Access to and the distribution of health related services ought to be handled by the free market.

Rejoinder "How about you read the next few sentences and lay real criticism of the point? I present a subject and then support it. It's as if I'm describing several topics to you and as I read the title of the topic you pipe in "What? How? " every time before I even say anything else. " This criticism makes no sense. We are not debating in "real time. " Each participant has a chance to read the entire argument after it's been posted, So this statement "you pipe in. . . Every time before I even say anything else" is completely inaccurate because you have "said everything else" before I could respond. Furthermore, I ask "how? " after the essential point. Anything else I address is supplemental. Case in point: "Monopolies make sense for several markets, But none more-so than health insurance. " (Your statement) You then argue a conditional proposition, "If monopolies are the most efficient option, They make more sense under government control than private control. " This explains nothing. It neither explains the reason monopolies make more sense in the health insurance market, Nor does it inform your inductive argument in the slightest. Your subsequent statements do no much better, I. E. Informing how the option, You allege is efficient, Makes more sense under government control rather than private. When you explain your points, I'll stop asking, "how? " "No one is advocating that physicians become enslaved. This is not how single payer works. Insurance agencies negotiate with doctors all the time. The government insurance agency would do the same thing. Please stop pretending this is somehow a point in your favor. " Non sequitur. I never stated that the enslavement of physicians and nurses would manifest from single payer. My statement is in plain view, So I'll quote it: "Some would even argue that access to health care is 'a right. ' This would implicate two things: (1) physicians and nurses have no authority over the services they provide, And must submit their labor (even by force) to those who claim "a right" to those services; or (2) by 'right, ' one means 'free of costs' or 'free at the point of use. '" Where do I mention "single payer"? Even when I suggest a solution where I incorporated the terms "enslaving, " I do not mention single payer at all: "Perhaps however there is a solution that doesn't involve debt deferment, Seizing property of another, Or enslaving physicians and nurses. " In this case, Single payer would align with debt-deferment. "To the judges and my opponent, Please note how none of the metrics I used were challenged in the slightest, Nor did he present any metrics of his own by which private healthcare is superior to single payer. " Once again, My statements are in plain view, So I'll quote myself again: "Please provide sources for your metrics. Thus far, All these are just alleged claims. " "But know that if he actually had any counterarguments he would have used them. None of what I said is even arguable. These are well understood statistics by anyone who puts a modicum of effort into researching. To cite sources for every point I made would take tens of sources I'm simply slightly too lazy to dig up. " Abandon the sophistry, Thoht. It is not my burden to do your research, which as you claim, You're "too lazy to dig up. "It's your argument; it's your reference to metrics; you support them. I won't counterargue phantom arguments. "One small point I hadn't brought up in my R2 that I should've but forgot is that currently businesses are setup to where they offer health insurance through their business. This enslaves people to their job. " The metaphor while useful in advancing rhetoric doesn't advance any argument. I won't spend another character arguing how voluntary employment does not constitute "enslavement. " Rejoinder #2 "No one is trying to force doctors to treat anyone. This is fallacious. " No one argued that anyone was trying to force doctors to treat anyone. I extended the argument of "right to health care" to its logical conclusions. "No one is saying healthcare is or will be free. This is fallacious. " No one argued that anyone said that health care is or will be free. I extended the argument of "right to health care" to its logical conclusions. "Your entire first "opening argument" section is you shadow boxing. Fighting entities that don't exist. " And your statements have been, Thus far, Based on misrepresentations and non sequtiurs. Once again, My statements are in plain view. (I won't quote myself again. It's above so re-read it at your leisure. ) 2. You don't vet your own sources. (One which I must point out comes from a stackexchange conversation with missing sources, Not of your own research. ) The LCME, The Liaison Committee on Medication Education, Which your source argues is responsible for the accreditation for allopathic medicine, Is sponsored by both the AMA and the AAMC, Two organizations which have been partnered for decades (1) 91% of the practicing physicians in the U. S. Possess an M. D. , 76% of which was acquired domestically (2) The ACGME which your source credits as responsible for allopathic residences was created in part by the efforts of the American Medical Association (3) As for the 30% membership, The American Medical Association's House of Delegates represents more than 185 outside physician groups (4) Furthermore, I've yet to discover any information to the effect of "membership" being an extension of "licensure. " If you have information to that effect, Then submit it, Otherwise the percent of membership is irrelevant. Last, I'm not interested in that which "seems. " "Seem" is not an argument. "Seem" is your impression. Rejoinder #3 3. "No investor or businessman will ever invest money into the production of new drugs if they are not allowed to recoup their losses. " Explain how the absence of drug patents would disallow investors from redeeming or gaining profit on their investment? You continue to make assertions, But you do not explain or substantiate them. "With single payer, The government negotiates from the strongest possible position as far as drug prices. They can offer drug companies a fair price. " Or they can cease the extension of privilege to drug companies to restrict the market (through the patent system) from new entrants, Especially to suppliers of cheaper generics, And allow competitive pricing strategies to bid down prices. All you've suggested is a moderate start to that which I've suggested. And your own source contradicts your assessment on the returns of investment. Here I'll quote it: "A recent study found that federally funded research contributed to the science that underlies every one of the 210 new drugs approved between 2010 and 2016. Given that the U. S. Government, Funded by taxpayers, Already subsidizes so much research for pharmaceutical companies through the National Institutes of Health, It is a transparent lie for pharmaceutical companies to claim that they need to charge outrageous prices for the purposes of "innovation. " Rejoinder #4 Your rebuttal to my arguments about the FDA have much to do about nothing. Your offer abstract psychological assessments that even if we were to entertain does not exclude government officials. "Not to mention that many product reviews are bought and paid for by the companies who sell the products. How many fake reviews do you think are on Yelp or Amazon? How many companies pay for good reviews? " Doesn't matter. I didn't mention "Amazon Reviews. " "On top of that, Some number of those were only on the shelf for a year or two if not less. Some were approved nearly a century ago. " One of them was on the shelf for 55 years which was petitioned for removal twice. It wasn't removed until 2010. You can attempt to misrepresent the information at your discretion. My source is properly cited and can be seen by anyone. "Your suggestion is that we replace this agency with Amazon reviews which can and are doctored and paid for. " Quote me. "I doubt you'll read even a portion of it, But here you go. (4)" How is this at all proper decorum in a debate? What informs your presumption on that which I would or wouldn't read? If it informs and substantiates your argument then submit it. If it doesn't, Why bother mentioning it? (After reading it, The Johnson & Johnson Risperdal case doesn't serve as an exemplar of a private drug market without the FDA because the FDA existed. If anything your source argues to the discredit of the FDA since the drug was approved by them to begin with) "You offer no sources to even suggest that amazon product reviews have an efficiency anywhere near the FDA. " I'm not beholden to an argument I did not make. "All you seem to have done is point out one or two things that could be improved in the system we currently have. Eliminating the FDA would be a great idea but supply and demand aren't all that matters. Quality matters. Your solution to this problem is laughable at best, And lacking in morality at least. " Once again, "seem" is not argument. And how is my solution lacking in "morality. " My solution is the only one which does not coerce or compel behavior under duress. Please expand on your claim of my solution "lacking" morality. (P. S. I'm not interested in that which you find laughable. ) As for your sources in RD2, Those aren't metrics. Please provide actual metrics.