The United States should have a national health care system

I shall answer in the same order. But first, I would like to point out the framework for this debate that has been accepted for every round so far: "Now, I shall provide a framework upon which this debate ought to be measured. The Aff must provide adequate reason for either why the status quo is bad, public option will do more good than harm, or both. The Neg must provide adequate reason for either why the status quo is good, public option will do more harm than good, or both." 1) Considering how no evidence has been presented saying the US government will function better/worse than the private sector, this point cannot be won or lost. I did say that that my opponent brought up the fact that healthcare does NOT follow the free market; I went on to say that this is based upon the idea that if it costs "too much" then it is overpriced. I made a comparison with computers, which has been undisputed. The fact being, like computers, it may seem overpriced, but it is as low as the price can go. Whereas my opponent simply says it is overpriced, I say it is not with more warrant: healthcare is a commodity, therefore it follows the rules of the free market. I urge my opponent next round to define WHY healthcare would not follow the rules. My opponent says the same about doctor pay. The cost of malpractice insurance is constantly on the rise. The reason why doctors charge so much is to pay for this insurance. [1] The link I posted was from 2004, saying that the costs rose from $23k ('02), $47k ('03), $84k ('04). It is safe to assume is will be over $100k, if not $150k, by this year. Doctors would not charge so much if they were not sued so much. To fix this, restraint must be placed upon the legal aspects of healthcare, which is not part of a national healthcare system (defined as, "Universal health care is the belief that all citizens should have access to affordable, high-quality medical care" (Health PAC [2]). This does not include legal aspects of healthcare.) I urge my opponent to stay topical, and debate what the resolution says, and not what it could say. 2) Since my opponent believes that all doctors are immoral or commits immoral acts, I shall provide another reason why they would NOT take advantage of the patients. In the given link by my opponent [3], it says that doctors are either paid by the hour, by operation, or both. Regardless, only the hospital is charged, and the hospital hires. Therefore, should the doctor abuse his "bargain" position, he would be fired by his employing hospital. Moreover, my opponent ignored my entire argument about WHY it would strain the tax system. His response is "in this section I had demonstrated how a national health care system does not create a strain tax systems" without any evidence or warrant to back up this claim. My evidence was "the government must pay for healthcare, and must obtain the funds to do so," and "the money comes from the people." My warrant was "The people must pay for healthcare or pay in more taxes to compensate the costs. Either way, the cost must be less than that in the status quo for poor individuals to afford it." My claim was "therefore, the money flowing into the healthcare system will be reduced, and profits for the US government will not exist." Increasing taxes for 300,000,000 people is not worth covering 46,000,000 people. By utilitarian standards, what is good is what is good for the most number of people. National healthcare is not good for the most number of people, and therefore not good. I am not saying these people do not deserve healthcare, but simply saying that healthcare is a privilege, not a right. 3) My opponent is very narrow sighted on this topic. I am simply stating that these are people who want access, who are a burden upon society. By utilitarian standards, alcoholics and drug users are bad for society. They do not contribute (can't hold a job) and only take (by using social services) and are therefore an immoral part of society. While I am not saying that these people should not be helped; I am saying that a national healthcare policy will only allow them to use drugs/alcohol with less risk of death. They can use, and be helped whenever. This cost is displaced to everyone else. The best way to help them is to limit their access to substances, which is not part of the healthcare plan. Given that they will do what is best for themselves (just like doctors), they will use the hospitals for cheaper and it means they save more money for more drugs/alcohol, so they use more. They than use the hospital more, but because it is cheap, they can still afford substances. This loop shall continue indefinitely. 4) Extend my last argument (which was really just an example of what underfunded hospitals are like). If hospitals do not make money, they lose money. Eventually, they will be underfunded. 5) The link my opponent sited [3] did not say anything about doctors not losing incentive. If anything, it says they WILL lose incentive. The document talked about incentive pay, and other methods in which doctors make their keep. The teacher analogy still stands, because both countries have public education; both have teachers paid by the government. Only difference is in how much they are paid. The same can be said about private schools in the US. Teachers are paid more in private schools, and thus private schools have better scores. The same would happen to doctors should their pay be reduced. The system is the national healthcare system. There is no way for me (or anyone else) to know the ideal system my opponent has in mind (we are not mind readers), but only the system that is generally known. This is the system that should be used for it is the system that is known by all. 6) Extend my argument 2) in this speech. =====Summary A definition has been provided (a bit late, but better late than never) for national healthcare. I (as the Neg) will show why the status quo is good and why a national healthcare plan is bad. Arguments [1, 5, 6] all say that the status quo is good. 1) prices are low already (relative to production costs); 5) high wages lead to better service; 6) doctors are not taking advantage of patients. Arguments [2, 3, 5] say why national healthcare is bad. 2) increased taxes for all outweighs coverage for some (300mill > 46mill); 3) national healthcare will help drug users/alcoholics continue living immoral lives and increased taxes by high usage of publicly funded hospitals; 5) decrease in pay will decrease the quality of doctors. I now urge my opponent to present clear links between his claims, warrants, and evidence as well as prove why the status quo is bad and/or national healthcare is good. [1] http://www.cbsnews.com... [2] http://www.healthpaconline.net... [3] http://www.bls.gov...