args

Universal Healthcare be provided to all American citizens

To begin, I'm glad that you're finally giving credit where it is due, to the places that you're taking your arguments word-for-word from. Your first two cases were blatant plagiarism, and I'm glad you've decided to cite your sources from here on out. 1) Again, you're relying on the logical fallacy that because the government has sometimes performed poorly in the past, one can assume that it will perform poorly in this particular case. As I pointed out before, this is inherently flawed logic. There's nothing stopping the government from cutting back on programs; just because they failed to do so in 2007 does not mean that they would fail to do so again. 2) You're basing this off of private non-profits, that operate outside of the government as charities. That's not at all what we're talking about here. A private non-profit is like the Red Cross; a government non-profit is like the education system. The point I was making here is that a full third of ALL medical expenses go into corporate profit and executive salaries - this is not counting the maintenance costs and employee pay that would still be there under a government non-profit system. This third of the expenses would be completely, 100% eliminated, and replaced with *nothing* because there would be no executive salaries or corporate profit. 3) Hospitals do not treat all patients, regardless of ability to pay. If you've ever been to the emergency room, you'll know that there is always a discussion about the patient's ability to pay. There are horror stories of hospitals refusing care, and even paying taxi cabs to dump people without insurance or the ability to pay out-of-pocket in front of homeless shelters. Besides, there's a lot more to the healthcare industry than hospitals. What about private doctor's clinics? They are by no means required to treat anyone, and they will not treat anyone who cannot pay them, through their insurance or out-of-pocket. What about prescription drugs? Those have to be paid for, by insurance or out-of-pocket, before you can have them. The fact of the matter is that people who do not have the ability to pay for healthcare are excluded from healthcare. And, as I said, it makes much more sense to base exclusion on the necessity of the procedure than on the patient's ability to pay, and that's the way it would be under a government-run system. Onto your new points: 1) On the claim that people would seek medical care for unnecessary things: As you said yourself (in your third point in your Round 2 case), under a government-run system, the government would have regulations against procedures deemed unnecessary. You're completely contradicting yourself here; you complain about the government excluding people from unnecessary procedures, and then proceed to complain about people getting unnecessary procedures. 2) On the claim that it would reduce doctor flexibility: As it is now, doctor flexibility is reduced by insurance companies, which are a whole lot less predictable than set government standards would be. These days, a doctor never knows if they should go through with a procedure, because there's no knowing if the patient's insurance will suddenly throw a curveball and deny payment, leaving the patient to pay out-of-pocket, leaving the doctor unpaid until the patient can work out a way to pay, which can take some time. Under any system that's managed beyond the doctor level, be it by the insurance compaines or by the government, the doctors will never be 100% flexible and in control of what's happening. What we're talking about with universal healthcare is replacing an unpredictable set of restrictions with a predictable, concrete set of restrictions. 3) On the claim that costs would be spread to all Americans, regardless of heatlh: I cannot deny this claim; indeed, this is exactly the point. This is the fundamental basis behind any government program, from Welfare to Medicare to Social Security to the education system. People who don't have children still pay the extra taxes necessary to run an effective education system. So unless you're completely against all taxpayer-funded social programs, including education and social security, you cannot cite this as a reason to be against universal healthcare. And it's not about punishing or rewarding anyone. It's about showing some solidarity, as one nation and one people, and helping those who cannot help themselves in their time of need.