The United Stats federal gov should substantially increase its public health assistance to Sub-S.

Alright Nietzsche lets see what you've got. For all voters/spectators this is the policy debate topic for the 2007/2008 season so I am going to do this in policy debate format. I will also put an impact on everything I say so that it can easily be interpreted by anyone. Note: I will paste cut policy cards into this debate. Which starts me with the first stock issue. INHERENCY: A. THE WHO IS ADDRESSING GLOBAL HEALTH WORKER MIGRATION NOW, ESPECIALLY IN AFRICA [Agence France Presse, May 15, 2007. "Who targets health brain drain," ABSCBN NEWS, accessed 8/2/07, . http://www.abs-cbnnews.com...] The World Health Organization and a group led by former UN human rights chief Mary Robinson on Tuesday launched an initiative to stem the 'brain drain' of doctors and nurses from poor countries. A recent study cited by the WHO showed that the number of foreign-trained doctors has tripled in several industrialized countries in the past three decades, often including many health workers from poor nations. The brain drain siphons away nearly one quarter of the few African doctors available in the poorest parts of the continent, according to WHO data. The initiative is aiming for an international code of practice to protect the rights of migrant health workers and to address the social and economic impact of the drain from countries where health staff are desperately needed. Summary/Impact: The WHO, World Health Organization, is already working on stopping the brain drain to Africa by developing a global health service (this being my opponents plan) so the question is why would we put into action a plan that is already happening? If the WHO is succeeding then no point. If the WHO is failing then how is the U. S going to succeed where the WHO failed. To further my argument the resolution says "the united states federal government" yet my opponent brings us no evidence that the United States government is the best actor for such a plan. As such we can assume, mathematically, that one of the other 192 countries or countless NGO's could possibly do this better than the United States. Therefor the U. S should not. HARMS: I have nothing to say on harms. My opponents case focuses on stemming the effects of brain drain which I totally agree exists. For anyone who doesn't know what Brain drain is. .. .. Wiki: A brain drain or human capital flight is an emigration of trained and talented individuals ("human capital") to other nations or jurisdictions, due to conflicts, lack of opportunity, health hazards where they are living or other reasons. A. k. a doctors leave Africa to go to other countries for the opportunities leaving Africa doctor less. PLAN: 1. How is the U. S government going to do this? 2. Where is the money coming from? 3. How do you plan on expanding the capacity. 4. Define capacity for me. 5. How many people do you plan to build capacity for? 6. State your plan in your own words please. SOLVENCY: A. THE GHS COULDN'T GET ENOUGH WORKERS – THE US HAS A DOCTOR SHORTAGE, WHICH ALSO MEANS THEY CAN'T STOP BRAIN DRAIN Agence France Presse, May 15, 2007. "Who targets health brain drain," ABSCBN NEWS, accessed 8/2/07, . http://www.abs-cbnnews.com... The problem was compounded by a shortage of doctors and nurses in rich countries, partly caused by growing demand from aging populations. Robinson said that the United States would need some 800,000 more nurses and 200,000 doctors by 2020, but faced a shortage that was likely to be filled from abroad. "Sometimes rich countries are declining to educate enough of their health workers," she added. Many African and Asian nations have strong health training but end up losing their investment when workers migrate. Meanwhile rich countries end up saving on training costs by attracting migrants, according to the WHO. Summary/Impact: The U. S doesn't currently have enough doctors for itself, we and other nations actively support brain drain. We essentially take other countries skilled workers and hand them a higher standard of living in a place where there is not the random possibility for villages to be burned by marauding tribes. One can build the capacity for community health workers all one wants but while countries such as the U. S have shortages in the health care sector we will keep encouraging them to leave their countries and come here, to work for us. So unless your capacity building includes creating bullet proof hospitals, paying them equal wages to American workers, supplying them with the luxuries of life that an average American experiences, and all the freedoms of an American; unless it can do all of that your plan is only doomed to fail. Thus I offer: COUNTER PLAN: With the proposed deficit by 2020 of 800,000 nurses and 200,000 doctors quickly approaching the United States Federal government should further projects to promote becoming a doctor as an American ideal. Furthermore the USFG should raise grants to medical students in the U. S and expand scholarship opportunities. By fixing the current medical deficit in the United States we can stem the effects of Brain Drain and move into helping other nations without those effects. How can we ever help other nations with a problem if we can't even help ourselves? =) and finally. .. my last issue. TOPICALITY: This one issue has resulted in me spending the last 2 days being pissed at this debate to the point where I didn't want to post. So here goes. THE RESOLUTION STATES SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA. Know what that entails? Let me give you the list: Democratic Republic of Congo, Republic of Congo, Central African Republic, Rwanda, Burundi, Sudan, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia (including Somaliland), Angola, Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, Cï¿½te d'Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, The Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Togo, Cape Verde, Comoros, Madagascar, Mauritius, and Seychelles. Whats my point you ask? Well lets look at the nations you plan to help, the PEPFAR nations in Sub-S: Botswana, Cote d'Ivoire, Ethiopia, Haiti, Kenya, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia. Hmmm. .. 13 of the 42 countries. This annoys me when I see a team to do this in policy debate but it is almost kind of understandable because a policy debater has to debate this resolution all year and it gets boring. But you! You had every power not to join this debate if you didn't want to debate the resolution. Let me give you a random real life example of how this doesn't quite work. Real life: I'm a doctor and I am asked to fix 42 patients, specifically Bob, John, Peg, Austin, James d, James p, etc. .. .. . However as a doctor I decide to only help 13 of these patients (out of the above 6 I only help Peg). As thus I don't meet the job which I signed up for and I get fired (because I just let 29 patients potentially die) the same applies here. You did not have to accept this debate you knew fully what the resolution stated. If you wanted to debate "THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE ITS PUBLIC HEALTH ASSISTANCE TO THE PEPFAR NATIONS IN SUB-S" then make your own resolution and debate that. So why should a judge vote on this? Because it hurts us all. Debates like this open up the gate for me to join any debate and only debate about a part of it. Example of what I could do with a current debate on debate. org under this logic. Debate: Wal-Mart is good for America. Me: Walmart is good for my little city! I win!