Resolved: Obama should be re-elected

===(A)-Health Care=== A1. My opponent has argued that the only point to his contention was to show that coverage for health care was extended to some that were not previously covered. The means to this end or any unintended consequences it might lead to are left completely out as irrelevant for some reason. An analogy of my opponent's reasoning would be if I killed seventeen people because one was likely a murderer. Even though the end result is a murderer being brought to death, it would be utterly incoherent to attempt to separate my actions against the other sixteen entirely from the end result. My opponent fails to understand the nature of my refutation. My point is that the government has helped to create this problem in the first place via FDA regulations which corporations spend millions upon millions of dollars to abide by. They then past these costs on to consumers, resulting in higher health care costs. How does it make sense to add on top of that more government intervention, rather than simply repeal the cost-adding regulations which contributed to the problem in the first place? Also, remember that I showed that consumer safety is not necessarily lost along with FDA regulations. Refer to OK Kosher Certification for an example of a non-government quality certification company. A2. As my opponent did not clarify on his point in R2, I waited until R3 for him to expand on it. However, as I forfeited R3, I would not be able to respond to these points without being abusive (in that my opponent would never be able to respond to my initial refutation). Therefore I will concede A2. A3. My opponent claims not to understand my argument. My opponent argued in R2 that Mr. Obama's health care plan would reduce the government deficit by reducing health care costs. I pointed out that again, there are ways of reducing the deficit without getting the government MORE involved in the health care industry, as its current involvement already contributes to the deficit via hospital emergency rooms lacking the ability to turn away patients in critical need of attention. They then pass these costs on to the government which either goes into higher taxes or the deficit. A better way to reduce the deficit without getting more and more government involvement in health care transactions would be to simply de-socialize those aspects of the health care industry which already are. A4. Instead of responding to my point about health insurance providers possessing the ability to set the terms of contracts with customers via the principle of mutual trade, my opponent argues that allowing this forces Americans to go (1) more in dept to afford health care and (2) possibly skip it altogether. This of course is a by-product of artificially risen health care costs, due to extremely expensive FDA regulations which all corporations MUST abide by. You can't simply opt out and leave out claims of FDA approval. As stated before, removing these costly regulations would both lower health care costs and salvage quality certification. ===(B)-Wall Street Reform=== B1. My opponent claims that the Fed was not the only cause of the current financial crisis; that gas prices as well as "Wall Street" were also partly to blame. On gas prices, not only was the only link my opponent provided in support merely to a link to a base assertion by Rick Santorum with no empirical back-up, but the article linked doesn't even seem to support Santorum's conception of the cause, calling it a "novel interpretation of what actually caused the 2008 recession". B2. My opponent nowhere shows in his defense of B2 why (1) the practices prohibited actually force responsible trading or why (2) responsible trading is even possible given the Fed's gross distortions of market interest rates. No matter how much you regulate Wall Street, my opponent cannot get past the fact that even going off of market indicators of optimal 'responsible' trades, investors are epistemically strangled by the utter unreliability of interest rates under the Fed. Thanks to Kohai for an interesting debate. Good luck in the voting period.