), each provider can nudge into a niche to serve a particular group of people or different needs. Think hotels: for a honeymoon, you might be wiling to spend the extra money to rent a room in a Hilton or other luxury hotel; for a routine travel stay, you might choose a Super 8 or other motel/motor lodge. Similarly, with health care, for a major surgery you could opt to spend the money (or use your insurance) to pay for a specialized doctor's services; for routine check ups you could front the $30 (a predictable expense not requiring insurance) to see a general practitioner. This is, or course, one example of many. Contention 4: Subsidizing or managing health care removes much of the incentive for young students to become doctors, thus reducing our supply of trained medical professionals. This almost stands alone; by removing the profitability of being a doctor, fewer people will join the profession. Completely subsidizing health care would cap or control doctor's earnings, while also subjecting them to more paperwork, rules, bureaucratic legalese, and other hurdles. Taken in tandem, this means that the job is less attractive, and therefore, the supply of doctors goes down, meaning less care can be provided.