Nationalizing Health care

"Sure it is not Nationalized healthcare but the point of my entire argument is that almost everything the government touches fails, education is a perfect example of that." 1)It is wrong to say the Government is so detrimental. The quality of life in the US would be a lot worse had the government not enacted legislative and economic reform for example. The government's endorsement of a green economy has led to thousands of new jobs being created with a bright environmental future for the US. In education, the government has set rigid requirements on public schools, without the government, the education in the US would be a lot worse. 2)What is different with NHC is that the HMO act was thought up by the government, while NHC is a concept that has already been created, and tested by others, thus due to it's fiat properties and the fact that it has been proven better, NHC will be much better than HMO act due to the fact that the HMO act was enacted with out any empirical assesment. 3)The HMO act is not counter evidence to the fact that a NHC system is beneficial. It just means that the ideas the government comes up with is not necessarily always beneficial. But because NHC is already a proven and empirically used concept, it differs in the HMO act in that it has proven to work. (I will extend this later in speech) Also remember HMO is NOT and example of NHC. "It is Government intervention, if the Government intervenes in our lives or the free market it is indeed Government intervention is it not?" 1)Yes I agree government intervention is government intervention, I said government intervention does not necessarily mean National health care. "I think you are misunderstanding my argument, I do NOT support the current status quo i support a healthcare other than a healthcare ran by buerocrats." 1)Shifty advocacy reduces grounds for the affirmative. It reduces ground as I do not even know what you are proposing, thus I cannot even refute. Thus I assume you reject my burden and advocate a counterplan? Due to the unequal educational grounds, this should be a voter. "Do you believe that somehow the medicine is magically going to cost less if Government takes over? " 1)In my case I have already addressed this but because the government is more efficient at distributing medical care, for example, efficiency allows the costs of medical care to decrease, while medicine will decrease just the same with increased efficiency. Also, the medicine companies will change its prices for the NHC system because in this system the government is the only market for the companies, thus if they do not sell to the government, they go out of business. Therefore due to efficiency and a government market, prices will decrease. "They use your tax money and spend it on something else other than the thing you wanted them to fund." 1)No, they use it on the NHC system. The government is not run by idiots. Also, the examples you may refer to are examples where treasury reallotment was necessary and only happens in the most extreme cases. Now you address the issue of Cuba and its health care state, yet it is not only Cuba, it is a multitude of other countries. Jocelyne Zablit remarks "The US health care system ranks last among other major rich countries for quality, access and efficiency, according to two studies released Tuesday by a health care think tank." http://www.commondreams.org... The common wealth fund remarks "The U.S. fell to last place among 19 industrialized nations on mortality amenable to health care—deaths that might have been prevented with timely and effective care. Although the U.S. rate improved by 4 percent between 1997–1998 and 2002–2003 (from 115 to 110 deaths per 100,000), rates improved by 16 percent on average in other nations, leaving the U.S. further behind." Thus even if I drop the point about Cuba, there is no denying that the US is lagging way behind in health care administration. The top nations with nationalized health care systems all rank higher that the US in terms of costs, efficiency and mortality rate. ‘‘The Obama Health plan is differant from the French the French still use Insurance companies like I stated in my last argument. The Obama plan will most resemble Canadian universal healthcare which does enforce annual mandatory check ups. http://www.cmaj.ca...; 1)I did not propose an Obama health plan, I proposed a system that resembles close to a French health system but different in the way payments are transferred. Thus there will be no mandatory check ups. 2)Now even of we assume that there are mandatory checkups, the government is doing it in the interest of the people. The government wants to benefit the health of the people. People are not kids where they complain about going to the doctor. Health is in the best interest of the people and government. "No, you are wrong government does not place the hands of our veterans to the insurance companies. The VA is directly funded by the government that is indeed what universal healthcare. A big government agency funded by government." 1) Yes funded by the government yet care is given out by the insurance companies where the VA gives money to HMOs. NHC will change the fact that money is going to be directly controlled in that medical care is efficiently given to the patient instead of allotting some for unnecessary expenses and inefficiencies like in the current system. "In 1995 a study showed that the average American Doctor gets paid twice as much as the average Canadian Doctor" 1) Doctors value the fact that they will actually be getting the salary in the first place rather than the decreased salary (refer to previous speech) 2) In the current system, mal practice insurance premiums are high, thus actually decreasing substantially what you may believe is a high salary. It is actually driving doctors out of business. (http://www.foxnews.com...),(http://atlanta.bizjournals.com...) The NHC fixes this as it essentially takes away the concept of a malpractice suit as the companies who charge are taken away in the system. "No, the fact is and I mean FACT is that the waiting list(In Canada) generally is much longer than the waiting list in America to get basic medical needs. http://www.econedlink.org...; 1) It is not only Canada, since I am basing this off of France, in France there is no wait list for surgeries and virtually none for other procedures. And while in the US "In 2007, nearly 6,000 people died while on the waiting list" (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com...), thus a NHC system is proven to be better than the US system. "Do you admit there is cases of Canadians waiting 9 months for an appointments?" 1) Yes, but the fact is that it is really rare. For example maybe they forgot to actually write down profile information of the patient, thus lengthening the time. You cannot say that just because this happens in maybe a couple cases, that it will happen every time. In the US, there are some who do not even get necessary surgeries at all. {-The Big Picture-} On this issue, we cannot look at small specific problems, that my opponent does, and instead look at the big picture. I agree maybe some surgeries are more expensive or for some surgeries the wait list is longer. But holistically NHC systems are still better(taking these into account). The French system pays less per capita, has higher health, better mortality rates etc. It is rated the best health system by the World Health Organization, whereas the US places 23rd. Because NHC is better than the current US system, the US must switch. Furthermore, my opponent reduces affirmative ground by not even saying what he proposes. And I guess he rejects my burden even though he did not say it. = C3 flows through C1,C2,C4 inadequate refutation Dro