This healthcare proposal is better than any healthcare proposal my opponent can come up with.

I will now attack my opponent's proposal: My Opponent: "1) Remove regulations that grant monopoly benefits on local insurance companies. One such regulation is the one that my opponent advocates, though there are others. One other such regulation is the requirement of the ownership of this kind of insurance, which artificially increases demand and the price of health insurance. Many regulations exist that are considered to be less significant, but together have a monopolistic effect, reducing competition, and harming the consumer." I have no problem with this. Since I have no problem with it, I will not debate it. I would have no problem if it found its way into my healthcare proposal. My Opponent: "2) End Occupational Licensure Allowing any individual to perform any medical procedure as long as (if practical) there is informed consent and no fraud will directly bring down the costs of medical care by decreasing the costs of medical labor by allowing the supply of physicians to increase. Given a system of liability, there is really no reason to have any occupational licensure." Are you mad? Let those with non-medical degrees practice medicine? I have a problem with this on three accounts: a) The goal of any healthcare reform legislation should be to help the healthiness of the populous. This would hamper that. We would have unhealthier citizens, hence force, its a bad idea. b) My opponent says the patient would have to consent. However, there is one instance in which this doesn't work. That instance is: CHILDBIRTH. Even if the mother may consent, the child would have no chance to disapprove. Every child has a right to be delivered by a competent medical professional. No ifs, and, or ors, about it! c) This would raise the cost on the taxpayer. If I go to an unlicensed medical "professional" to have a laser eye surgery and I turn out blind, what can I do? I can go to court, but since I gave my consent its very unlikely I'd win a settlement. What am I to do now? Answer: turn to the government. I would probably apply for Social Security and Disability, costing the taxpayers. What if the same happens to millions (which is likely under my opponent's idea), the taxpayer will be expected to pay billions to take care of them. My Opponent: "Restricting the supply of medicine by hampering its availability is another cause for artificially high market prices, this time directly in the product. The FDA's oversight into the medical field has caused a long approval process that drastically increases the costs of research and development, increasing the price of newer, cheaper, and more effective medicines. As long as there is a liability system, there is really no reason to have an approval system." The FDA may need a few spending cuts here and there, but this takes it too far. The approval system should be kept the same. I'd much rather wait ten years for a medicine than take a bad drug. Wouldn't you too? In Conclusion: My opponent's plan would harm the health of the population and cost more people to apply for government assistance. It will never work and shouldn't be given a shot. I yield back to my opponent.