Nationalizing Health care

My opponent begins by talking about how the HMO act of 1973 did not work and relates that because this government intervention failed, then nationalized health care will also fail. However this is wrong for 3 reasons 1)The HMO act of 1973 was NOT nationalized health care. If we refer to the definition, nationalized health care is when the government administers and regulates the health care in the US. The HMO act of 1973 gave grants to HMO's, to make it easier for these insurance groups to expand and function. Thus the act gave power to the insurance groups in administering health care not the government. Thus, the HMO act of 1973 was not nationalized health care. 2)Government intervention does NOT mean nationalized health care. Again the definition of it is that it is when the government regulates and administers the health care. 3)Because the HMO act of 1973 was not nationalized health care, it is also a problem with the status quo, where the insurance companies have so much power. Nationalized health care will solve this as it takes power away from the HMO's Then he says that Cuba is unhealthier and that people are fleeing form Cuba to the US. 1)The average Cuban most likely wants to flee to the US due to the limited economic opportunities in the country, not due to health care considerations. 2)You do not give any evidence that Cuba is unhealthier than the average American, you only base it off the assumption that because the living conditions in Cuba isn't as good, then they must be unhealthier, that is not true. For example if you watched Sicko, a health care documentary, the Cubans are about the same if not better health than Americans. Living standards also are not proportional to health. For example, the oldest women (age 125) lives in a rural tribe in Brazil. 3)The warrant for why Cubans are just as healthy is that the medicine there is a fraction of the cost than in the US. Nationalized health care will allow the government to efficiently distribute medicine, thus the price for medicine in the US will similarly drop. "I agree with you if it wasn't for that darn government and their interventionists policies." 1)Government intervention does not mean nationalized health care. 2)The government intervention you are talking about is the HMO act of 1973. It gave power to HMO's (insurance companies), the opposite of nationalized health care. "This may be partially true it will take the burden off of business and redirect it to the tax payer but why increase taxes on our already suffering economy so needlessly? Why not abolish insurance companies basically invented by the government through HMO act and directly replace it with the old system of competition of healthcare firms?" 1)I'm saying there will be an economic benefit. I agree taxes will increase but because health insurance costs are gone, there is a net- economic benefit. For example, let's say a household pays 4000 a year for health insurance. With nationalized health care, they do not need to pay this 4000 a year and instead have a 3000 increase in taxes. Thus, they are saving money. My warrant is in my first speech. 2)The HMO act was not nationalized health care, thus because the HMO act was so detrimental and is part of the status quo, then switching to a nationalized health care system is beneficial. "The government will force you to go to the doctor" 1)No, a nationalized health care system does not mean the government forces you to go to check ups (as seen through voluntary check ups in France for example) What I am saying is that because the health care is essentially cheaper and paid for, people are more inclined to go to the doctor. "There is a great deal of us who don't like going to the doctors." 1)That is only when someone goes in excess. I am saying that there will be a general increase in the amount of people going to the doctor VOLUNTARILY. "The overall health of our citizens will not increase infact they will get worse Currently there is just a few millions of veterans on the government control plan and it is not a pretty picture first off often times our veterans dont receive the proper medicine they need when they need it, […]Is this the Healthcare you want for our country?" 1)That is the status quo and that is what nationalized health care will fix. 2)That is not nationalized health care because that is the government putting the health care of the veterans in the hands of these companies, not the government. Exactly the opposite of nationalized health care. 3)The veterans treatment is detrimental because of the inefficiencies in the status quo, which the nationalized health care will fix. "Since when does raising taxes help the economy? No, firms will not benefit since their will be less money in the hands of consumers. Also, the average American doctor is paid much higher then the Average Canadian Doctor.." 1)I agree taxes will increase but because health insurance costs are gone, there is a net- economic benefit. For example, let's say a household pays 4000 a year for health insurance. With nationalized health care, they do not need to pay this 4000 a year and instead have a 3000 increase in taxes. Thus, they are saving money. My warrant is in my first speech. Thus there will be MORE money in consumers' hands not less. 2)Paul V Dutton at the North Arizona University states "America's doctors might finally be convinced to throw their support behind universal health insurance if it protected their professional judgment and created a sane system of billing and reimbursement." The quote means that money is really not a problem because the salary difference is not large at all. What the American doctors are frustrated with is the negotiations with insurance companies and actually getting the salary in the first place. Thus as the quote concludes, American doctors are more than willing to switch to a universal health care system. "Firstly you would be surprised by how france runs their universal healthcare the french not only tax the hell out of their citizens but even that is not enough. 92% of France's citizens still require Health insurance requiring them to dish out thousands of Euros to not only their government but also its insurance." 1)The French in total, tax increases, extra payments, all added together is actually less than what Americans are paying for now. Thus if we switch, we will be saving money. Also, the French system is a quasi public quasi private system. However I am proposing a system that is only private to the government. There is essentially no difference only that the payments go to different people but a only private payment system to the government makes it more efficient. "Their [Canadian] doctors are constantly running across borders to seek better salaries. The waiting list can last an entire 9 months just to get checked out in a country of 30 million. Is that our future?" 1)Evidence for doctors running across borders please? 2)The waiting list in the US is actually a lot longer than Canada's. Thus relatively, Canada's system is better. 3)Americans are actually going to Canada because of its better health care. It's common for people to go to Canada and buy drugs due to its extremely low price. Also, medical checkups are also relatively cheaper. 4)"Can last an entire 9 months" so you are saying that because there was maybe a couple of extreme cases where it lasted out that long that this will happen everytime? Again, the average waitlist time in the US is longer than that in Canada. My opponent for one has not fulfilled his burden, rather mine. He has told me that the HMO act of 1973 and Obama cutting of VA, that means that the current status quo is bad and that is why we need a switch. He has not shown why we should stick with the current system. Thus you should vote for the Affirmative because of the above and: 1-