that the united states should implement universal health care modeled after the french system

My opponent completely drops my framework argument which was 1. pro must prove french system is the best in the world 2. pro must prove that the french system can be adapted in the united states since my opponent does not provide a framework, and concedes mine, look to this as the framework for this debate round. "My first contention is that by implementing this universal health then it would make things cheaper. In the united state we pay around 6,100 dollars per person where as in France they pay 3,500 dollars which is half of what we pay. So if we were to implement universal health care modeled after the French system then it would obviously cost less." MY RESPONSE: why opponent has misconstrued my attacks against his first contention. I am not attacking this point by saying that u.s. system is better than the french system. I am merely saying that the french system is the third most expensive in the world. if your going to model after a system just because it "covers" someone (reguardless of qualitative aspects) why not model after a system like canda's or great britain where they cawhere they have much cheaper system's than the current French national health insurance. The reason why this is more effective than the french system is because the government has 100 percent control over prices, whereas the french government only has 75 percent. Through a single payer system we could be alot more cost effective than a french multipayer system because the government has full control of the prices, and can completely rid administrative costs which are 30% of health care. "also my opponent is talking about we could have are debt decrease if we have a single payer system but this resolution is just talking about if we should implement universal health care and by modeling after the French so what he is talking about single payer system is totally irrelevant to this debate." My RESPONSE: a single payer system is very much pertainent to this debate, for I am negating this resolution by stating that we shouldn't adopt the french system because there are more effective alternatives to look to. "what I'm trying to prove is that by implementing universal health care we would be saving more money and that the national debt would not increase so fast where as we spend about 2.3 trillion dollars due to health care last year and estimated to be around 7 trillion in 2016. as in France there deficit is only 9 billion dollars last year, so you can already see the difference between the two. but to say that either way both health insurance would be putting us in debt regardless but what I'm saying is that by taking in universal health care we would be slowing down our increasing debt." My Response: My opponent again has again fallaciously asserted that we look to the French health care system to resolve our fiscal debt. however, why should we look to reform our system through a system that is clearly going bankrupt itself? health care costs in French payroll taxes have increase from 13 percent to around 50 percent in the last year, and my opponent himself states that the fiscal situation in France is bad. " physicians in the united states are ranked in the top three so we already have some of the best physicians and that if we implement universal health care which is better then our health care system. so this means with better health care and better physicians then this logically means better quality." My RESPONSE: Look to my contention 2 sub point a to answer the assertion made by my opponent. French doctors are familiar to working in bad conditions with horrible pay. however, if we implement the same system in the united states, we ship our qualitative doctors overseas. MY RESPONSE TO THE REST OF HIS ARGS you take your business overseas because their is an obvious incentive to work for 200,000 dollars in Russia than there is in the united states for 50,000. Not all doctors are going to change professions, but the ones who are actually qualitative will be going overseas to make more money. my opponent misconstrued my putting insurance companies out of business arguments, this wouldn't be giving more people jobs, an adoptiion of this system would be laying of MILLIONS. medical technology companies don't go out of buisiness in france because there is no serious industry. whereas in the united states, these companies pull in 108 billion in profits per year. if we were to implement this system in the united states, we cut off work to millions of employees while simultaneously putting a huge strain on our economy. KOBE BRYANT FOR PRESIDENT.