"A cap on your costs, but no cap on your benefit." - Nancy Pelosi

I'll just get right into defending my prongs. ==== PRONG I: "Limit" ==== My opponent argues that since the law would cap HCC and a cap on HCC would lead to the company not feasibly being able to survive while providing large benefits, that law would in fact cause HCB to be less than it would have been - which he claims fits the definition of "limit" he provided. It does not. Let me go over the definition he provided again: "amount that may not be exceeded by law." To say that something may not be done by law means that it is strictly illegal, not that legislation happens to make people freely choose not to do it even though it's legal. Allow me to provide an example illustrating the meaning and my opponent's misuse of it. Let us say that a law is passed requiring a certain store to shoot their customers in a random location when they enter the store. This law would also happen to have the side effect of causing people to decide that it's not worth it for them to go to that store. However, it would not be true that "people may not enter that store by law." That implies that entering the store is actually illegal, not that a law happens to be in place that motivates people to freely choose to avoid the store when they could go in. May not ___ by law implies that there is a law specifically prohibiting some action, not that one's free choice to avoid something happens to be the result of a law that targets something else. It is the same in our current discussion. A law limiting HCC would make health care companies freely decide to lower their output of HCB, but it wouldn't make it a legal obligation. This scenario does not fulfill "may not ____ by law." ==== PRONG II: Non-HCC sources of revenue ==== My opponent claims that since the government gets money from the taxpayers and the healthcare companies would get subsidies through the government, government subsidies therefore fulfill the definition of HCC. This is again false. HCC is defined as "what a person pays their health insurance company, as determined by contract." First, a person's tax is not determined by contract, so it automatically cannot count as HCC. In fact, I'm not even going to go over the other problems here, because that pretty handily settles that. Government subsidies are not required by health insurance contracts, so even if they do count as people paying their health insurance companies, they don't count as people paying their health insurance companies as determined by contract, so they are not part of HCC. ==== PRONG III: Cap on actual benefits vs. cap on average benefits ==== My only defenses for this prong rely on one of my first two prongs having already been effective. Thus, this prong can pretty much be considered part of the other two prongs at this point. [For instance - my opponent notes that "the company's total income" "limits" the amount of HCB they can give a person, but my refutations here are just that total income can come from places other than HCC and the same argument I've already made regarding the definition of limit]. Good luck to my opponent, and I look forward to the thrilling conclusion to this encounter.