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

So what I'll do is step back a moment and summarize your position and my position. You can clarify what you will in your closing. 1. You have said both that I have not supported metrics and that I have not provided "actual metrics. " Both of these things cannot simultaneously be true, But I digress. I'm going to define metric for you and as simply as I can explain my sources and your response. A metric is a standard of measurement. Distance can be measured by inches, Feet, Et cetera. These are metrics. When one's goal is to determine how 'good' a system is, You have to measure it by some standard. Is this system good if I spend the least amount of money on it? Is this system good if it lasts a long time (durability)? These are two metrics by which to measure the 'goodness' of a system. When you say a service "ought" be provided by the free market, You are saying that, According to the metrics you are analyzing the service with, The free market is superior. I have provided the following metrics: 1a. Outcomes. This means life expectancy, Health expectancy, Infant morality, Et cetera. My source was a graphic that took information from the WHO/CIA/CDC. 1b. Coverage. This means the number of people covered regardless of the circumstance. The categories are Insured, Uninsured, And not insured. In the US millions of people are uninsured. Millions are underinsured. This is under a private healthcare system. Under single payer BY DEFINITION the whole of our society is covered in any circumstance. This is true by definition. I feel no need to link a source for you. This is not a matter of contention. 1c. Approval/Happiness with the system. In countries with single payer or a form of NHC the people are happier with the system itself. I did not support this with anything, But I'll say it is fairly easy to prove. Any candidates running in Canada or other countries with single payer hardly ever get away with saying they want to dismantle it. People in countries with single payer often cite healthcare as their primary concern if they think of coming here. The majority of Americans want single payer healthcare and cite unhappiness with ours. Many die from our current system, This is hardly surprising. 1d. Freedom of companies. I have said companies will pay less for their employees healthcare in single payer. Companies themselves also save money by not having to negotiate and maintain connections with insurance agencies to handle that. They won't have to deal with employees' concerns about it at all. The only companies that lose would be insurance companies. The rest would win. We deal with job loss due to advances in tech all the time. The losses are small compared to the gains. The same WHO/CIA/CDC information shows per capita costs of health insurance dramatically lower in countries with it compared to without while simultaneously covering tens of millions more. This is not controversial. 1e. Freedom of the people Under private insurance you cannot see the doctor you want. You live in fear of developing a condition that is not covered. Some people are enslaved to their work because they will go bankrupt and possibly die if they lose insurance for a day, And other insurances may be able to disqualify them. This is de facto enslavement whether the initial job acceptance was voluntary or not. If you voluntarily accept a job but while you work there your employer holds a gun to your head and says 'keep working here or I'll murder you or your family' you, Perhaps, Would not call it voluntary any longer. 1f. Money Single payer healthcare has proven to cost less per capita while covering the entire population. Private healthcare, While not covering everyone, Costs more per person. Significantly so. As stated before, CIA/WHO/CDC facts show Canada pays nearly half of what we do while covering everyone. This is due to the business inefficiencies of the free market/private healthcare systems and the for-profit nature of these companies. This is also due to doctors being paid for the services they provide. They are incentivized to run unnecessary tests. They are incentivized to prescribe needless medication. This is like saying you can get a better quality computer at 50% off the price you paid for your current one and you can pick a friend to get it for free or split the cost with you, And saying that is not a good deal. These six metrics are what I have supplied sources for or logical arguments for. Your response to these metrics, Supported by the CIA, The WHO, And the CDC, Some of the world's greatest intelligence agencies and/or some of the world's greatest health authorities, Is to say "those aren't real sources. " And "those aren't real metrics. " So we are left with logical arguments that have been well thought out and sources from three of the world's best authorities on the subject dismissed at Pro's whimsy. You, The judges, And me, Con, Are supposed to accept Pro's dismissal of these metrics and these sources just like that. He, After all, Has 'made his position perfectly clear' and 'does not see why he should repeat himself. ' Not good enough for me. Is it for you? He says he is "not responsible for doing your research for you. " This is true. Perhaps though you should be responsible for debating me and critiquing my points and why my 'sources are not legit. I submit that Pro has not explained with any substance why these metrics are not the ones that should be used to judge the healthcare system of countries. I submit that Pro has not submitted sufficient justification to dismiss the WHO/CIA/CDC's numbers. He has given no reasoning behind why these numbers may be off in his view. He has given no reasoning as to why these three agencies may have questionable motives on the matter. If the sources are so bad, Pro, Here is a Koch-brothers right-leaning study for you to peruse at your leisure. Perhaps the Koch Brothers are secretly liberals or hold secret motivations while funding all of the Republican party. (1) I can find studies to support these metrics all day. I can't seem to be able to find any that don't. Strange. I am left with nothing to debate. If Pro's argument here is sufficient for you, Then so be it. It is not for me. There is no logical argument you can make for why his position on my metrics and sources is acceptable. 2. My opponent's points I have, Multiple times, Asked for a single metric that you can use to analyze the healthcare system you espouse. You have said you've made it clear enough. Again, If one's opponent asks for clarity and says he does not understand it is hardly good debate conduct to say "Nope. I've already said it" while pretending it is impossible for you to be misinterpreted or misunderstood. I am giving you all the charity in the world when I say perhaps you had presented a metric I'm not seeing. This is as fair as anyone can ask me to be. Here are your arguments. (Metrics? ) 2a. The AMA decreases the supply of physicians. I've shown this to be patently untrue. You further state that they license or assist in making the standards for a large percentage of doctors. The source you cite says the following about who makes licensing standards: "The five groups that created the council: the American Association of Medical Colleges, The American Board of Medical Specialties, The American Hospital Association, The American Medical Association and the Council of Medical Specialty Societies. In addition, The Board includes two members who are residents, Three representatives of the public, The chair of the Council of Review Committees (see below), One to four at-large directors, And two non-voting federal representatives appointed by the Department of Health and Human Services and the Veteran"s Administration. " At this point you are simply ranting about your feeling that you "don't like" the AMA with no real justification. This hardly has any bearing on the debate. The AMA predicted a surplus of doctors and suggested to the government changes that should be made to perhaps avoid it. They have since reversed course when time did not hold their thoughts true. Being wrong is not grounds for the execution of an association that does much good work elsewhere, Who is not responsible for the lack of residency slots available today. Your critique is misplaced. 2b. Drug Patents Opening up every newly developed medication to generics would annihilate the ability for businessmen to recoup their losses on developing said drugs. They would have to compete with companies that had not gone into the red developing it. Their losses would not likely be recouped for long periods of time. I have suggested a real alternative to your plan which you subsequently ignored. If you unironically think businesses will develop drugs under these conditions your economic understanding is far worse than I initially thought. It is okay to be wrong. Just admit it and die on hills you actually have a chance on. 2c. The FDA. You have taken my criticism of the J&J drug situation, Where they knowingly sold male kids meds that would make them grow breasts and said "Hey look, That's the FDA's fault. " Great. Murderers violate the law. The government created the law that said don't murder people. The government must be at fault if someone violates that law. Logic. Your position is ridiculous. The FDA's labels protect companies from being sued when the drugs are used for those labels. Pharma companies like that. It helps them reduce costs. If pharma companies break the law and lie to doctors about the uses of their drug off-label the fault does not lie with the FDA. This is when the company is sued and has to pay for damages. I'm aware you dislike your suggested replacement of the FDA being called "amazon reviews. " My position on this, One that you might sympathize with, Is that I'm not concerned about your feelings. May your thoughts be clear, -Thoht