The United States should have a national health care system

I have been researching this topic since the first post, and (a bit late) but I have found evidence to support my claims. Considering how my opponent will not be able to respond, I shall only use these to negate his points, and support my old points. No new arguments shall be made at this juncture. 1) Free Market: Business governed by the laws of supply and demand, not restrained by government interference, regulation or subsidy [1]. Free Market: A free market economy is an economy in which the allocation for resources is determined only by their supply and the demand for them [2]. These definitions ought to be preferred. Last round, I urged my opponent to show why healthcare does not follow the free market. He states, "A free market is one in which goods or services are exchanged without unfair pressure or negotiation tactics. An individual who is facing imminent health complications is under unfair pressure and gives a physician unfair leverage in negotiating. " Neither definition states "without unfair pressure. " In fact, both imply "WITH unfair pressure" by "supply and demand. " However, supply and demand will also reach equilibrium [3]. Given how long prices of healthcare have stayed fairly constant, it is fair to assume it has reached equilibrium. I was wrong about malpractice insurance being the main reason for high healthcare costs. My opponent was wrong as well. It is because of technology [4]. This simply supports my point that national healthcare will not change anything. Supply and demand (the free market) dictates that prices MUST meet demand. It is the same principle as why markets keep their prices low on food (raising price = loss of customers; lowering = gain customers). This was established in my in my first speech. While this was disregarded most of the round, the fact that it stood true should the fact that healthcare follows the free market be true means now it stands true. I believe I have shown evidence that it does follow the rules of the free market, although we may not think so. No evidence was given to support why it should not. 2) I have proven that not all hospitals/doctors do so. Gasoline is a necessity, but not all gas stations have high prices to make more money. Some have higher prices, but the price is fairly constant. Healthcare is the same because I have shown why it conforms to the rules of the free market. This may not increase taxes (by my opponent's system) but it is not possible. Like any other commodity, the costs of healthcare are at equilibrium. Should the prices go up, the consumers lose money; should prices go down, the suppliers lose money. If the hospitals "lose," they go out of business because (as my opponent said) they are not receiving funding from the government. That is bad. My evidence is the idea that everyone, including people in poverty, must be able to afford this new healthcare. That is a significant decrease in costs, which will result in a huge shift in the system at equilibrium, causing healthcare to crash and burn. Again, that is bad. It would not benefit 300,000,000 people; only 46,000,000 + x# drug users. My evidence [4] says that studies show that people use the healthcare system excessively if they have insurance (basically, when they don't pay as much). Therefore, everyone will use the system more. The 254,000,000 people with coverage will simply waste more time at the hospital than they already do. $276 billion was spent or lost in 2005 on health care and other public services by addicts (at current access costs to hospitals, etc) [5]. If they access it more because of lowered costs [4], then the costs of admission into care will constant while profits decrease due to the new policy advocated by my opponent. This results in massive losses to the hospitals. 3) If someone is addicted (my definition being a physical addiction) then the body will place getting high/drunk above, or at, other needs such as food and water. Therefore, they will not care if they harm the system. As agreed by my opponent and I, self preservation/what is best of oneself trumps all other models for decision making. Therefore, even with the fee my opponent proposes, hospitals still lose. The system works as follows: 1) hospital treats patient; 2) patient pays. If patient cannot pay (addicts have hard times holding jobs), the hospital will lose money. Given the policy proposed, the hospital will receive no compensation from the government and less from services provided to those who can afford it. 4) No, because the systems (MRI's, X-ray machines) are owned by hospitals. There is no way to fit everyone into the "wait" frame because: 1) treatment must be before death. So, if everyone uses the systems more, the possibility of "death by wait" is possible if it is possible that they all have a fatal disease (I'm assuming that the time frame will be set to ensure that if you might die, then you shall receive the scan before, for sake of example, 2 months). Hospitals will be overloaded and cannot possibly accommodate people who want to jump the line. Lots of people die in Canada on the waiting list not for organs, but for MRI's. 5) It is not negligible is the doctor still has to pay malpractice insurance and endure up to 12yr of extra schooling. If there is such a thing as incentive pay (pay by performance), then doctors want $ in return for their good service. Less $ = less good service. That is bad. 6) No, more $ = better performance. This can be seen in teachers, doctors (incentive pay), and even kids! Time magazine says that when parents offer money to kids, they will do things like quit TV for a month. This was later turned into a randomized group of kids in a Harvard study. Bribing kids to get good grades works [6]! If kids do it and their teachers do it, then doctors do it too. =====Conclusion Status Quo Good: I have provided examples as to why healthcare is expensive, and as to why it is free exchange. The entire market is based upon the idea of supply and demand, or new age bargaining on a massive scale. Bargaining is never equal. Someone always has leverage, but both parties need each other. That is why healthcare costs a lot relative to food stuffs but not too much relative to production and distribution. New policy bad: My opponent talks solely about equality between the care provider and the care receiver. Even if you buy this point, my points outweigh. 1) Possibility of losing hospitals by bankruptcy. This is caused by an increase in services with loss. The increase in the number of services provided is by evidence [4]; the loss is caused by the disruption of the equilibrium by lowering costs. 2) Decrease in doctors. This is caused by a loss in incentive by a decrease in income. The decrease is in comparison to Canadian doctors (I believe was somewhere in the range of $100k-$200k), and $ = incentive, shown by evidence [6]. 3) Overall, a decrease in providers and in increase in demand will lead to "death by waiting list" like some Canadians. These three points outweigh equality when it comes to what is good for the United States as a whole. Thank you for taking the time to read this and the previous arguments. [1] . http://www.investorwords.com... [2] . http://economics.about.com... [3] . http://www.answers.com... [4] . http://www.businessweek.com... [5] . http://www.cliffsidemalibu.com... [6] . http://www.time.com...