That a welfare state does more harm than good

For each point I'm going to summarise why my opponent has not met her burden of proof - to show conclusively that a welfare state (remember, that is the state taking primary responsibility for stuff like healthcare and education) does more harm than good. Lower prices Means Better Welfare I've already told you the incentive govts have to keep prices low - getting elected. Automobile insurance is different from welfare in that it costs the rich (with rich cars) more than the poor (with poor cars). Social security must be equal for every person because every person has the same value (or else that would be discrimination), so there must be an equal cost also. Sweden's welfare has not had huge costs - indeed, getting rid of privatization directly led to a huge growth boost and sudden reversal in their government books [1]. Note how my source is an economist and yours are a biochemist and a medical doctor. They point to a single example of how it did badly in the early-mid 1990s, but then (as my source explains) so was the rest of Europe. Sweden was actually doing well compared to its neighbours. In New Zealand, we tried to reduce the deficit by the means of privatization, not robbing people as my opponent supposes. I didn't prove privatization didn't work, but your burden of proof was first to show that it did. "then there is no reason to fire them" unless it becomes more profitable to put them on welfare. It's a win-win for the rich; profits can be perfectly optimised to flow to their pockets. State Welfare Drives out the Businesses If things only happen gradually, there is no need for an immediate fix and we can wait until election time. Obviously politicians can lie, but it really only works once or twice before people lose confidence in them. When I say "additional service," I do not mean to preclude "higher-quality service. " Quality of service may be added to the government package as can anything else. The insurer will be foolish, however, not to claim from the government on your behalf a reimbursement that they're freely entitled to. Private firms do need as many customers as possible. To survive a private firm must make long-run above-average returns. This necessitates either increasing the size of the market or constantly gaining market share. Either way the firm is always grasping for more customers to meet the demands of the shareholders. Duty of State The problem with your elaborate system is that it won't work for all but the very small countries, even if we put aside the inefficiency of privatization and the fact buy-in won't be as amazing as you suppose. Charities do not have the infrastructure to reach even all the people in America below the poverty line, let alone the 15% of China that lives at this level, let alone pretty much the entire continent of Africa. Furthermore, very few are willing to give charity to people who they have no established contract with. Charities are already stretched today, and that's with many countries being welfare states. Just imagine how much more work they'd have to do, reaching out to the poor of the whole world. I say this quite earnestly - I work for an NGO (World Vision) and it isn't easy. Voter power is more equal than the private system or charities, where the public has no power whatsoever. My opponent gives a good model of a contract, but - Who shall enforce it if it goes bad? I simply name the enforcer the "executive. " Who shall judge my guilt? I simply name the judge the "judiciary. " Who shall say what defines a contract? I simply name the definer the "legislature. " Of course you could change the rules, but the state is not presently deviating from its role of protecting existing liberties. That's all I need to prove. Poor Quality Already refuted my opponent's sole counter-example. Take note of my opponent's lack of rebuttal on this point. The motion falls. Vote Con. Sources1 - . http://www.iticu.edu.tr...