A National Health Care System should not be passed through Congress.

Resolved : A National Health Care System should not be passed through Congress As Pro failed to properly state sources or define all parts of the definition, I would like to now do so, with all definitions from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. national – although this is not the only definition, or even the best available, I believe this to be the definition intended by Pro : "belonging to or maintained by the federal government. " health care- "efforts to maintain or restore health especially by trained and licensed professionals" Therefore, may the resolution be equal to "A mass effort to maintain or restore the health of all the people in the United States, which shall be led by the federal government, ought not be implemented as law by the representatives of the citizens. " While I do not oppose Pro's definition of a nationalized health care system as "a federal regulation of a country's medical centers, hospitals, hospices, etc. " I do find fault with her next statement: "decisions for these citizens will be made by the government as opposed to by themselves. " The one and only decision made by the government would be that they cannot decide whether or not they will have health insurance. They will have it. Even then, Pro has failed to prove that this is a bad thing. I will now rebut Pro's contentions. Contention 1: A. Pro has failed to provide a definition for unjust. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, unjust means "characterized by injustice," with injustice meaning "absence of justice: the violation of right or rights of another. " In her contention, she never states why a national health care system would be unjust. B. Pro complains of the cost of health care. If you think about it, she would not be able to complain about the cost of health care if she was DEAD because she did not have it. Health care saves lives, and I find it ridiculous to value money over other people's lives. C. Pro would like to use the example of a large crowd of random people, and the number of whom have a broken leg. I would like to use that same exact crowd of random people. How many people have a a broken leg, or arm, or any bone, OR allergies, asthma, bronchitis, a sinus infection, a head cold, or glasses, or contacts, or have or have had braces, a retainer, a tooth pulled, a cavity, a crown, strep throat, the flu, a virus, an infection, inflammation, diarrhea, constipation, nausea, congestion, a runny nose, OR something more serious like cancer, a heart problem, cirrhosis, an STD, HIV, AIDS, are an amputee, are blind or deaf, have joint problems, back problems, arthritis, osteoporosis, or anything else? And all of them, I assure you, were born, which requires surgery. D. Pro points out the various other things that the money could be used for. However, even if a person does not use the money themselves, the money will still be used for other individuals. Wanting the money sitting in a bank account instead of saving someone else's life is appalling and selfish. Contention 2: This contention discusses the opinion that our government does not run as it should. However, these things are not true for all government operations. The examples given do not suggest that the government itself is inefficient, only that the few people in charge of said operations are not thrifty. I fail to see the connection. Contention 3: Pro complains of the costly of the program for the government. However, she previously complained about the cost to the people. If the people are paying for this, why would there be worry over the government spending? I have already given attacks for the costs to the people. Contention 4: Pro states that a national health care system would be unconstitutional. Pro also mentions "individual rights. " Pro does not state what part of the Constitution is being referenced. Throughout the case, individual rights are mentioned. Pro states that "the plan" would violate them. Pro never specified what "the plan" would entail. Because of this, she cannot prove that "the plan" impairs individual rights. I will now provide my own case. The Social Contract: "Voluntary agreement in which individuals relinquish some of their individual liberties in return for governmental protection of their natural rights to maintain law and order. This assumes that by being born into a country and remaining in it, that people accept its precepts. Some philosophers say that where there is not law, there can be no freedom. " – Nolan's Lincoln-Douglas Debate Resource Guide Nationalized health care protects individual rights. When small liberties are given to the government so that it may govern better, the entire community, in this case, the entire nation, benefits. Because the government further secures the lives of its citizens, those citizens are provided the vast amounts of individual rights enjoyed by other citizens. The small liberties given up do not equal the amount of liberties, rights, and freedoms enjoyed by those who without nationalized health care would not be alive. Because Pro failed to do so, I will now provide not one, but TWO plans for a national health care system. Sytem 1: A model of the French health care system. The government supplies basic health care to all its citizens. Private insurance companies are still available for the citizens who wish for more coverage. The companies are not government operations and ensure that the citizens retain individual rights. Sytem 2: The United States government requires all citizens to have insurance. Because of the government involvement in the health care system by requiring insurance, this meets the definition of "national. " However, the government itself does not own or operate any part of the health care system in a way that it does not now. Also, the option as to what type of insurance is not decided by the government. A person with glasses may get eye insurance while a person with braces invests in dental insurance. I urge voters to negate this resolution.