Views as expressed in the profile....

"Yes, while a socialized Healthcare system may cost others money it ensures insurance for everyone, not Just those who can pay." You fail to discriminate between health insurance and medical care. One does not by necessity give rise to the other. I may have my car insured, but it does me little good when 2000 others are forced to use the same mechanic as I at the same time. One who provides only limited outdated services mandated by the government. "Having health insurance reduces the mortality rates by 10-15%. There are currently around 45.7 million people without Healthcare." Insurance cannot. It can only make a solution possible, and under the system I proposed such solutions are cheaper and become more readily available. "But really what are the negatives? people need to pay a little bit more, but remember these people will also be covered by the government and so will not have to pay for Health Insurance. So it is essentially a Win-Win scenario." Contradiction. Those who pay for those who do not by necessity pay the costs for services they will never need. Those who can afford to pay their own insurance do not need to pay for others. Their only concern need be for themselves and whom they choose to support with their own funds. Those who cannot pay have no right to claim on those who can. "Now My opponent is of the belief that this healthcare violates rights of the people paying, Buisnessmen and doctors. Now I do not see how, yes people pay a little extra, but people have to pay taxes, this does not violate rights, how does socialized Healthcare?" Mandated force by the government on action of medical staff violates liberty. Specifically the freedom to act as one wishes in full accord with the respect of others rights - the engagement in free trade between patients and doctors. Secondly taxes - the use of force of government to pay for healthcare is a violation of property rights - those who are deemed productive enough by the government to pay for services of others that had no hand in earning. "Now the fact is that under current U.S law, a hospital still has to treat you even if you can't pay or don't have insurance. So under a nationalized Healthcare system these people would be insured which would, in the long run, save hospitals money." Which is essentially slavery; doctors become a tool of patient whim at state enforcement with no recourse to their own judgement and action. This in turn creates a system where doctors are literally swamped by patients - legitimate or not, whom by law under threat of prosecution, must spend time, resources and equipment seeing, whether necessary or not. It is a system that drowns the available work force under a load of endless non necessity. Health care quality decreases, waiting lists increase for basic and specialised care and just as importantly diagnosis. The number of professionals wishing to work under such a system decreases, as does the pay of those individuals (state run so state budgeted) putting greater load on those remaining. Fewer still, enter the field of patient care, until the system collapses. "how does wanting everyone to have the right to medical treatment deny reality?" Insisting the system can be maintained whilst providing 'universal' health care is. :) "The thing is that under such a program what would be the risk to insurers?" Because the law demands that most/all medical costs are covered by insurance companies, no matter the risk. People are paying for all services so they use that available option, costing the insurers money for basic procedures and visits, wasting time and resources of those medical professionals involved. It creates a loop that defeats both industries involved. "What it WOULD do is it would provide health coverage for people who otherwise would not have it." Again health insurance is not equitable to health service. And it is the very acts of government itself that raise insurance costs to unfeasible levels. "My opponent has given these apparent Horror stories about nationalized healthcare, which are but two examples. In France and the Netherlands the Infant Mortality rate is lower than in the U.S and the Life expectancy Higher." Life expectancy in the US is related heavily with obesity and resultant lifestyle. It is not a valid conclusion. "The difference in Cancer rates? this is just because the U.S is a leader in Medical technology." Read the article. The issue was waiting length for diagnosis and treatment. Both of which increase the heavier a systems care is socialised. State run, state expenditure, so profit margins are a basis for reducing pay, care, staff and available services. "The simpel fact is that waiting a month for a doctors visit is better than not getting one at all." False dilemma. It's precisely government action that reduces the availability of care. Length of time for diagnosis, when we are talking months as is the case, can often be the difference between fatal and non (either in diagnosis or treatment). Remember not only is the type of care reduced and partitioned, so too is the level technologically speaking (new procedures/drugs cost money, that's a big no-no in state run care). "The Emergency rooms would still function as normal and the health coverage of those already insured would not change, but it would make sure everyone HAS this coverage." Actually that would be bad as "function as normal" in the sense of what is happening is that emergency rooms are currently swamped due to laws prohibiting the turning away of anyone exhibiting in one. "where has this gotten us? 45.7 million uninsured people? No, we need the government" It is *precisely* the government that has gotten us to that point. If you wish to read a somewhat lengthy history on the matter feel free to read this article. http://www.theobjectivestandard.com... "so now we should decide who gets health, and in the long run, who gets to live based upon how productive they are?" There is no 'we decide' in this regards. Those who are capable are; those who are not, have the resources of private charities. Individuals can choose how to live as they see fit. "So essentially we would be telling these people, many of whom are below the poverty line, that they need to be able to work harder, get more skills or else they can't get medicine? That is a VERY bad way to run society. It infact embodies that almost anarchic idea of "survival of the fittest"" You are forgetting the premise includes the removal of *all* government interference. That includes taxes, freeing those funds up for health funds and catastrophic insurance. A society that produces wealth raises the levels of those in it, including the lowest income levels. Insurance becomes affordable because it represents what insurance should. Medical care decreases because competition is allowed to develop, and hospitals are free to negotiate with patients per case as they see fit. "Now my opponent makes Nationalized healthcare out to be communism." You slightly misunderstood. Nationalisation stifles advancement of new technologies, drugs and research hence limiting application in those fields. "If we ensure them it will reduce mortality rates as well as ensure that everyone has the ability to be treated" Again, insurance and receive of care is discrete; see the Canadian system. "when in need and are not denied the basic right to life, merely by their economic standing" No one is violating their right to life; individuals are free to act as they wish in accordance with others rights. Rights are a negative claim on action in social settings - right to life details one is wholly responsible for one's own. One cannot make a claim on others to be. There is no right to violate the rights of others.