The health care reform currently in congress should be passed

My opponent agrees -- the current health care system is unsatisfactory, and we need change of some sort. The only burden left in the debate for the affirmative is to prove the reform will be more beneficial than the current system. Also, my opponent states several times that I use "factually incorrect information" and "emotional arguments" but he never states where, or why these are either. All my information comes from reputable sources, and I have no emotional appeals in my case, so these "arguments" do not stand. Contention One As my opponent has agreed with me, I see no reason to push this argument further. Contention 2 Creating better health care in turn creates a better nation through health care, but the reform will affect our nation economically as well, which is why I have chosen to address both HC quality and economics. Subpoint A: My opponent attempts to divert attention away from this argument by debating the tagline of stabilization. Currently, our goal is stabilization of the economy as we are on an economic downturn. Obviously, our long term goal is to bring the economy back up, but before you can do that, we must first stop the negative flow. It's the same reasoning as in a naval oil spill: we must first stop the source of oil flowing into the ocean, and then we can begin cleaning up. I am not saying the state must spend as much as the GDP declined, simply that implementing this new system gives us access to such things as preventative care and the ability to get out of the "emergency room cycle" outlined in my case. These will save us money... more than enough to pay for the implementation of the system itself. According to my opponent, the government in the affirmative world would just keep spending and spending, but this is not the case. We would pay for this plan as an investment to save us money and guarantee better quality health care for our citizens, which leads me into my next point: Subpoint B: My opponent seems misinformed in his first sentence: People are billed when they go to the emergency room. However, the law requires doctors to treat patients anyway if they have a serious condition. Even patients with moderate or minor conditions do their best to get through, and sometimes do. These people get billed further and further into debt, and then end up making return visits for more money they cannot pay for. The big difference between the affirmative and negative worlds here is simple: preventative care. In the affirmative world, everyone would be covered for relatively cheap tetanus shots, about $35 according to U.S. Preventive Medicine. However, in the neg world, we could be spending into the thousands to rush someone into the ER and treat them for tetanus, especially if there is a hospital stay involved afterward. You can see how this also relates to my 2a point of helping the economy. Basically, preventative care's effects are twofold: it both helps the economy and increases the quality of care for the citizens of the U.S., both covered and not. Just from that we can see that the bill is going to beneficial and better than our current system, which my opponent agrees is in shambles. There is no way for uninsured Americans to gain preventative care currently in the insurance system, and therefore we must pass the reform. Contention 3: Again, this ties in with my first contention: all that I must do now is win my second contention to win the debate. We must find some kind of reform. And as Obama's, currently in Congress, includes both benefits to our economy and our quality of health care, I affirm. Thank you.