args

Doctors should not be allowed to compete with other doctors' prices

Ok: He responds to my A Priori with a bunch of stats and how the US ranked last. Ok, observation: this has nothing to do with anything, and the list he provides is misleading. Infant morality, etc. doesn't have to do with the quality of HealthCare. There are many factors that play in, e.g. drug and alcohol abuse. This effects all the given factors. My A Prior still stands because we are the leader in HealthCare. E.g. the Canadian Prseident came to the US for a triple bypass because its not provided there; its too expensive for their Universal Health Care System. He then brings up that he never proposed a implemented pay for doctors. Ok...then what is he trying to advocate? How can you stop doctor's from competing for price, if you don't make them all pay the same price. He does say however they should be priced on the quality of service. Ok, then this contradicts a statement in his opening argument; that only the rich get the good doctors, therefore we should make them not compete. If we price based on quality then the bad doctors would be less expensive while the good doctors are expensive. As i brought up before, the rich will always get the better doctors, no matter what, its a non-unique argument. My opponent has a lengthy argument, so ill attack it very quickly. Here is the breakdown: I say the quality of medicine comes foremost. If the medicine is bad, then the quality of service means nothing. There is no way to affirm resolution because my opponent's plan will decrease quality of medicine, and then lead to all the negatives I posted in my first argument. My Case: Extend my Value, Value Criterion, and all points, since he failed to attack them. This is an easy negation, ty.