You surmise, I decide.

Right into rebuttals: My opponent's rebuttal to my first contention rests on the idea that "powers not given to the government are reserved to the people/states". This may be true, but my opponent overlooked the "Elastic Clause", ""The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." If you've taken a class on American government, you know what this means: the government can essentially do what it feels is necessary and proper to carry out an act that isn't illegal/constitutional. Provided health care is not unconstitutional or illegal, and is a proper way to protect the rights mentioned in my opening argument, so there is no reason why the government should not have the right to provide it. "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." Of course - everything can be traced back to a cost. Food and water need to be paid for at some point, even though they are necessary to survive. The idea is to make it as free AS POSSIBLE, which I stated in my previous round. This would mean that health care should be as free as possible, because it is protecting your right to life and safety. The best way to do this is to make a government-provided basic health care plan. I will explain later. "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." It costs money to print money. Like I said before, even things as simple as water must be paid for at some point. That's just the way economics work. "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." How does the government raise money, then? Some amount of taxes are required to run a government such as ours. And this is not theft. When you pay for a hotel, are you being stolen from? As for my second contention, I will address this later. Over to my opponent: My opponent's first two contentions are basically the same as his third contention, "free markets make health care more customizable and tailored to each individual." Basically, he is saying that health care should be left in the hands of free markets because they can give different options to the citizens. Once again, I will address this later (I'm doing this because my next contention will negate whatever points I'm putting off). "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." My opponent is stating that universal health care leads to less doctors. This is not a problem for two reasons: 1) Doctors will still have to do the job of treating patients; they will just not get paid directly from the patient. 2) Even if we ignore this, who wants to pay hundreds to thousands of dollars for life and safety, when it should be made cheaper? If we do the thing that promotes the most rights, then doctors should not be as prominent as they are now anyway. Now that I've refuted my opponent's contentions and negated his rebuttals, I will elaborate on the health care idea I have. The government does not have to provide a health care plan that protects everyone from everything. They only have to set up a plan that provides common protections, like from a fire. States or free markets can provide extra area-specific things such as tornadoes, earthquakes, etc. This way, the government can provide a cheap health care plan while complying with my opponent's contentions and mine.