Libertarians have it right on health care-not Barack, Hillary or Johnny.

I prescribe to Libertarianism: smaller government and more personal freedom. This makes me have a belief. It does not mean that I'm close minded. - The poor's health care + The poor is alredy given health care. They dont need it. The middle class needs health care. But dont just give them health care. Give them options. If they want to support a particular company, allow them. This creates competition. Look at our private schools. They compete with free schools and better schools. They have to remain good or else they will have parents pull their kids out. If the health care industry had no or little competition, prices would be ridiculous and so would service. In France, Sweden and Canada they have poor equipment, bad service and long waits because they dont have to not. They compete with no one. No one has a choice to leave. And the price the government pays is remendous and the taxes are significantly higher there. We pay 43% of our income. Imagine paying a cent more. They pay way more for taxes and have poor service. - Regulations + The state's rules are unjust, imposing on many who wish to be let alone. The state's rules are inefficient because they are one size fits all, forcing expenditures where none or less may be desired. The state's rules damage the incentives for private provision of safety and for the private development and transmission of safety rules and information. They hold secure positions no matter how poorly they regulate and behave. They are not directly accountable to us. They do not report to us what they are doing. We, in any event, do not monitor them. They have no incentive to improve over time or economize on costs. Indeed their incentive is to provide the worst possible service at the highest possible price because they are government monopolists. They impose costs on us whether we like it or not. They are insensitive to our changing wants. They are subject to political forces and the influence of groups they regulate. They are subject to corruption. In Chicago, the government regulated the malpractice insurance too much and the doctors went on strike for a day, doctors were threating to quit medical school and close practices because they would loose too much profits. - FDA + The FDA is a good concept but it is too slow, corrupt, and underfunded. My suggestion was a free market alternative. Ther are plenty of companies that will check our food for money and companies would gladly pay the cost instead of sending their goods through the FDA and paying their steep fines. If we used private companies to regulate drugs, nobody would stand for a life saving cure taking 10 years to regulate. - The free market historically doesnt work. + Ive never seen this. A free market economy without monopolies works perfectly. Maybe I'm wrong but Ive never seen this not work. And the FDA doesnt work now and monopolies never work. A monopoly for health care would be disasterous. The FDA monopoly is disasterous. If the government paid for people's health care and letting them choose their plan, there would be competition and people would have health care. + Sweden is one example of a nation that has the health care youre talking about. Doctors are allowed to have private practices but 80% decide to work in government hospitals, destroying competition. Their taxes are ridiculously high. Significantly higher than here in the states. And waiting lists that are ridiculous. The party that promised that nobody would have to wait more than 3 months for surgery, "The Social Democrats", is shamed now because more than half of people wait over 6 months without surgery. These people are enduring excrutiating pain for 6 months or more because of the Swedish system. And many die. While Sweden is a first world country, its health care system - at least in regards to access - is closer to the third world. Because the health care system is heavily-funded and operated by the government, the system is plagued with waiting lists for surgery. Those waiting lists increase patients' anxiety, pain and risk of death. Why settle for this when the Libertarians have found a working alternative? Look at this: Monopolies NEVER work, so much so, theyre illegal. They cause no competition, higher prices, poor service and poor performance. Why make our health this way? Same with the FDA? Waiting lists cause people to die and have excrutiating pain. Taxes and spending is dranatically higher. A 100% tax deduction solves everybody's problems. Its free health care. And its competition. Why have it any other way? Thank you for reading this debate in its entirety and agreeing to vote.