All Americans should be entitled to health care

Thanks to theLwerd for accepting this debate To begin, I would like to focus on what this debate ultimately comes down to, whether or not all Americans have the right to health care. In the first paragraph offered in the previous con argument, con states that because there are many people who are irresponsible and don't have health care, health care is not a right to all people. This is recklessly unjust for many reasons. In a world in which con advocates, an exceptionally morale philanthropist with similar income to a drug dealer would be put in the same group. In other words, the government can't distinguish the irresponsible person who doesn't get health care because of lazy behavior from another hard working person. I would rather live in a world in which the resolution existed because my right to live wouldn't be judged by my value to a corporation(by value to a corporation, I mean $). This basic advantage has yet to be answered by con. In the second paragraph, con argues the resolution is wrong because it puts force upon the health care providers and unjustly. However, if this argument was considered a disproof to the resolution then not only would government run health care be wrong, but in fact all rights you hold would be unjust. Take the education industry for example, is your entitlement to education wrong because government control is being applied? The answer is no, because government regulation doesn't create any more burdens than the profit driven status quo. Doctors and hospitals will get paid just as much and will therefore have just as much drive. Quite a few arguments were made in the previous con round so in order to sufficiently answer all arguments made, I will go in the same order as con but I will not have enough room to make any new arguments. This section is for answers to the previous round's con rebuttals 1. My original argument in this advantage was "government run health care is better because your state of health is not determined by your financial worth". Con responded with "Pro is saying that doctors should be forced to give everyone service". This argument really doesn't apply to the resolution, all that the government has to do in the resolution is pay the medical bills. This imitates what the private sector does already, health care companies pay doctors for providing their practice. The medical industry would make just as much money if not more therefore creating a better world. 2. The con argument made in the previous round is centered around how well a company can care for a persons health. The answer is yes, a company can provide good care for a person but sadly the only way a person can receive good coverage is with money. Because government officials are elected, there is no absence of free market within the pro resolution. 3. The original argument I presented was " Children born to families in lower economic conditions will also suffer from decreased health", the con answered by saying that this doesn't uphold the resolution because the resolution refers to "all Americans". Look to my previous arguments, there is no way the government can distinguish those who "deserve" health care from those who don't, even if you don't buy my argument that everyone deserves health care then at the very least those who deserve and need health care will get it at the cost of a few lazy people getting health care. 4. This argument is simple, large health care corporations charge large fees in an effort to gain larger and larger profits, the government is not a for profit corporation therefore making a cheaper and more efficient health care system. Americans will have to pay less for health care and insure lower amounts of bankruptcy and poverty as supported by my evidence. http://www.pnhp.org... 5. In round 1 I had stated that government health care is the best way to counter pandemics and I think that this was a bit of an overlooked argument. First, I will begin with an example: a new epidemic called disease x has just been found and is spreading throughout the United States, luckily a group of researchers have been able to create an antidote to counter the disease that could be distributed to all Americans, what should the U.S government do? Now, most people would say the U.S should distribute the antidote which I think is absolutely right and if con agrees with this then they therefore agree that U.S government should give health care to all of it's citizens. Second, lets begin even before "disease x" became an outbreak, lets begin with say 3 or 4 people who originally developed the disease. Say those people didn't have health insurance and never went in for checkups at a hospital, the disease would go unnoticed and spread. Both of these proofs show why a universal right to health care not only holds an intrinsic moral good but also a utilitarian good. 6.In an effort to preserve text and keep from a literary definition battle, I will drop this advantage In this next section I will give a short rebuttal to the con arguments 1. Please read the evidence attached, the particular article lists several countries (particularly France and The Netherlands) with great health care systems, in order to win this argument, con MUST prove that the U.S couldn't imitate any of these other systems. http://www.boston.com... 2. Look to advantages 4 and 5, I won't repeat those arguments. In addition, con has burden of proof for the introduction of this argument and must prove that market competition would "be more effective at price reduction and protecting personal freedoms". Until then, there is no reason to prefer this argument. 3.I have a few different arguments here. First, health care doesn't necessarily mean massive tax increase, for instance, other social services could be cut or marijuana could be legalized and taxed (also distracting everybody from any tax increase that could happen) or even a massive government bake sale:) Second, even a small tax increase would still be outweighed by the massive advantages. 4. Look to last argument, health care doesn't mean tax increase. 5. Emergency rooms are actually a reason to prefer resolution because although it is true that E.R's are required to treat you, don't be suprised to see a massive bill afterwards. Con also admits that E.R's give the right to everybody to get health care so when the con says that E.R's are good then the resolution is actually defended. 6. I don't fully understand this argument, if con continues this argument I will answer it in the next round. 7. Essentially what con is saying is that health care will be consumed by political ideologies, but there is no logical reason to believe that pro-life for instance will be pushed any harder. I'm out of space, more 2 come later