Resolved :The U.S. government should not require its citizens to have health insurance.

Thank you for a timely answerI will now refute my opponent's refutations. First, they talk about how how insurance companies will create jobs with the record breaking profits they have now. However, my opponent does nothing to show how when the insurance mandate does come around, that they will still have these same profits. I would also like to see the Georgetown study. Thank you. My opponent's only refutation for my second subpoint was that CATO is a biased group. However, it wasn't CATO that wrote this article, cited here (. http://www.cato.org...) but a man named Glen Whitman. Glen Whitman is Associate Professor of Economics at California State University Northridge. His research interests include microeconomics, applied game theory, economic analysis of law, and economic methodology. He received his Ph. D. in economics from New York University in 2000 and his B. A. in economics and politics from the American University in 1994. He has done extensive teaching work for the Institute for Humane Studies and has contributed to journals including the Journal of Legal Studies, International Review of Law and Economics, and the UCLA Law Review. In 2003, the Independent Institute published his book Strange Brew: Alcohol and Government Monopoly. His current policy interests include paternalism and health care legislation. He blogs at Agoraphilia. My opponent has to prove that Mr. Whitman has a biased political agenda if they want to prove this article false. My opponent refuted my second contention by saying that insurance companies would still make a profit. However, they are only reading my tagline and not my entire argument. 3 US factories produce 90% of the generic drugs. The 2003 Medicare Modernization Act, which was essentially the individual mandate that applied to senior citizens, changed reimbursement from a wholesale to retail model, significantly reducing the ability of factories to maintain their existing profit model. (This act was already passed, so we actually have factual evidence that this ACTUALLY happened). Private insurers followed Medicare's lead. Private corporations will not make products that are unprofitable. This shows that the medial corporations are losing money, harming US citizens in two ways: First, there will be an epiniphrene shortage. This is used in ambulances to save patients with heart attacks so they can reach the hospital ontime. However, with the indivudal mandate, this is not going to happen. There was a shortage of the drug. Medical directors had only a thirty-day supply of the drug and no future deliveries were available. Not only that, but the change from wholesale to retail sale model in the individual mandate dispersed medicine production from the three large companies that make 90% of medicines to thousands of other small businesses from around the country. This made it harder for government groups such as the FDA to make sure that the making of these drugs are in a clean area. The result was that a contaminated steroid from a small business got into the manufactured medicine, causing the risk of medicine poisoning to 13,534 patients. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports 678 cases of infection, and deaths. My opponent has completely left the harms untouched, and therefore my argument still standsHe also talks about how this will save money. However, People under the poverty line will still have to pay deductibles and copayments. Also, without the epinephrine replacement, more of instances like such will happen. The Huffington Post reported that an agency still carries expired doses of two drugs in serving a city of 80,000 people, whose lives we will have to risk because of the individual mandate making drugs defective. New York Post- The Food and Drug Administration now lists 246 shortages -- a five-fold jump in just five years. The reason is because most of these drugs are being shortages because of low profit builds in the health industry. Also, my opponent talks about how there will be a decrease in premiums. Cato argues that Government Spending is the root of the problem, Government has become increasingly active in regulating and @257;nancing health care over the last 40 years—increasing health care spending from 25 percent to more than 50 percent of overall spending. This increased intervention has led to higher, healthcare costs. According to another article by Cato- The mandate will do nothing to decrease the actual cost of health services. Worst of all, the mandate will create a set of political incentives that will likely drive up the cost of health insurance while impeding the adoption of more effective reforms. The first article is by D. Eric Schansberg, who is a Professor of Economics at Indiana University Southeast. The second article is by the same Glen Whitman as stated earlier. If my opponent questions the credibility of the organization, I ask them to look at the author who wrote the article instead. My opponent talks about competition. However, Cato argues that Those countries with national health care systems that work better, such as France, the Netherlands and Switzerland, are successful to the degree that they incorporate market mechanisms such as competition, cost-consciousness, market prices, and consumer choice, and abstain centralized government control. My opponent also talks about a legal standpoint to this issue. However, in a CNN article by Ilya Somin, an associate professor of law at George Mason University School of Law and co-editor of the Surpeme Court Review states that the individual mandate essentially gives the government almost unlimited powers. The federal government argues that there are a few provisions of the Constitution -- the commerce clause, the tax clause and a few others -- authorize the health care mandate. Their commerce argument is flawed because the government is essentially stating that health care is a form of interstate commerce. The tax clause argument likewise doesn’t apply, because if health care is not paid, the fine is a penalty, not a tax. My amount ends his argument with an argument about how there are so many deaths linked to the health care system. However, my opponent is misunderstanding the resolution. We are talking about health INSURANCE, and not health CARE. Health Insurance DOES NOT guarentee health CARE. Despite the mandate, people will remain uninsured. According to CATO, Michael D. Tanner: in 2016: Congressional Research: 30 million Americans will be uninsured, 6 million are paying the penalties of not having health insurance, because they can not afford the increases in the health premiums. Obvously, instituting a mandate will not solve any number my opponent associates with health care.