National Healthcare

Rebuttal to opponents prior argument: In the beginning of your statement, paragraph 4, you state, “However, since consumer driven health care is more efficient…” I’d just like to point out that this is tautology, as you have made a claim prior to argument, however, I’d rather I get into the real argument, as opposed to semantics. In R2, P2 you said that, “ In the Soviet Union the hospitals have been noted on the filth, odors, [the] cats roaming the halls, drunken medical personnel, and absence of soap and cleaning supplies etc.” This would be a valid argument, however, this was in the Soviet Union, a place where the citizens were treated like garbage and existed prior to 1991. In a more modern Universal Healthcare System like Singapore, the hospitals look like this, http://www.sgh.com.sg.... Is this riddled with filth or drunken personnel? Probably not :). Furthermore, in R2, P3, You stated that Cuba did not consider infants ‘infants’ until several months old. I apologize if this is my fault, but I might not have linked my source, here it is, https://www.cia.gov.... In this, it shows infant mortality rates as the USA considers what infants are. The article you used for this is a biased think-tank and is insufficient. In Innovation, P2, link#5 is a biased conservative think tank. I truly believe that you should find more neutral sources. The government supports R&D and has spent billions of dollars on AIDS research among other things. (http://aids.gov... ) Private corporations would never have the capability to do something like this without government spending, and there are far better government charities than private ones. (Humane Society of the United States, for one.) In R3, P2, you say that American healthcare denial is only 3%, however you neglected to mention that plenty of people are denied any health insurance at all, for example, when Blue Cross Blue Shield denied a woman care because of seeing a chiropractor prior to applying. (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...) In R3,P3 You say that care should only be given in catastrophic events. Really? What of severe obesity or starvation? The rights to ‘Life liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness’ includes ‘Life’. If someone is suicidal, they are struggling with life and the pursuit of happiness, but would ‘Catastrophic’ encompass them? Or what of someone with an awful past of unimaginable torment and anguish, who are murderous, angry and say they want to kill people, or something along those lines? Would they be denied coverage because they did not get harmed recently or physically? I stand by my belief that the system is barbaric. It says here (http://www.medhealthinsurance.com...) that people with pre-existing conditions are not eligible for catastrophic care. Should they just die? In C1, P2, You say that when free markets have existed, they have succeeded, then why, according to http://www.who.int... are we 37th in the world behind Canada, Italy, the UK, Japan, and even the United Arab Emirates? If capitalism was so good for healthcare, why are we so far down the list as a 1st world country, no less? In C1, P3,4 You make references to things like Lasik Eye Surgery and varied Cosmetics, but as I have mentioned from the rebuttal in P4 of my argument, the governments funding has gone into aids research (http://aids.gov... ) cancer research (http://www.cancer.gov...) among other things. The government is far better funded than a capitalistic organization, and I know the American people would be proud to say that a portion of their taxes goes to cancer research. I believe that this final argument I am about to make might be ever so slightly off-topic, but I feel it should be stated because yours is a simple fallacy. In conclusion P4, you say that the free market has succeeded in all other areas of our economy. This is incredibly false. The entire recession has been caused by the free markets follies, the average rich person is 288 times as wealthy as a regular household (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...) and they continue to pay less and less money to their workers so that they can profit, this gives the worker less money to spend, therefore, the economy is plummeting. Thank you Con for reading my argument. I apologize for not getting to you last match, I was very busy that day and the time got away from me.