Health Insurance Should Be Abolished & Health Care Covered For Only Those Who Need It

To my opponents claim that I am confusing health care with health insurance, I would like to say that I understand the two phrases well enough to formally distinguish the two. Heath insurance is a financial tool used to pay for healthcare. {1} In stating that the government would cover the cost of health care for the citizens who need it, then my opponent is basically advocating that the government then becomes the health insurance for this citizen. This idea itself is flawed in the sense that 1. My opponent did not make it clear as to which government to give this responsibility to (federal or state) 2. How this can be possible considering the already overflowing agenda put on both the federal and state government. 3. Where this money will come from (where would the revenue mentioned by my opponent would come from). 4. How the entire department will function in terms of how it will organize it self, and finally, what qualifies you for this benefits. (people who cannot afford it can range from middle class citizen's who can afford a one time checkup, but not a continual one, to people who can afford simple check up but cannot afford needed surgery. ) Looking into all these unanswered question, we find that this resolution simply cannot pass as its is too vague. Unless My opponent is able to answer all these questions, then health insurance remains to serve as the best policy for the American citizens. RE-Rebuttal: ". I never suggested any deliberate taking advantage of. Personal biases are active whether we acknowledge them or not. Just because the conscious intent is to "perform there best" does not mean there will be no biases involved" My opponent neglect one crucial information, conscious intent is not the only reason for these doctors to work at there best, physical intent plays a major part as well. If they do not work there best in insuring maximum service and protection, then they could loose there jobs, loose there licences, go to jail, never get another descent job, end up with depth and so on. The fact that all these end results are so dire, is enough to convince them to do there job properly. "1/5 to 1/3 of tests and treatments we get are estimated to be unnecessary, and not only that can have dangerous side effects. " This might be true however, according to the citation provided in my previous round, eliminating health insurance, can have the side effect of less people going to see the doctor despite there situation simply because they don't want to pay for the care. over 87% of all Americans are middle class, meaning that over 87% of all Americans will reside in the same position hoping that there illness will just fade away, simply because they can't afford to go to the clinic for a check up or diagnosis more than twice a year. With less people going to the hospital or clinic, the price of health care will sky rocket to compensate for there lack in costumers resulting in either the government taking in addition the 12% of people who are of low income and the 87% middle class, or leave approximately 87% of the people in the U. S to go without annual check ups and doctors visit. We must also look into the fact that drugs are expensive, so in additions to the check up and the diagnosis bill, every individual above the line of what is considered poor (considiring my opponent provide us with one) would also have to pay for the drugs resulting in thousands if not several hundred dollars EACH check up. "This is majorly removed from context. The resolution states "Health INSURANCE should be abolished & Health CARE covered For Only Those Who NEED It"(capitalization for emphasis). So it is health CARE being covered NOT health INSURANCE that is at issue here with "need". The definition is self-explanatory. A person needs their health care covered by the government if they can not afford to pay for it with their own money. " what qualifies you to get this aid from the government? I could be rich and still unable to pay for my surgery and recovery fee. Will the government pay for all these expenses? If so, How can they generate such large reservoir of money to pay. "This is far less expensive than any kind of "insurance" scheme. Having "insurance" as the middlemen between the patient and the doctors requires a whole administration or bureaucracy to run that "insurance". It is much better for people to either pay for health care the way they normally pay for goods and services OR if they can not afford to do that then the government should pay for them directly just like they would for welfare services or highways and not through the medium of any kind of unnecessary insurance mechanism. My opponent makes this statement without regarding the fact that allowing the government to take over the health care payment of many citizens will be far more complicated as it does not center itself on health care like most health insurance does, making its organization quite questionable. Privatization as seen in every other public affair is far more efficient than public ownership. Sources: [1] . http://marginalrevolution.com... Thank you.