Obama's Health Care Plan is beneficial to the United States of America

Resolved: Obama's Health Care Plan ========= Lower Costs ========= Electronic Conversion I do not see that my opponent has provided any references for this claim. He says that actively trying to convert to electronic records would require spending more money, but this claim is baseless. According to the designers of the plan, it will save $77 billion each year. Better Care for Chronic Patients My opponent correctly states that competition increases quality. However, government intervention has been found to actually increase market competition (http://www.floridataxwatch.org...). In addition, full transparency will not evolve through competition, but Obama's plan will ensure it. Transparency may seem minor, but is not to be overlooked: it provides incentives to eliminate pork barrel spending and eliminate inefficiencies. Problems can be found and solved much more easily. The free market is mindless. It cannot be left to its own ends or trusted to accomplish all that is necessary. It is a powerful force, but still limited in its abilities. Drug companies do sell generic drugs, but the supply is limited. Drug firms are known to block generic drugs and artificially raise prices (http://euobserver.com...). In this case, the government will prevent drug companies from artificially raising prices, allowing competition to naturally lower them. ================== Strengthening Public Health ================== I quoted large portions of Obama's plan because it largely speaks for itself. (1) "If he is going to reward these actions, he needs funds. Where are the funds coming from? If not from taxpayer dollars, then he can resort to either extreme taxation on the upper-class, or printing off more money (which he has already done)." This is a false dichotomy. The simplification of the healthcare system will save a great deal of money. Simply converting to electronic storage is predicted to save $77 billion a year. Also, Obama has a plan to pull out of Iraq. The war in Iraq costs $720 million each day (http://www.washingtonpost.com...); eliminating that expense will be a relief. (2) "Once again, note the term 'increased financial support.' Where is that money going to come from?" Various sources, such as raised taxes. Higher taxes may be painful, but in the long term it will pay off. Additionally, money will be acquired by increasing the efficiency of Medicare, as well as some other miscellaneous sources (http://www.thehealthcareblog.com...). (4) "The smart people who take care of themselves are going to be paying for the dumb, lazy people who rely on taxpayer dollars to live." That's an unfair oversimplification. Bad eating and smoking habits are not necessarily indicative of intelligence or laziness. The very purpose of this policy is to help educate the uneducated and move more people towards the smart and self-sufficient side. "If the working class is forced to pay for the health of the lazy class, then there is absolutely NO incentive to be a hard worker!" Simply providing national health coverage will not cause everyone to become lazy. That is an absurd claim. ======================= Bad News for Those With Healthcare ======================= My opponent's paragraph is quoted word-for-word from his second source. It is not surrounded in quotation marks. This could be construed as plagiarism. The Obama administration plans on paying for the plan by repealing the Bush tax cuts. They estimate that the plan will cost closer to $50 billion a year; while formidable, this is an acceptable expenditure. His plan is estimated to save $2500 per American family (thehealthcareblog.com/the_health_care_blog/2008/03/a-detailed-anal.html). Martin Feldstein's estimates differ, but are not as authoritative. Even if 85% of Americans end up having to pay more, imagine how much good it could do for the other 15%. Resolution affirmed.