Obamacare is not good for the country

OK lets get started, thank you for this opportunity to defend Obamacare. Pro made 4 very specific charges1) That the system involves a mandateThis is absolutely true. The approach that Obama choose was the Republican approach (Nixon/Dole/Romney) which leaves America with a private health insurance system. If you are going to have coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions, you need to make sure that people don't game the system by paying out of pocket until something is seriously wrong and then buying insurance. Hence if you are going to require insurance companies to cover everyone you need a mandate.No harms were specifically listed in the Pro case for a mandate.2) A "pay-or-play" mandate for employers. The harm listed here is specific, "As businesses absorb this blow, jobs will disappear and workers will face lower wages." Obviously it is the case that all things being equal increases in costs of employment result in either decreased employment or decreased wages or both. That's true of any tax. Its also true of any expense. For employers currently paying for healthcare the premium reductions caused by universality and the decrease in overhead expenses (since insurance companies can't get out of payment as easily) will cause healthcare costs to reduce. So employers that don't provide insurance will have a tougher time, and those that do will have an easier time. Which is precisely the desired behavior, using the tax system to incentivize private action.In general the business has been very supportive of the Patient Protection Act (Obamacare). They view the current system as a triple tax: [1] They pay taxes to medicare They pay for the employee's insurance That insurance cost bundles high administration and coverage for the uninsured. Thus it is much higher than it would be if there was universality. 3) Exchanges will lead to regulation.Insurance today is regulated primarily at the state level. The exchanges aren't in any way between states. There is no particular reason this statute would cause the Federal Government to decide it wants to directly regulate insurance contracts. Pro has presented no evidence for this cause and effect.4) The costNow this is where I think the bill is a delight. The United States has a quality of care worse than many 3rd world countries with a cost of care 50% higher than France's. Our system is an unmitigated disaster from a cost perspective, far and away least efficient on the planet. [REfs]As for the math in point (4) my opponent missed Medicare & Medicaid which is well over 1/2 of the entire insurance system, in his math. Finally there is a comment that we have the best care. I see no evidence for that. I'd like Pro to produce some evidence.[1] See Council on Foreign Relations: http://www.cfr.org...[Refs] Graph of Healthcare cost vs. life-expectancy: http://user.cloudfront.goodinc.com...The classic 2004 article in Health affairs: http://content.healthaffairs.org...http://www.kff.org...A quick graph of the USA on the Healthcare spending relative to the GDP per Capita trend line.http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com...This article lists the 4 main reasons for higher costs, Obamacare addresses 1 to some extent and 2.1. higher prices for the same health care goods and services than are paid in other countries for the same goods and services;2. significantly higher administrative overhead costs than are incurred in other countries with simpler health-insurance systems;3. more widespread use of high-cost, high-tech equipment and procedures than are used in other countries;4. higher treatment costs triggered by our uniquely American tort laws, which in the context of medicine can lead to “defensive medicine” — that is, the application of tests and procedures mainly as a defense against possible malpractice litigation, rather than as a clinical imperative.