The United States should have a national health care system

I shall address the same topics in the same order, with the numbers 1-6. 1)This does not refute the fact that it would still take a long time. The government must follow protocols that the private industries do not. However, if the government is only limiting the prices and treatment, this could have disastrous. Even though it seems as if it was established that the healthcare system does not follow the rules of a free market (because of the high prices), my argument had faulty logic. Should a computer cost $2,000 to develop, produce, and market, then the price will never drop bellow $2,000 (duh). So, in the free market, the price will be, for sake of example, $2,500. The price CANNOT drop bellow $2,000.01, but can raise infinitely high as long as all other companies do the same. While this is expensive when compared to everyday food stuffs, it is the lowest possible with a profit. Now no company in its right mind will sell a computer with a profit of $0.01, and government regulation would destroy this industry (people do not always buy the same amount as is being made, so some of the "profit" must cover production). And these people must eat. While surgery can cost a lot, there is a very many number of expenses, as I have stated before. Whereas I do not know these expenses, they are present. Because of that, it is possible that the prices now are as low as the hospitals can place them before sacrificing quality. The term "overcharge" is relative to the production cost. Given how there is no evidence for the cost of something such as surgery, "overcharge" has no place in this debate until a number is given through evidence. 2) "In addressing this argument I will assume that we are discussing a government subsidized health care system which will provide health care insurance to those who cannot afford it, and/or which creates Federally operated hospitals." I accept the previous statement for the rest of this debate, with the change of "or" to "and/or." My opponent constantly address the fact that doctors take advantage of the patients. They DO NOT. IT IS AGAINST THE LAW OF THE US TO DO SO. Even if they were on their deathbed, if they were overcharged, their living family members will sue (and everyone knows the US likes suing). When my opponent talks about the hospitals making "a profit would negate a drag on the tax system," this contradicts the previous statement "in addressing this argument...." If the government was providing health insurance to people who cannot afford it at its current price, then they will receive little compensation for the costs. Meanwhile, if the government ran all hospitals as "free" clinic hospitals, they would also receive little compensation for the costs. Either way, if the hospital was to make money, it must charge more. Because that is why 46 million Americans chose/must go uninsured, for them to get coverage, the hospitals must charge less. To compensate, taxes will be raised. A federal system cannot turn a profit when it is advertised to the people bellow/at the poverty line. 3) No, I would not stand in front of that car. But if I was suffering from an overdose/withdraw, I would go to the hospital. In addition, it is of no harm for me. These individuals will not avoid the massive increase of free healthcare access because of the "greater good." These individuals will do the same thing as the doctors: what is best for themselves. When there is a sale, hundreds of people line up at 4 in the morning to get in first; when it is a giveaway, the whole country will line up at 3 am EST. The sad sad truth is that people are leeches, and these leeches will harm society if they are given a chance to better their own lives. 4) The free clinic argument was simply to state that access is possible, and therefore does not need to be fixed. Whether people decide to use this system is out of our control and that of the US government. Also, it proves the hazards of unfunded hospitals. 5) Considering how Canada, under Uni Healthcare gets paid so much less, it is fair to assume that the US will experience a similar effect. This is not about potential, it is about survival. Such that, the extra pay is to compensate for the extra time spent in school and the need for doctors. Lowering pay will lower the quality of doctors. In Japan, teachers are respected and paid more than the US. While entering teachers are paid 25% less than the US, senior (experienced, the better teachers) are paid 40% more in Japan than the US. [1] The education gap between the US and Japan is noticeable, one reason being that Japan has better teachers. Like any other profession, the same would come of doctors should pay be reduced. 6) Yes, they are. The hospital would be sued if they did not. Doctor pay is not affected by the patients' decision; doctors are paid by contract (except private ones, but if one has a private doctor, they are obviously rich and do not matter in this debate). Regardless, the point on doctors taking advantage of patients should be disregarded for it is illegal to do so and does not happen in the system today. =====Summary 1) Whereas I did say that healthcare was not a norm in the free market, I realized that all arguments were faultily based on relative terms. I reconstructed the argument with concrete terms, and now it has moved to support the healthcare system as a norm. Also, the government will be less efficient. 2) I stated what I would use from now on as a "definition" for Uni healthcare. Also, this new healthcare will either raise taxes and everyone has access to lower grade care or the same people have access as the status quo, and it changes nothing. 3) People will leech, it's sad, but true. 4) Free clinics show availability to the minority, not everyone, and serves as an example of what underfunded hospitals will be like. 5) Decrease in pay will decrease doctor, as Japanese teachers show. 6) This is not in the status quo, and therefore do not need to be changed. [1] http://www.eric.ed.gov...