The United States should have a national health care system

Alright, since we have one round to go I will attempt to quickly move over the 6 points above and conclude as to why a government option is beneficial to a health care system. 1) This idea is based upon the assumption that free market systems are innately beneficial. An idea which has been backed up by the ideology of the United States. A free market is one in which goods or services are exchanged without unfair pressure or negotiation tactics. An individual who is facing imminent health complications is under unfair pressure and gives a physician unfair leverage in negotiating. My opponent stated that health care is like computers, in that they are high priced but are also at the lowest cost possible. I disagree with even the notion of something being 'over priced'. A fair price is one that is agreed upon through fair arbitration between 2 people with equal standing. This phenomenon does not exist today in the health care industry thus your comparison to computers is null and void. My opponent references malpractice insurance costs as reasoning behind raised fees. Then cites an article which blames rising malpractice insurance rates on poor investment practices by insurance companies. Furthermore, the article does not draw any connection between a need for a price increase and insurance rates. I find this claim unfounded. 2)I refute my opponents claims in this section in 3 ways. Firstly, whether the doctor or the hospital negotiates prices with a patient, they are still in a privileged negotiating position. Discerning between the two is a waste of time and simply semantics. The intent of this debate is not to demonize doctors but to debate whether a public option is better for all. I conceded that a 'Universal' system would strain the tax system. However a public option as defined in my first statement does not require any government funding whatsoever. It sets a fair rate for a procedure in a set period of time which a physician is legally obligated to perform. This can be executed in a zero-sum format creating no excess spending. Finally, the implementation of a public option benefits 300, 000, 000 people. It provides competition for insurance companies which will lead to lower overall prices. Focusing upon those without health insurance is minimizing the problem with the current system. 3) My opponent is painting a stereotypical demonization of those people who abuse drugs and alcohol. His argument rings true only if you believe that these individuals desire a life of substance abuse and will prefer to take advantage of a system rather than using it to create a better life. My opponent stated before that people are rational actors. Therefore, if a person saves money on health care treatment they would do what is best for them, mainly, not turn back to drugs and use that money in a productive manner. Furthermore, this is a moot point if we're discussing a government option because these people would still be required to pay the government set fee for their treatment which would be designed to be a zero-sum system. 4) A government option does not restrict a hospital from making money. If a person desires treatment in a more timely manner than is legislated or they want unnecessary procedures, these will still be individual expenses with free negotiations. Doctors and hospitals will still receive fair compensation for these procedures, in no way am I referring to 'free' health care. 5) The document in question listed doctors wages in comparison with other professions. It illustrated that even if an American doctor was to make the much lower wages of a Canadian doctor, they would still be in one of the most lucrative fields. A transition for $300,000/yr to 250,000/yr is negligible if the average income for a nation hovers around $75,000/yr. The incentive to become a doctor still exists and is strong. My opponents teacher analogy serves only to demonstrate that properly created public systems can provide effective services. His reference to higher pay meaning higher results is only relevant because teachers make an average income. The incentive to become a teacher is greatly affected when salary is moved from 75,000 to 120,000. ----------------- Summary: I notice once again that my opponent did not challenge my statement that doctors are in an 'unfair bargaining position' and that this constitutes a violation of the tenets of free market exchange. This single statement is enough to use simple logic to summarize my viewpoint. The status quo is bad: America was founded upon laissez faire capitalism which is rooted in the ideal of free market economy. For this reason we will state that free market systems benefit america and provide the best results. Moving closer towards a free market improves results. In the current system doctors are in an unfair bargaining position in that they negotiate with a person afflicted with ailments which exert pressure on their decisions. Since the negotiation is not occurring between two equal actors this violates the tenets of free market exchange. Violations of free market exchange create negative results. A government option will improve the system: Progression towards a free market improves results and benefits of the system. Physicians and patients are rational actors who will attempt to achieve the best deal Patients are at a distinct disadvantage in the negotiation. Doctors will set fees in accordance with their competition. Therefore, if the government were to legislate a fair price for certain procedures physicians would lower prices to be comparable to this set price. This government option would not limit the negotiating powers of the individuals since procedures not conforming to the legislation would still be negotiated between the two rational actors. This would constitute a progression towards a free market from the unfair status quo. A government regulated fair market is more beneficial than an unregulated unfair market. Thus the government option would improve upon the status quo. I believe that this succinctly covers my argument and I thank my opponent for participating in this debate. While I found the debate to be slightly undefined either through deliberate or unintentional misinterpretation of my arguments, I believe that this form of discourse is most likely to create positive change in the world. I hope that before voting people take the time to read both sides comprehensively and consider which argument has indeed proven to be strongest. I'm confident that one will find that the existing health care system has been proven to be unfair to patients and that a form of government intervention would be beneficial while moving the system closer to free market status. Thanks once again to my opponent and I am looking forward to reading your conclusion. -Pro.