because of healthcare, on balance obama as president was a good thing

Clarification My free market discussion not a counter plan, but rather a framework to show that government involvement in health care cannot improve our lives. Rebuttals Pro states this is simple: no government health care plan = no insurance = people die. I will show otherwise. The Harvard Study & uninsured decreased mortality Regarding Pro's source to the Harvard study, it's a news article that mentions they study, which is likely this: http://healthaffairs.org... One statement from that study is: "Recent studies suggest that Medicaid expansion will result in health and financial gains." (1) The recent study referred to was the "Oregon Experiment" from the New England Journal of Medicine, whose full conclusion was: "This randomized, controlled study showed that Medicaid coverage generated no significant improvements in measured physical health outcomes in the first 2 years, but it did increase use of health care services, raise rates of diabetes detection and management, lower rates of depression, and reduce financial strain." (2) Clearly health affairs cherry picked that line from the Oregon study. Note the Oregon study shows no link to mortality. The Harvard study has undergone quite a bit of scrutiny. From ncpa.org: "In independent empirical papers, Richard Kronick and David Card and his colleagues find little evidence that health insurance coverage significantly reduces mortality. Former Director of the Congressional Budget Office June O"Neill and her husband Dave also conclude that lack of insurance has little or no impact on mortality." (3) There are many studies that can be reviewed on this subject (4), which shows how many of these studies build on each other. In this case, mainly Franks et al. (1993), which claims that lack of insurance increases death rates by 25%. However, as ncpa.org says: "Appendix D of the 2002 Institute of Medicine cites only two studies on the topic of deaths from lack of health insurance, Franks et al. (1993) and Sorlie et al. (1994). It adopts the Franks estimate of 1.25 deaths among those without health insurance for every death among those with health insurance without explanation. The problem with this is that Franks" sample assumed that baseline insurance status remained the same for 19 years, an unrealistic assumption, and it excluded everyone covered by government programs. The 95% confidence interval for the 1.25 hazard ratio was 1.00 to 1.55" (4) The Harvard group (Wilper 2009) also attempted to estimate this "hazard ratio", about which ncpa.org states: "almost 30 percent of the Wilper sample was excluded due to missing data. Insurance status was self-reported, and the paper notes that 7 to 11 percent of the uninsured may be incorrectly classified. The study has no information about the duration of insurance coverage, it did not correct for income, and it excluded all people who had "public insurance," including those on Medicaid, in the military, on Medicare, or in the VA system." (4) Why do these studies always exclude those covered by public insurance? Is it because they know it will lead to improved outcomes for those insured thus increasing the "hazard ratio". If so, it's quite ironic that these studies are being used as a basis for increasing public insurance. The obamacarefacts.com "study" The "2012 familiesUSA study" that is linked to from this site has no primary sources, but the 25% hazard claim is likely from Franks et al. (1993). Without a connection between government sponsored health insurance and health care outcomes, Pro's resolution goes unfulfilled. "if they can do it, we can do it" I would respond to this if it contained any concrete facts. Arguments Free market health care, a theoretical basis Economists agree that voluntary exchange increases the welfare of both parties. The free market is simply an aggregate of voluntary exchanges. Supply balances demand and results in market prices, with resources automatically allocated to their most urgent need. The role of government in this process is in enforcing the rule of law. Health insurance and health care is just another good provided in the market. I challenge my opponent to counter this, as current issues with health care can be explained by government intervention. Negative effects of government on health care In economics, a Pareto improvement occurs when at least one individual becomes better off without anyone becoming worse off. Any change that does not meet this condition is said to be Pareto inferior. Obamacare is a Pareto inferior policy - it may help some, but at the expense of many. Federal tax subsidies starting in 1943 encouraged employers to offer health insurance as a benefit. These subsidies made these plans the norm for many, with the result that much of a consumers cost becomes hidden. The money simply flows out of consumers paychecks to insurance companies then to doctors. If the "cost" to a consumer for something like an MRI is a 50$ copay, but the "cost" to the provider is 500$, then it's obvious this becomes an over-used resource. This is not a free market system and the result is that providers ask for higher and higher payments from insurers. Much of the focus with Obamacare has been to increase the use of 3rd party payers (insurers), reduce out of pocket expenses and provide payment for more services. It's clear that this will raise prices even further. Note also that, prior to government involvement in health care, doctors often provided health care to the poor for reduced fees. Also, government involvement in health care has crowded out charity. Free market health care, examples Dr. Keith Smith, Oklahoma The surgery center of Oklahoma is a free market surgery center disconnected from government bureaucracy. Their prices, listed online, are vastly lower than hospital prices: http://www.surgerycenterok.com... Dr. Josh Umbehr, Kansas This is a family medical center based on a small monthly fee between 10$ and 100$ per month: http://atlas.md... My opponent seems to agree that the free market is capable of reducing health care costs. As I've shown, these savings would be enormous. It appears that Obamacare is primarily a form of wealth redistribution. There are more efficient ways to help the poor than through health care. For example the Earned Income Tax Credit specifically targets the issue of providing the poor with extra income and is generally favored by economists. Scott Sumner, speaking in this case about the war on poverty, states: "However, much greater progress would have occurred if more emphasis had been put on programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit" (7) Significantly reducing health care costs while providing an income supplement that does not reduce incentives to work or have the negative employment issues associated with a minimum wage is clearly a winning combination. (1) http://healthaffairs.org... (2) http://www.nejm.org... (3) http://healthblog.ncpa.org... (4) http://healthblog.ncpa.org... (5) http://obamacarefacts.com... (6) http://www.cato.org... (7) http://econlog.econlib.org... (8) http://kff.org...