Libertarians have it right on health care-not Barack, Hillary or Johnny.

I'll try to hit each issue. -Poor's health Care. You've still given no evidence how your system provides health care for those who need it but can't afford it. You simply just keep repeating "tax breaks for all". that doesn't mean people will be able to afford health care. Once again, a system of public and private health care works best: people who can't afford it can get health care, and people with money can get higher standards. It's the best of both worlds. And as far as the whole "waiting list" thing goes, how is this problem unique to public health care? because of a lack of resources, time, and doctors, and an abundance of patients, wait lists are inevitable under any system. it's just life. -Regulations 1.) High price of equipment is the fault of the market, not regulations. Good quality equipment costs money> I thought that someone who supported the free market would understand that. 2.) High insurance rates have to do with the market, as well. It costs a lot to cover someone in a case of malpractice. It is completely logical that malpractice insurance is high. You've given no actual evidence of how this is the legislator's fault. All you've given are two examples where prices are high. -Historic Free Market/FDA First of all, Private schools ARE subject to regulation: http://www.ed.gov... You keep referring to competition as the save all, but all that can really do is keep prices down. History has proven (look at the 19th century and early 20th century) that companies will take advantage wherever they can. They'll do whatever it takes to cut costs, often at the expense of the consumer and worker. And I don't trust you on the FDA point anymore because you started out arguing that it was ten years, and now it's eight. Also, the phrase "average of eight years" makes me think that they're trying to get these tested as quickly as possible, and that it's not required that they delay it for that long. I'M GLAD THAT THEY'RE BEING THOROUGH. And you've also given no example of how the free market can actually do this. what company is going to pay some competitor to test their products. You see, without the regulation requiring them to got through the FDA, they don't have to do all that. It's cheaper not to. and it's not like consumers can just boycott those companies; you're not going to stop eating and you're not going to stop taking medication. we need the FDA's regulation. I know I've pounded this throughout the debate, but "The Jungle" really illustrates the need for the FDA. In fact, the FDA was created after "The Jungle" exposed the horrible conditions. -Sweden Once again, waiting lists are not a problem that is unique to any health care system. With complete privatization, you're still going to be managing a lack of resources, time, and doctors while counterbalancing with an abundance of patients. It doesn't matter what system you use, waiting lists will always exist because we can't possibly provide for everyone perfectly. -Fewer doctors This point is a nonsequitur. There are not going to be an infinite number of doctors and resources. A CAPITALIST SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SCARCITY OF RESOURCES. Look at the current health care system in the US. Is it privatized? For the most part, yes. We have some programs and regulations, but there are still companies doing their jobs. Are there still waiting lists? YES. Furthermore, even if everything is under the government (which I repeat, is not my suggestion; my opponent is attempting to straw man my case), then you're not going to have a sudden lack of doctors. There is no actual evidence for this. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary: http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu... That's a map representing physicians per capita by country. the darker blue it is, the more doctors they have. as you can see, we're equal with Canada and Sweden and France. we're not going to have less doctors with any universal health care system. My opponent's point about this is unfounded. Waiting lists are a problem for any health care system. I've refuted all of my opponent's points. He has offered no evidence through this entire debate, while I have pointed you to valid sources several times. In fact, his entire argument, when looking at his summary, seems to be that he just doesn't want to pay taxes. Clearly, the CON has won this debate.