National Heatlhcare is good.

"I will rebut my opponet's points: For National Healthcare to be considerred good, it must give more benefit to society than damage." That was not my point. It was my definition of good for the point of clarification. Before I put out my points, I will negate my opponent's case. My definition of National Healthcare obviously stood, so we will use it. National Healthcare does not make sure anyone gets treatment or not; it only pays for their treatment. The current situation in the U.S. is that people are worried about having to pay their hospitol fees. Whether people can pay or not, they recieve treatment. Those who can't pay end up paying eventually. So, negate my opponent's claim, "Of course it does it gives people who otherwise couldn't afford to LIVE to keep their life." Also, my opponet's statistic, "Not very much of the US is insured, so this scenario could happen to any one of those people, and thus making it benificial to society.", is incorrect. Less than 50 million americans are without health insurance. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com... My opponent's claim that not very much of the U.S. is insured is illegitimate because there are more than 250,000,000 americans with health insurance, and that is over 5/6 of the country, which qualifies as "much of the US". The person still lives, and that scenario does not happen to any one of those people. I will further explain the many ways that National Healthcare will hurt society in my points. "I believe National Health Care is good, because it benefits society. It allows our people to be healthier, and thus happier. Many people die only because they do not have insurence. Besides every other devoloped nation has public health care. Thus they limit the profit drug companies can make. Thus medication costs the most in the US. It is true they drug companies need the money, but the US shouldn't pay it ALL." People being able to pay for their medications after they get them does not make them healthier. Just because every other nation has socialized medicine does not mean that we need it, too. National Healthcare would not limit the amount of money that drug companies make. This is because under the system, the govenment acts as a big insurance company, and pays the companies the same as what the people would be paying. Now to my points. 1. National Healthcare stunts medicine development. 2. National Healthcare kills people. 3. National Healthcare kills jobs. 4. National Healthcare will add a large tax burden to america. 1. Countries without N. H. produce far more medicine than countries with it. The more countries with N.H., the slower medicines are developed. This is because when new things are developed, the people creating them get a patent and sell their product for profit. They can then use that profit to work to create new jobs which work to create even more technologies to make even more money. However, when the government has an intensive say in what happens in this process, with more regualtion, etc., the process is slowed. Reffering to the pharmeceutical companies companies, which my opponent claimed should not make these profits, they need these profits to produce newer technologies, such as cures to replace treatments, and newer, cheaper equipment to replace older and more expensive equipment. New technology requires profits in these pharmeceutical companies. These companies also know how much to charge for their products more than any government program. 2. National Healthcare would obviously require higher government oversight, otherwise anyone who decided that they should go get a free X-Ray or free breast implant could go get it without any immediate cost to themselves, and as a result, many unneccesary treatments would be given, all paid for by the government. So, this would require bureaucracratic oversight. This bureaucracy would decide who is approved for treatment and who isn't approved for treatment. There would be many waiting to be approved before treatment, and they would most likely die before getting this approval. Canada's Healthcare system is notorious for this. "Of the almost 37,000 people who died in hospital, just over a quarter received some form of palliative care, and the majority of these were terminally ill patients." - http://secure.cihi.ca... 3. National Healthcare as a government company would kill millions of health and insurance related jobs. N. H. would drive all the insurence companies out of business. As a monopoly, it would not have to market itself, and would not have to contribute much to society in order to get business. Few people do realize that insurance is an industry. It competes with itself and rates increase. If a company is notorious for denying claims, then fewer people would invest in that company's insurance. If a company has cheaper insurance, than people will be more likely to invest in it. Therefore, competition is good in the insurance industry because it keeps prices lower, increases the number of claims accepted, and keeps many jobs in circulation. 4. Because N. H. is a monopoly, it will not do those things. People will be forced to buy health insurance through a government with thier taxes. This takes money out of the capitalist system. So, people are indirectly paying their high medical fees as well as everyone else's. And the government has not payment plan for those who can't afford to pay their taxes. This money would come out of the paychecks of every american, and less would be availible to those americans that are barely holding on and can hardly even feed themselves with their two jobs. Taking away jobs, lives and money is bad for the America, and it does not cause more benefit to society than harm. In additon, postponing the cures to AIDS, all the many types of cancer, diabetes, heart disease, heart attack, and stroke will not help the American people either. Therefore, National Healthcare is not good and in fact harms society.