args

Essential services should be socialized, and privatized services should be regulated.

Contrary to pro's assertion, nations with universal healthcare are not nearly as wealthy as the US whose free market system has made it possible. The 2nd wealthiest nation is the PRC whose GDP is only half of the US. Also, average amounts/person are inaccurate because they don't include individual data that accounts for the actual amount spent by each individual (http://epianalysis.wordpress.com...). The US ranks 30 on life expectancy because nations with socialized healthcare have other “progressive” policies such as working limits. People in the EU are limited to 48 hours/week (http://en.wikipedia.org...) meaning that the time spent in stressful work settings is smaller in the EU and stress is a common cause of coronaries (http://www.mindbodygreen.com...) and the US has a higher occurrence of coronary deaths than any of pro's examples (same as pro's source). The US is also good at preventive care in terms of cancer and senior vaccinations (http://www.urban.org...). Its treatment of diabetes is superior to Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, and its cancer treatment is superior to 17 other European nations. On access, even someone who makes minimum wage can afford a visit to the doctor ($180) and one prescription ($161) (http://www.dailyfinance.com...) a year if they are sanitary and frugal. In the long run they may save the excess money to invest, increasing income further. Savings, investments, and wages also grow more quickly when free markets are allowed to work unimpeded (cross apply to living wage argument). Also, if the government controls healthcare, the industry ceases to answer to the market and doesn't have to improve and can even use its power to choose who is served and who isn't based on anything. While this doesn't happen the instant a service is socialized, it should not be risked. On insurance, the reason that companies don’t pay for preexisting conditions, cap the care, and raise rates for those with health risks is that otherwise, the business would pay more money than it brought in and fail. Meaning that payment would have to be out of pocket again which is usually more difficult and costly than using insurance. Income growth, competition, and an incentive to provide low cost education to more of the market will make private education more affordable. Pro has also forgotten that the reason that private schools in the US are high rate is that public schools (everyone pays) have driven the low cost private schools (users pay) off the market while the actual economic cost of public education is enormous (round 1). When looking at public education in other nations and its effect on the economy, we have to analyze the GDP of these nations and their landmasses (https://www.cia.gov...). When comparing the three largest examples pro gave, we find that, put together, Australia and Canada have almost twice the land of the US but only 1/5 of its GDP, showing that public education systems may not serve economies well. Also quality access would be available to most if public education ended allowing cheaper schools back onto the market and giving the current expensive private schools competition. Hoarding wealth isn't theft. Everyone owns wealth if they choose to hoard it, that’s their business, they cease to act in the market and do not benefit from it. This leaves everyone else to exchange their wealth for a different kind of wealth and to generate more. Thus, wealth doesn't move bottom up, or even necessarily up down, it grows in free markets. The oligopolies to which pro refers were likely the cronies of government during the 1800s (http://mises.org...). Business is not as powerful as pro says, it must always answer to the market. If the market doesn’t like the product, the market won't buy it. This is why an oligopoly can't kill competition. If a new competitor appears that has better products, the market will shift to the competitor. I agree that in order to participate in government, people should be informed but if the government is the doing the informing, this power could be as easily abused as power over socialized healthcare. Examples of governments abusing their power over children include the HJ (http://en.wikipedia.org...) and various communist nations where public education was used for brainwashing. Ending welfare creates an incentive to find productive work but the incentive to work is reduced when you are provided with government assistance. With regards to layoffs, fewer people would be laid off if the government didn’t hinder business with heavy taxes, regulations, and monetary stimulus which causes recessions (http://mises.org...) according to Misesian Theory. Also, there is no evidence or logic that says a sense of security helps find jobs. Also, almost anyone has the means to work if they have a big enough incentive to. Pro’s argument on payment & access doesn't constitute evidence or logic, it's just an attempt to appeal to emotion and should not be considered over logic and examples. Yes working conditions were bad by today’s standards but again only because this was the birth of industrial capitalism. Also, the reason that children worked was because otherwise they and their families would have starved or returned to their lives as subsistence farmers with much lower standards of living. Yes the machinery was dangerous and the factories crowded, but that’s what hazard pay is for and again, from 1865 to 1900, income grew by 2.14%/year whereas in the last century it has grown by only 0.85%/year (http://usinfo.org...). This same argument applies to developing nations. Pro affirms that progressivism didn't create wealth or jobs. Also you can’t have a good economy but harm the public overall because the economy is the public. The economy is composed of every individual and business that operates. You harm the economy, you harm the public and vice versa. Pro has stepped back on his statement that the property rights system works (round 3). The reason that some people didn’t sue for damage is partly because of initially slow wealth generation. Another reason is that much land was still publicly owned, it wasn’t until 1862 that the government began to privatize this (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Even then only 10% of it was sold and was distributed throughout not just around factories. Further, environmental damage can't necessarily be prevented by government regulation, the waterways in the US are an example. These aren't privately owned but publicly owned and regulated (http://mises.org...). The government in this instance is one of the biggest polluters because of the publicly run sewage system, there already exist viable and nonpolluting chemical toilets but why buy one when you'll still have to pay for everyone else to pump it into the river. The social market doesn't work well. Correlation is not causation. Scandinavia may seem rich but what does it happen to be sitting on top of? North Sea oil. Similarly, because Saudi Arabia is a rich monarchy doesn't mean that monarchies are the best governments. Also, if we do another analysis regarding land and GDP, with pro's examples here, the combined landmass is still about twice that of the US and yet their total GDP is 3/5 of the US. If one were to graph the Heritage data, you would see that the overall rating for the US fell after the implementation of anti-free market policies which I openly oppose in this debate. Pro again ignores the effect of time on governments with too much power. "Trusts" remains unanswered. Sumarry next round.