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

"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" In Round 3, I asked that you provide sources for your metrics. In your comments section, You provided a site for a physician's group which supports single payer. They've made claims of cost reductions without properly citing sources or measures for these reductions. Case in point: "No, Single payer will actually save money by slashing wasteful bureaucracy and adopting proven-effective cost controls like fee schedules, Global budgets for hospitals, And negotiating drug prices with pharmaceutical companies. The savings " over $500 billion per year on overhead alone. . . " This statement isn't sourced at all. Nor is its measure provided. Your source even goes as far to reference studies it doesn't specify: "A recent study found that 45, 000 Americans die every year because they don"t have health insurance. Many more skip treatments that their insurance company refuses to cover. " This study is not cited at all. Your source provides references to metrics for the percent the government spends on private insurance for its public employees (given that a tax subsidy at best is an opportunity cost. The government doesn't "lose" money not taxing; it just doesn't acquire it as revenue. ) The other reference is to a metric of physician's income which cites a study one must pay to read. Rather than citing someone else's argument, You can make your own arguments and cite your sources directly. "When one's goal is to determine how 'good' a system is, You have to measure it by some standard. " Yes, But I'm not compelled to argue by your standard. Your standard is to measure the quality of public insurance using arbitrary premises (i. E. Outcomes, Coverage, Approval, Etc. ) But I informed you since the beginning that this won't be a debate between public and private insurance. I worded my proposition specifically to be inclusive. While you focused on the quality of insurance, I've focused on the quality of the market itself. The quality of this market is determined by how "free" it is, Using the premises I outlined in my opening. "These six metrics are what I have supplied sources for or logical arguments for. " You provided neither adequate sources nor logical arguments. "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. " Disingenuous. I stated that those weren't actual metrics. Any mention of "real sources, " is nothing more than projection. And you have yet to cite this CIA, WHO, Or CDC data. "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. " Sources you did not even bother to cite. And stop appealing to authority. "Perhaps though you should be responsible for debating me and critiquing my points and why my 'sources are not legit. " I've already pointed out the reason your sources weren't legit in our aside in the comments section. So, You're arguing a position from either oblivion, Deception, Or ignorance. "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. " And I submit that I outlined from the very beginning that the discussion would not only not focus on a debate between public and private insurance (comments section) but also that it would focus primarily on ECONOMICS (RD1. ) You saw fit to complain about my "ECO101 Arguments, " when I chose the free market as my premise. If one were to acquire a quality private insurance plan for example--fee not withstanding--it would meet most of the standards of your "metrics. " It's not that private insurance can't provide the same---making it a futile argument--it's, "who pays? " And that's where my arguments come in; rather than approach the costs of health related services in relative terms of public vs private insurance, Or U. S. Vs Canada, We can just reduce the costs altogether, And not rely on debt deferment, Making the generation which follow us liable for our expenditures. "If the sources are so bad, Pro, Here is a Koch-brothers right-leaning study for you to peruse at your leisure. " Its being "right-leaning" is irrelevant. Numbers aren't political. Furthermore, Which argument is this reference supposed to inform? And you continue to submit sources which contradict your arguments: "Estimating a voluntary take-up rate during this transition period is inherently speculative, And even if that rate could be projected with precise accuracy, The projections would not fully reflect the eventual costs of a national single-payer system. Alternatively, If the single-payer system in the M4A bill were fully effective beginning in 2019, The net additional federal cost would be approximately $27. 7trillion (conservatively estimated) during the 10-year window shown in table 3 (page 22). " [Page 6 of Thoht's source. ] "Increased Demand and UtilizationM4A would increase healthcare demand and utilization in at least three important ways. First, The plan would provide health insurance coverage to all Americans who are currently uninsured, Greatly increasing their utilization of healthcare services. Coverage of the currently uninsured is estimated to increase their health service costs by roughly 89 percent. "" [Page 8 of Thoht's Source. ] "Current administrative cost rates for Medicare as a whole are cited as being roughly 4 percent, Though closer to 6 percent for Medicare Advantage. It is unlikely that the population now privately insured could be covered by M4A with administrative costs as low as 4 percent. Administrative cost rates are calculated as a percentage of total insurance costs, And these total costs per capita under private insurance are currently less than half of what they are in Medicare. " [Page 15 of Thoht's source. ] Furthermore, Out of the 3. 65 Trillion dollars spent, Less than a third of those costs were assumed by the Federal Government. (1) (2) "2a. The AMA decreases the supply of physicians. I've shown this to be patently untrue. No, you haven't done so in the slightest. You cited a Stack Exchange Conversation with missing sources, And poached arguments you did not concern yourself to check. I provided evidence that not only were the AMA and AAMC partnered, And jointly sponsored the LCME which your source claimed governs allopathic medical schools, But also that the AMA had a hand in the creation in the ACGME, Which your source claims governs residencies, A council where the AMA has four of the 29 seats on the Board of Directors. Furthermore, I never stated that the AMA "decreases" the amount of physician labor. I stated that AMA "restricts" the amount of physician labor. There's a difference. Cite my words, Correctly, Thoht. "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. " Stop Appealing to Motive "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. " Your own source contradicts your argument. (Refer to round 4 for where I quoted the contradiction. ) So which is it: is it your argument or the source on which it's premised that's inaccurate? "2c. The FDA. " I do not blame the FDA for the misdeeds of drugs companies who aren't honest about the effects of their drugs. I am challenging its integrity and capacity in preventing this dishonest distribution, Especially when 1 in 3 drugs approved by the FDA have been found safety concerns after approval in a 16 year span (3) "I'm aware you dislike your suggested replacement of the FDA being called "amazon reviews. " So you weren't able to quote me? It's not that I "dislike" it; it's inaccurate Closing Arguments 1. The solution to the increasing costs of health related services is not to attempt to meet the increased costs by shoring up a scheme to finance it. The solution is to address the costs head on, Requiring that we understand the nature of these costs. I've outlined a set of solution which don't require financing that are sure to reduce the costs of health related services. These solutions include freeing up the market of licensing boards and ending the subsidization of the AMA; Removing Drug Patents; and allowing the free market to resolve the standards in which foods and drugs are disseminated. And all of this comes without deferring debt, Forcefully seizing property, Or worst case scenario, Enslaving physicians and nurses. 2. My opponent has misrepresented this argument almost in its entirety. He's derailed the discussion several times; he doesn't explain his arguments; he asks for "clarification, " yet my metrics are clearly visible in my opening arguments and the sources which inform them. He has cited at least two sources which contradicts his own arguments. He has represented my argument using inaccurate information (and outright lies. ) Seldom has he made his own arguments, But instead poaches them from Stack Exchange and physician's groups. Last, He has provided sources which I've easily refuted or rebutted. Vote well.