The 2010 Health Care Reform Should be Repealed

REBUTTAL 3a. "the huge amount of revenue expected to come from tax increases on the rich will certainly not all materialize."Please explain why this is the case, in the next round, with sources. Until then, the point is moot.b. "Talking about Medicare savings in a campaign is much easier than actually making cuts in practice."The bill is not some campaign speech. The method of saving is written into law. You have failed to elaborate why this would not succeed.c. "There will be pages of new regulations and forms, making it harder to start a new business."Source?d. "On top of this, there a number of surcharges on Insurance Companies in the Health Care Reform Bill, which will be passed on to consumers through higher prices."Source?e. "the bill also includes large tax increases that will hit a significant number of Small Businesses."Source?f. "Medicaid Patients do not get much better access to Health Care than uninsured patients. Likewise, the bill will lead to much larger Health Care wait times"Here, you claim that it will reduce health outcomes through lesser quality care and longer waiting lines while ignoring the fact that these people weren't receiving any medical care to start off with. Whether medicaid is good quality or not is irrelevant to the fact that it is giving care to people who otherwise would not have it.g. "I agree completely here."So...you agree that the health care reform bill saves lives and you still disagree with it's implementation. That leaves me to ask you, what is the price of a human life? Whatever the market is offering? h. "It seems that my opponent believes that Health Decisions are too important for individuals to make in a private market, and should therefore be made by the government."Ad hominem, red herring.i. "Insurance Companies may limit care, but not to the extent that governments do."Provide a source showing that the health care reform bill will ration care.j. "I'm not sure what exactly this entails."View my source for explanation.k. "Again, this means that the government forces young adults to buy Insurance."False. You didn't view the source for further explanation as I suggested. This means no one will have to buy insurance until they are 26 because they will be allowed to be kept on their parents insurance.l. "Yes, those with pre-existing conditions need to be covered. However, forcing insurance companies to cover them will raise prices for everyone."So lets see, on one hand we have sick people unable to get care because it was preexisting. On the other hand we have those who are non-senior(due to medicare) adults who aren't poor(due to medicaid) that don't want to pay higher prices. Who's side should we take? CONCLUSIONMany of Pro's points would be redundant to reply to because they were not properly substantiated. I expect further substantiation in the rest of the debate.Also, I'd like to point out an opinion of mine. Insurance companies are just as much a form of government as the official one. Regulating an inherently authoritarian system does not increase it's degree of authoritarianism. As a Socialist, I would actually prefer to abolish insurance companies and have their service controlled by the people.