"A cap on your costs, but no cap on your benefit." - Nancy Pelosi

PRONG I: "Limit" It is in fact my opponent who has conceded an important point here. Last round, I stated that "May not ___ by law implies that there is a law specifically prohibiting some action. " Even under my opponent's argument about it being illegal to print money, which leads to a cap on spending based on income, he has failed to either dispute my claim or show that not printing money is a law _specifically_ prohibiting having certain levels of health care spending. This prong remains. Not that it need remain, since I still have another surviving. 1. A cap on total revenue implies a cap on potential total HCB, but NOT a limit. [see above] 2. If prong II is wrong, then total revenue can be said to be equivalent to HCC. 3. If prong II is wrong, a limit on the costs of health care does not result in a limit on the benefits of health care. [2] PRONG II: "Non-HCC Sources of Revenue" My opponent is correct that all I argued here last round was that money given from taxpayers to the government is not by contract. And I hold to that claim. My opponent's only argument against me was that there's a "social contract. " However, social contract is not a contract at all. My opponent's own source seems to make this pretty clear: "Social contract describes a broad class of theories that try to explain the ways in which people form states to maintain social order. " "A broad class of theories" cannot be a contract. But ignoring that minor semantics problem: it is set of theories that are quite flawed. Note that my opponent's social contract argument is a new argument he just brought up last round, so I am not being unfair by responding. A contract must actually be agreed upon. Let us say that I claim the United States as my own. I then make the following law: that people are required to be nice to me, and if they do not wish to comply they must leave. I make this information available to all via the internet. Let us say a man named Eric stumbles upon my rules on the internet. He reads my rules and proceeds to do one of two things. Case 1: He's not nice to me Is he breaking a contract? No, because he didn't actually agree to one. Case 2: He's nice to me Does complying to my rules mean that this is actually a contract? No, because he still has not accepted my terms. He has done just what I asked him to, but he has not been required to actually agree to the terms. This is why social contract theory cannot be correctly applied to the American legal system. Note that this criticism largely appears in my opponent's own source under "Tacit Consent. " The Social Contract implies that there is some sort of contract that is counted as being agreed upon just because people do what it says. As I showed in case 2, this cannot be a contract. A contract requires an actual agreement to its terms in full: it's "a written or spoken agreement intended to be enforceable by law" [. http://www.askoxford.com...]. The law is analogous to the example I gave - all differences are irrelevant ones to the question of whether they are contracts or not. So with that said: 1. Funds given to the government in the form of tax are not given by contract. [See above] 2. Funds given to the government in the form of tax that are then given to healthcare companies by no other contract cannot be considered part of HCC. [Definition of HCC] 3. HCC is not a measure of the total revenue of insurance companies; a limit on HCC does not limit subsidies to the insurance companies. [2] 4. Total revenue is the "limiting" factor for HCB (I use quotation marks because this does not meet the definition of limit we've agreed upon, but of course you disagree if you've discounted Prong I already) 5. A limit on the costs of health care does not result in a limit on the benefits of health care. [3, 5] The resolution is affirmed if either of these prongs stands, since they each affirm the resolution separately.