Health Insurance Should Be Abolished & Health Care Covered For Only Those Who Need It

While I think and completely agree with the notion that the health insurance service as a whole is flawed and perhaps require some reforms, I do however have to disagree with the notion that it should only be available for a select group of people. A new finding by the Harvard Kennedy School reveals that " Americans are more likely to seek care, follow doctors' advice and feel better when provided access to health care insurance." ( http://www.hks.harvard.edu... ) Upon looking into this finding, we can not even fathom the disadvantages that would follow the providing of health insurance to a select few. To formally begin this debate, I would like to go through my opponent's argument and from there branch out and provide my arguments. beginning with: 1. The system of health insurance drives up health care prices. While I agree with my opponents argument that many physicians and doctors will try to take advantage of the individual's insurance policy, I strongly disagree with my opponents theory that this will lead to multiple over-prescription. All formal doctors are bound by certain rules and regulation that they must follow. When a patient comes to you, you are required to take care of that patient, and it is your job to make sure that this patient is suffering from what you think he or she is suffering from. If there are any doubt as to what you think the patient is suffering from, then you are either to perform an extensive check up on that patient. If any doubt still arises, then you are required to direct the patient to another doctor or another facility, where a more thorough diagnosis an be performed. In general, when it comes to a fetal or injury caused by misdiagnosis and over-prescription, it not the insurance company who would pay, but the doctors who prescribe. This then makes it in there best interest to perform at there best regardless of the individuals insurance status. No use for full health care My opponent mentioned brought up an argument about billoniares taking advantage of insurance policy, however the resolution states that health care insurance should be provided to those who need it. With out defining the word "need" we can then assume that my opponent was talking about anyone who feels the necessity to have a health care insurance. With these said, we can then conclude that these billoinaire's no matter how rich they might be, feel the need to have a health care insurance and should for into this category. Without defining what need is, there is absolutely no need to pass this resolution as everyone who currently uses health insurance can and most likely will fall into the category of the word "need". If some one can pay for there own expenses, then the only reason to have this insurance is to ensure that you are always able to acquire the insurance that they need in case something bad is to happen. Ones again, you can't expect a middle class man capable of paying his own health care, do you expect him or her to be able to pay for it every time or pay for a checkup every time they need one. Taking away ones insurance will limit the amount of times they visit the doctor for emergency. Abolishing the health care w8ill not reduce the price of health care, but increase it as the most paying customers are no longer in business with these companies forcing them to increase prices to accommodate there need for resources. The government would be forced to pay more thus leading to excessive spending and destabilization of the economy. Thank you and I hope to recieve your responce soon.