Socialized Healthcare would be good for the United States.

Pro has yet again failed to present any arguments for why a socialized healthcare system is the soltuion. Pro simply states that capitalism has failed and that socialism is the answer. Pro has given only one argument as proof that capitalism has failed. Pro quotes the article on Wikipedia as follows. "For instance, the article points out that physician wages in the US are double those of European doctors - because of the limited supply - which is a major reason for the more expensive health care.[1]" His argument above is that due to the limited supply of doctors demand has increased which has increased the cost. Its true that his basic theory of supply and demand is correct. As supply goes down, demand goes up, as does the cost. However the above is not the result of capitalism or the free market. Pro failed to mention the entire section of the artile he quoted. Allow me. The first sentence is where he got his quote. Here it is in its entirety. "American Medical Association (AMA) has lobbied the government to highly limit physician education since 1910, currently at 100,000 doctors per year,[100] which has led to a shortage of doctors[101] and physicians' wages in the U.S. are double those in the Europe, which is a major reason for the more expensive health care.[102]" Pro did an ok job of quoting the above, but he failed to mention that the AMA has lobbied the government to limit the number of physicians educated. That is a perfect example of the government manipulating the market. Pro completely leaves out the following: "An even bigger problem may be that the doctors are paid for procedures instead of results.[102]" And of course pro leaves out the final paragraph: "AMA has also aggressively lobbied for many restrictions that require doctors to carry out operations that might be carried out by cheaper workforce. For example, in 1995, 36 states banned or restricted midwifery even though it delivers equally safe care to that by doctors, according to studies. The regulation lobbied by AMA has decreased the amount and quality of health care, according to the consensus of economist: the restrictions do not add to quality, they decrease the supply of care.[100][103] Moreover, psychologists, nurses and pharmacologists are not allowed to prescribe medicines.[clarification needed] Previously nurses were not even allowed to vaccinate the patients without direct supervision by doctors." Here were several examples of regulation adversely effecting the market. Why did Pro leave these out? As you can see, the above shows clear examples of how government regulation, intervention, and attempted control, have increased the cost. Keep in mind that socialized healthcare is healthcare that is completely regulated and controlled by the state. Pro then gives us some more examples of problems we have in the system but fails to address how socialism will help. Pro asserts that we spend more than any other country but receive a substandard quality of care. I don't know what he is basing the level of care on, but he is mistaken. I do really believe we should have a for profit healthcare system. I do not believe we should have privatized police and fire, even though there are many private companies that do offer that service. There are many private security firms, as well as paid on call fire departments. They do a fine job. But last time i checked this debate was about whether or not socialized healthcare would be good for the U.S. So far, Pro has only told us that it is, without giving any arguments as to how it will be better, or any different from the system we currently have.