2
« on: March 13, 2008, 02:48:29 am »
So here's my First Negative Constructive thus far; I would appreciate it if you read it, give feedback, or provide your own personal opinions of this topic.
I) “About ten years ago, I believed in the seemingly lofty goal of ‘universal health care.’ Who wouldn’t support that goal? Doesn’t everyone have a ‘right’ to health care? I was just a kid then. It was easy to agree with a meaningless campaign promises such as ‘affordable health care for all.’ It takes effort to actually research the topic and understand economic logic, history, and facts. Once I questioned the sound bites, I realized that government intervention in the market, for example Medicare, FDA, physician licensing, and insurance regulations, is the reason for artificially high health care prices.†Because I agree with Mark D. Valenti, I negate the resolution, “Resolved: A just government should provide health care to its citizens.â€
II) Instead, I offer the alternative statement, “A just government should not provide health care to its citizens.†I propose this statement on the basis of the value premise of liberty. My first value criterion is that people and the government ought to act so that each individual has the greatest possible freedom. My second value criterion is that the government ought to provide a free market to promote progression through competition. Therefore, it would be unjust for a government to provide health care to its citizens.
a. My first contention is that the citizens should have the freedom to decide if they want to purchase health care and if so who to purchase it from. By regulating health care, the government would destroy patient incentives to find the best possible prices for the best possible services available. The government imposed wage controls during the 1940’s are a large part to blame for the current state of affairs in the United States. Unable to offer a competitive salary, companies began to offer health care benefits as a way to lure potential employees to their company. Through regulating health care, the government is stealing money out of your pocket to provide health care. It is true that you have a right to health care, just as you have a right to food, shelter, and property. However, you have no right to force others to provide these things for you. It is important to note that all “free†medical care is paid for through taxes. Therefore, you will find that other people’s problems become your own. For example, you will see other people eating unhealthy foods, smoking, or doing other unhealthy activities and know that they will eventually be seeing a doctor on your tax dollars. Is it really fair and just for the government to steal your tax dollars to pay for people who support these kinds of risky activities?
b. My second contention is that the government ought not to regulate health care. By regulating health care, the government destroys all physician incentives to provide competitive care, thus destroying drug companies’ incentives to provide new drugs and treatments. As a result, many nurses and physicians will leave the government monopolized areas to places with more opportunities. This will eventually result in a shortage of doctors, with an excess amount of patients. By regulating the cost of certain drugs, drug companies will be forced to make cuts in their research budget in order to account for all the money lost due to these government regulations. Starting drug companies that may have revolutionary ideas will no longer have the funds to run the FDA gauntlet, and as a result, the health care industry will be controlled by a few, well-established companies. Without competition, and having government regulated prices, where will these monopolizing drug companies find the money, not to mention motivation to fund new research? Without new research, how can we expect to survive in a world where there are a constantly growing number of diseases?
III) Attack Opponents Case