All Americans should be entitled to health care

My opponent has forfeited the final round, so there's really not much I can say. He also didn't have the character space to respond to my 7th, 8th and 9th points so I'll extend them. In short, I'll conclude this debate by providing a re-cap of the arguments I've made in negation of the resolution. *** Health care is not a right, it's a privilege. It can't be a right because it requires other people to care for you, and forcing others to care for you is not only immoral and impractical but violates what can or cannot be considered a right in the first place. Like other industries, the health care industry is a service-based industry meaning health care providers may charge a fee for their care that people can either pay or not pay. By socializing the industry, my opponent has advocated that everyone get health care because the cost of funding for everyone (which I explained and proved would drastically increase) would become the responsibility of everyone in society. However, my opponent has not defended why this would be a good, moral or practical endeavor. While Pro pointed out the reality that many people simply cannot afford care, I pointed out the reality that our country simply cannot afford to medically insure everyone. Moreover, our country i.e. tax payers should not be burdened with caring for everyone. We don't expect everyone to socialize costs for food or housing despite the increased costs in those industries, so why health care? Plus, we already have government programs like Medicaid and Medicare in addition to other social programs, and policies that make necessary treatment in the ER mandatory meaning everyone will be treated whether they can afford to pay or not. Government bureaucracy tends to be inefficient and wasteful; there's no reason to assume the government can resolve the issues better than market competition can considering the government has consistently failed in the past. Plus, as I pointed out, if the government took care of everything than the government would be in a position even more-so than today to ban, limit or inhibit other personal freedoms like smoking (my opponent never addressed this). My opponent also never explained how divisive issues like abortion would be handled: does this "free" health care for all provide abortions? Is that fair to pro-life tax payers who are forced to fund this? These are important questions that were left unaddressed. In a country that's short on doctors, Pro's policy could dissuade people from seeking medical jobs (if they're not earning as much money) or create long waits for treatment due to the influx of people seeking care. Not to mention we don't know how illegal aliens would be regarded under Pro's avocation, and Pro specifically said that even the lazy and irresponsible Americans who do nothing but mooch off the system without contributing should be given aid. This is blatantly unfair to the hard working middle class who will necessarily see increased taxes with less benefits (and maybe even a huge downfall in their standard of living or care). Overall, Pro has not proven that health care is a right; that ALL Americans deserve "free" care; that this would be a resourceful or rewarding policy; or that our government has the legal or monetary ability to implement this policy let alone the moral implications this policy would have. On the contrary, the resolution has been successfully negated. I've proven that this idea is immoral, illegal, impractical and overall a bad idea. Thanks, bitewhite.