The United States should have a national health care system

I feel as if it's important to highlight at this juncture that a majority of my opponents claims have degraded into unfounded contradictions. I'd also like to point out that I did not agree to frame the debate in terms of publicly funded hospitals or a government subsidized public option. i merely agreed to argue this for the purposes of demonstrating that even in the most extreme of socialistic health care systems will provide a benefit to the system. Attempting to highjack the terms of a debate in such an obvious manner merely demonstrates an uncertainty that a victory can be achieved on equal terms. I will now run through the agreed upon 6 points and demonstrate how my opponent has failed to offer a concrete argument along these lines. 1. I outlined how a government process would require no additional paperwork or bureaucracy due to the implementation of a set fee for particular services. In refuting this my opponent states "However if the government is only limiting the prices and treatment, this could have disastrous. " He then discusses how I have previously established that the healthcare system does not follow the free market. Which solidifies the argument that regulation is needed to create a fair market. Finally he makes a legitimate point in stating that a price cannot drop below a set amount which is it's production cost. To which I state that a doctor EARNS 200 - 300 thousand dollars a year. This is ABOVE and BEYOND the costs of procedures. What we're addressing is lower the cost for procedures which will keep patients from being taken advantage of. This is a very simple argument to understand and I'm unable to see how it can be refuted. Furthermore, my opponent has failed in this vein. 2. In this section I had demonstrated how a national health care system does not create a strain tax systems. While also stating that if it was conceded that a health care system did create that strain, it would be minimal and would create a larger overall benefit for the health care system. My opponent in turn attacks my prior statements that doctors take advantage of patients. Perhaps I should rephrase. Doctors are in an unfair bargaining position in negotiations for health care services. He has repeatedly stated that I am wrong in my belief while citing a logical fallacy. That a situation does not occur because it is illegal for it to occur. Or to simplify this "Doctors do not take advantage of patients because if they did, they'd be breaking the law" ie: it doesn't happen because it's bad or immoral. This is not a legitimate argument. There is no philosophical or theoretical argument that has been put forward to cast even the slightest shadow of doubt upon my statement. I have concretely demonstrated that when negotiating health care prices, doctors are in an unfair bargaining position due to the fact that a patient is negotiating under a threat of physical harm. 3) In this segment I illustrated how drug users and alcoholics are symptoms of a large social problem and none of these people intentionally take advantage of the system. My opponent places a somewhat coherent argument in this section by stating that people will go to the hospital and create that strain no matter what their intent. To this I must argue that alcoholism and addiction have very strong genetic links. .. As does heart disease and cancer. If it can be contested that these addictions are akin to other illnesses which have genetic links, does it not seem somewhat wrong to classify these people as any less deserving of treatment than other patients? My opponent seems to think so. 4) The free clinic argument that my opponent put forth is ludicrous and foolhardy. Free clinics receive inadequate funding and are last ditch stopgaps as an effort to do some sort of charitable work. Comparing them to a government option is misleading to readers and seems to be an attempt to win the debate based upon faulty logic and retoric. 5) I agreed that this idea would lower doctor's wages. .. because I believe doctor's fees are unfair and too costly. However I concretely demonstrated that the incentive to become a doctor would be unaffected. This was shown through reliable government sources and concretely argued. My opponent's argument to counter this is is certainly quite odd because he cites Japanese teachers, who ARE PAID THROUGH TAX DOLLARS. My opponent fails to address that this system I propose would not drastically effect doctor's wages and would keep the incentive to becoming a doctor. This is a very fundamental flaw in his argument. 6) My opponent once again argues against my statement that doctors are in an unfair negotiating possession by stating that it could never happen because it's illegal. We've already established this is faulty logic so let's move past it and pretend for the time being that it is a legitimate argument. If a patient is forced to pay an unfair wage to a doctor which they can hardly afford. How much money do you believe that individual would have left for legal representation? Furthermore your comment about how this idea that I believe is occurring is illegal is dependent upon GOVERNMENT REGULATION. The same thing that my opponent purports to be arguing is not needed in the Health Care System. In summation, my opponent has disproved none of the above 6 points and his scattered style has only served to illustrate an attempt to divert attention and avoid larger more pressing questions. I would ask if he can logically refute the claim that doctor's are in an unfair bargaining position without referencing the fact that this would be illegal. Most certainly theft, burglary, and money laundering are illegal and they occur. Not to mention the unfair lending practises which occurred in the US for decades before it was finally decided that these practises were wrong. The argument that something does not occur because it is illegal is absurd and it does not affect the validity of my argument in the slightest. I urge you to read the arguments in detail and make a logical conclusion at the end of this debate.