The United States Federal Government should adopt a Single Payer Health Care system

I will now go over much of my opponent's argument that is relvent. My opponent brings up our nation's $14 trillion debt, though it's now approaching $18 Trillion, and how a single payer system would boost the economy and she brought up no source to back this. We can plainly see that this will have the direct opposite effect. The government is favoring and contracting 1 health care Company and that is the only health care that could be purchased. Say for example that the government chooses Medicare for instance, all other Health insurances would be forced to close their doors. Medicare would have no reason to innovate since they have no competition. We can easily see this in the Yugos of which I brought up last round. Innovation is better for the economy, meaning that it has better products, prices, and deals, all of which are better for the consumer. [1] My opponent argues against this by limiting the market field. She also states that the theories of Milton Friedman are outdated, but if that is so then why is the Gold Standard gone, or why are we now able to buy and sell gold, why are his theories in practice? We can easily see that he is still a valid source to still be used today. If what my opponent is saying is true then we could see that her argument about the Social Contract would be invalid, because it would then be an outdated principle. My opponent has created a contradiction here and must choose which side to go with here. My opponent brings up an outdated argument about Medicare, but I also am against Medicare (I brought up Rand Paul Counter-Plan), in a recent study we have found that 52.3% of doctors do not accept Medicare nor Medicaid. [2] This is due to a lot of the trouble that the Government controlled agency does to the doctor's offices. Thus this can be easily extended to a Single-Payer system where the Government once again would be controlling the market harming docters. Note that in my opponent's first round that she concedes that a Single Payer System isn't the best Economically. My opponent conpletely skips over my Kant argument. She ignores that Health Care is NOT a Perfect Duty and thus by logic should not be controlled by the government. She then states that it's on the same level as safety, but this is something that can easily be protected by the Private Sector and the only part of the government is to ensure that they stay out of the private sector. Sure they may have a Health Care option, but should to co-erce people into their option. Violating the Freedom to choose is one of the greatest crimes of our time and should not be ignored. My opponent complains that I do not have any evidence reguarding the US, but the US currently does not have a Single Payer System and thus isn't a good source. We would have to look at a place that does have it and I showed Britan whom of which how a terrible side-effect of using this system. My opponent states that she doesn't know what the cash argument, it is simply shows the price increase for a simple $50 doctor's bill and the cost of it to the employer under both systems. My opponent attempts to slam my argument due to Public Spending, however, she fails to realize that the system that I purpose is completely privitized. Meaning that there will be no Public Spending on Health Care. Rand Paul's plan offers the large varriety of the 180 Health Care Options that only government employees get. This is compared to the minimal amount of only 32 the rest of us can recieve. We can see that this frees up the market and exspands our Right to Choose. Note that the difference of what we see here is that Rand Paul is endorsing the exspandsion of the market by supporting options only the government employees get, NOT government health care. [3] Sources 1. (http://toolkit.smallbiz.nsw.gov.au...) 2. (http://dailycaller.com...)3. ( Paul, Rand. Taking a Stand. N.p.: Center Street, n.d. Print.)