Public health concerns justify government violation of pharmaceutical patents.

I will be demonstrating my opponent's failure to deconstruct what she deems my failure to deconstruct her argument by going "line by line" down her second speech. I apologize if any capitalized words or phrases seem to be yelling – I don't mean to be rude; I can't put italics on debate.org, so I used this method to emphasize key points. I will use the same line dividers as my opponent did for clarity. The PRO gives two reasons why the government would need to take the saving pharmaceutical and manufacture it – the government and the citizens both lack the money to buy the product. The solution to this is simple: deficit-spend and give out the drugs free. If the United States federal government (remember, this is the focus of our debate) is capable of supporting two separate wars and multiple aid programs around the world, an emergency drug-manufacturing expense would be no trouble. And, if the drugs are distributed free, the people don't need the money. The four reasons that the PRO gives for the government's lack of funds – paying for the military, police, hospitals, and miscellaneous costs – are non-issues at the point where I demonstrate the government's proven ability to deficit-spend. Thus, the government has plenty of money to compensate the company – by deficit spending. And, at the point where full and just compensation can be (and there is no reason why it shouldn't be) given, there is NO VIOLATION of the patent. This is the MOST IMPORTANT issue in the round – the PRO is either advocating government manufacturing of the drug WITH or WITHOUT compensation. If the former, there has been no violation of the patent, because such a provision is okayed by patent law; if the latter, why not give compensation when we have a proven successful method of doing it? It's like hiding the candy on Halloween; if you CAN give it, DO give it. ________ Now to the second half: the PRO attempts to reassure pharmaceutical companies that her proposition "will not take place every day…." But that really doesn't matter. The motivation for any pharmaceutical research depends on the profit prospects of said research. If the government was permitted to barge in, snatch the blueprints for the drug, and produce it without compensating the company – EVEN ONCE – the sanctity of a capitalist society is jeopardized. Note that this is different from simply manufacturing the product in compliance with current patent law. It stems directly from the deliberate violation of the law by the government – and that threatens not only research and economic matters, but complete government efficacy as well. Essentially, by breaking the rules it set itself, the government has nationalized a certain portion of industry – and you can just look to any economically socialist nation for the results of such behaviour. Such a violation is just the beginning of a slippery slope to ruin – if there is no incentive to research, there is no research, and no drugs to protect the next generation. The PRO brings up the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution as a justification for patent violation. First, examine the above three paragraphs – subverting capitalism for one epidemic only worsens our chances for the next. Second, look at the first argument – there is no need for violation! All of the PRO's doomsday scenarios can be completely solved WITHOUT violating the patent. ------------------- The PRO again promises after the dashed line that her "proposition will not be carried out outside of such circumstances." Again: 1. It still threatens research incentives. 2. WHY DO WE NEED TO VIOLATE THE PATENTS IN THE FIRST PLACE? We can compensate in the status quo perfectly well. My opponent concludes by weighing the value of the patent system against millions of lives. I may sound like a broken record at this point, but the argument still applies: if we did "violate" a patent now, it would only endanger us in the future, and we don't need to violate anything to solve these epidemics. In conclusion, remember: if there IS compensation, there is no violation. If there ISN'T compensation, all future research is jeopardized, AND it's illogical, because we can compensate. Thank you.