P. 1
Health care

Health care

|Views: 127|Likes:
Publicado porJD Meyer

More info:

Published by: JD Meyer on Feb 14, 2011
Direitos Autorais:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/14/2013

pdf

text

original

Sections

  • Health Care Impacts
  • 2NC Turn Shield
  • Health Care Good – Nano – Impacts – Extinction
  • Health Care Good – Nano – Impacts – Heg
  • Health Care Good – Nano – Impacts – Terror
  • Health Care Good – Nano – Impacts – Nuclear War
  • Health Care Good – Economy – A2: Small Businesses
  • Health Care Good – Economy – Debt
  • Health Care Good – Economy/AT: Alt Cause/Economy Low
  • Health Care Good – Economy
  • Health Care Good – Economy - Stimulus
  • Health Care Good – Economy – Labor Market
  • Health Care Good – Economy – Impacts – War
  • Health Care Good – Competitiveness
  • Health Care Good – Competitiveness – Manufacturing
  • Health Care Good – Competitiveness – Key to Hegemony
  • Health Care Good – Competitiveness – Impacts – Heg
  • Manufacturing Good – Hegemony
  • Manufacturing Good – Economy
  • Health Care Good – Pandemics
  • Health Care Good – Pandemics – Impacts – Extinction
  • Health Care Good – Bioterrorism – Impacts – Death
  • Health Care Good – Entitlement Spending
  • Health Care Good – Entitlement Spending – Key to Econ
  • Entitlement Reform Good – Hegemony
  • Entitlement Reform Good – Space
  • AT: Health Care Bad – Spending
  • AT: Health Care Bad – Bad During Recession
  • AT: Health Care Bad – Entitlement Spending
  • AT: Health Care Bad – Small Businesses
  • AT: Health Care Bad – Innovation
  • AT: Health Care Bad - Innovation
  • AT: Health Care Bad – States Solve
  • AT: Health Care Bad – Biotech
  • Health Care Bad – Nano – Impacts – Disease
  • Health Care Bad – Nano – Impacts – Environment
  • Health Care Bad – Nano – Impacts – Extinction
  • Health Care Bad – Nano – Impacts – War
  • Health Care Bad – Economy – Taxes
  • Health Care Bad – Economy – Business
  • Health Care Bad – Economy – Impacts – A2: War
  • Health Care Bad – Competitiveness
  • Health Care Bad – Competitiveness – Impacts – A2: Key to Econ
  • Health Care Bad – Competitiveness – Impacts – A2: Key to Heg
  • Health Care Bad – Quality
  • Health Care Bad – Biotech – Impacts – A2: Bioterror
  • Biotech Good – Bioterror
  • Biotech Good – Space
  • Biotech Good – A2: Space
  • Health Care Bad – Pharmaceutical Industry
  • Health Care Bad – Innovation
  • Innovation Good – Bird Flu
  • AT: Health Care Good – Economy
  • AT: Health Care Good – Pandemics
  • AT: Health Care Good – Competitiveness

Arizona Debate Institute 2009

Fellows

1 Health Care Impacts

Health Care Impacts
Health Care Impacts....................................................................................................................................................1

Health Care Impacts......................................................................................................................1
2NC Turn Shield.........................................................................................................................................................5

2NC Turn Shield............................................................................................................................5
Health Care Good – Nano...........................................................................................................................................6

Health Care Good – Nano.............................................................................................................6
Health Care Good – Nano...........................................................................................................................................7

Health Care Good – Nano.............................................................................................................7
Health Care Good – Nano – Impacts – Extinction......................................................................................................8

Health Care Good – Nano – Impacts – Extinction......................................................................8
Health Care Good – Nano – Impacts – Heg................................................................................................................9

Health Care Good – Nano – Impacts – Heg................................................................................9
Health Care Good – Nano – Impacts – Terror..........................................................................................................10

Health Care Good – Nano – Impacts – Terror..........................................................................10
Health Care Good – Nano – Impacts – Nuclear War................................................................................................11

Health Care Good – Nano – Impacts – Nuclear War...............................................................11
Health Care Good – Economy..................................................................................................................................12

Health Care Good – Economy....................................................................................................12
Health Care Good – Economy – A2: Small Businesses ..........................................................................................13

Health Care Good – Economy – A2: Small Businesses ...........................................................13
Health Care Good – Economy..................................................................................................................................14

Health Care Good – Economy....................................................................................................14
Health Care Good – Economy – Debt......................................................................................................................15

Health Care Good – Economy – Debt........................................................................................15
Health Care Good – Economy/AT: Alt Cause/Economy Low ................................................................................16

Health Care Good – Economy/AT: Alt Cause/Economy Low ................................................16
Health Care Good – Economy..................................................................................................................................17

Health Care Good – Economy....................................................................................................17
Health Care Good – Economy - Stimulus.................................................................................................................18

Health Care Good – Economy - Stimulus..................................................................................18
Health Care Good – Economy – Labor Market........................................................................................................19

Health Care Good – Economy – Labor Market........................................................................19
Health Care Good – Economy – Impacts – War.......................................................................................................20

Health Care Good – Economy – Impacts – War.......................................................................20

Arizona Debate Institute 2009
Fellows

2 Health Care Impacts

Health Care Good – Competitiveness.......................................................................................................................21

Health Care Good – Competitiveness........................................................................................21
Health Care Good – Competitiveness – Manufacturing...........................................................................................22

Health Care Good – Competitiveness – Manufacturing..........................................................22
Health Care Good – Competitiveness – Key to Hegemony......................................................................................23

Health Care Good – Competitiveness – Key to Hegemony......................................................23
Health Care Good – Competitiveness – Impacts – Heg............................................................................................24

Health Care Good – Competitiveness – Impacts – Heg............................................................24
Manufacturing Good – Hegemony...........................................................................................................................25

Manufacturing Good – Hegemony.............................................................................................25
Manufacturing Good – Economy..............................................................................................................................26

Manufacturing Good – Economy...............................................................................................26
Health Care Good – Pandemics................................................................................................................................27

Health Care Good – Pandemics..................................................................................................27
Health Care Good – Pandemics – Impacts – Extinction...........................................................................................28

Health Care Good – Pandemics – Impacts – Extinction..........................................................28
Health Care Good – Bioterrorism.............................................................................................................................29

Health Care Good – Bioterrorism..............................................................................................29
Health Care Good – Bioterrorism.............................................................................................................................30

Health Care Good – Bioterrorism..............................................................................................30
Health Care Good – Bioterrorism – Impacts – Death...............................................................................................31

Health Care Good – Bioterrorism – Impacts – Death..............................................................31
Health Care Good – Entitlement Spending...............................................................................................................32

Health Care Good – Entitlement Spending...............................................................................32
Health Care Good – Entitlement Spending – Key to Econ.......................................................................................33

Health Care Good – Entitlement Spending – Key to Econ......................................................33
Entitlement Reform Good – Hegemony...................................................................................................................34

Entitlement Reform Good – Hegemony.....................................................................................34
Entitlement Reform Good – Space...........................................................................................................................35

Entitlement Reform Good – Space.............................................................................................35
AT: Health Care Bad – Spending.............................................................................................................................36

AT: Health Care Bad – Spending...............................................................................................36
AT: Health Care Bad – Bad During Recession.........................................................................................................37

AT: Health Care Bad – Bad During Recession.........................................................................37
AT: Health Care Bad – Entitlement Spending..........................................................................................................38

AT: Health Care Bad – Entitlement Spending.........................................................................38

Arizona Debate Institute 2009
Fellows

3 Health Care Impacts

AT: Health Care Bad – Small Businesses.................................................................................................................39

AT: Health Care Bad – Small Businesses..................................................................................39
AT: Health Care Bad – Innovation...........................................................................................................................40

AT: Health Care Bad – Innovation............................................................................................40
AT: Health Care Bad - Innovation............................................................................................................................41

AT: Health Care Bad - Innovation.............................................................................................41
AT: Health Care Bad – States Solve.........................................................................................................................42

AT: Health Care Bad – States Solve..........................................................................................42
AT: Health Care Bad – Biotech................................................................................................................................43

AT: Health Care Bad – Biotech..................................................................................................43
Health Care Bad – Nano – Impacts – Disease..........................................................................................................44

Health Care Bad – Nano – Impacts – Disease...........................................................................44
Health Care Bad – Nano – Impacts – Environment..................................................................................................45

Health Care Bad – Nano – Impacts – Environment.................................................................45
Health Care Bad – Nano – Impacts – Extinction......................................................................................................46

Health Care Bad – Nano – Impacts – Extinction......................................................................46
Health Care Bad – Nano – Impacts – War................................................................................................................47

Health Care Bad – Nano – Impacts – War................................................................................47
Health Care Bad – Economy.....................................................................................................................................48

Health Care Bad – Economy.......................................................................................................48
Health Care Bad – Economy.....................................................................................................................................49

Health Care Bad – Economy.......................................................................................................49
Health Care Bad – Economy.....................................................................................................................................50

Health Care Bad – Economy.......................................................................................................50
Health Care Bad – Economy – Taxes.......................................................................................................................51

Health Care Bad – Economy – Taxes.........................................................................................51
Health Care Bad – Economy – Jobs..........................................................................................................................52

Health Care Bad – Economy – Jobs...........................................................................................52
Health Care Bad – Economy – Jobs..........................................................................................................................53

Health Care Bad – Economy – Jobs...........................................................................................53
Health Care Bad – Economy – Business..................................................................................................................54

Health Care Bad – Economy – Business....................................................................................54
Health Care Bad – Economy – Impacts – A2: War..................................................................................................55

Health Care Bad – Economy – Impacts – A2: War..................................................................55
Health Care Bad – Competitiveness.........................................................................................................................56

Health Care Bad – Competitiveness...........................................................................................56

...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................61 Health Care Bad – Biotech........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................67 Innovation Good – Bird Flu............61 Health Care Bad – Biotech – Impacts – A2: Bioterror.......................................................................................................................................................................................................Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 4 Health Care Impacts Health Care Bad – Competitiveness – Impacts – A2: Key to Econ.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................66 Health Care Bad – Pharmaceutical Industry..........57 Health Care Bad – Competitiveness – Impacts – A2: Key to Econ.................................................................71 AT: Health Care Good – Competitiveness.......64 Biotech Good – Space.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................60 Health Care Bad – Biotech.....................................70 AT: Health Care Good – Pandemics........71 .........................................................62 Health Care Bad – Biotech – Impacts – A2: Bioterror.....60 Health Care Bad – Biotech................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................65 Health Care Bad – Pharmaceutical Industry.....................69 AT: Health Care Good – Economy.................................................................................................................62 Biotech Good – Bioterror.......57 Health Care Bad – Competitiveness – Impacts – A2: Key to Heg.........................................63 Biotech Good – Space....68 AT: Health Care Good – Economy..............................................................................................................68 Innovation Good – Bird Flu................................................................................................................................................................................................................64 Biotech Good – A2: Space..........59 Health Care Bad – Biotech............................................................................66 Health Care Bad – Innovation..................................................................................................................65 Biotech Good – A2: Space........67 Health Care Bad – Innovation............63 Biotech Good – Bioterror................58 Health Care Bad – Competitiveness – Impacts – A2: Key to Heg.................................................70 AT: Health Care Good – Competitiveness...........................................58 Health Care Bad – Quality..................................................................................59 Health Care Bad – Quality......................................................................................................................................................................................69 AT: Health Care Good – Pandemics..................................................................

http://www.” June 14. more individuals. "If nothing happens. rising numbers of uninsured. But the alternative . None of these things will be popular.S." Obama said Saturday in his weekly radio and Internet address.DTL.S." said Fremont Rep. health care system. few officials believe anyone will try again for years to come "The stars are in alignment. If it fails. lower benefits for many people. That failing status quo is why so many people hope health care reform will pass this year. It may require employers to provide health insurance and individuals to buy it. identified by the White House as a key objective. potentially. health care reform will be expensive." . Changing it is a roll of the dice with an outcome that is critical to Democrats' political future and to the nation's economy.a health system that each year creeps closer to bankrupting more businesses. That system accounts for more than $1 of every $6 that Americans spend. entire states and ultimately the U. All sides agree that the current system is trapped in a vicious cycle of rising costs. President Obama and Democrats on Capitol Hill will try to do what no Congress or president has done: reform the U. never is.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/06/13/MNLK185INU. Cost containment. we're in trouble. falling wages and reduced competitiveness. For all the promise of universal coverage. Treasury itself .Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 5 Health Care Impacts 2NC Turn Shield Their impacts are inevitable – collapse of the health care system will happen without reform San Francisco Chronicle 9 (Carolyn Lochhead. It will mean putting the brakes on how doctors and hospitals practice medicine. "Americans are being priced out of the care they need.com/cgi-bin/article. “High Noon on the Hill for Health Care Reform. a top Democrat deeply involved in the House negotiations. Pete Stark. for all the "billion-dollar bills just lying on the sidewalk" that Obama economic adviser Christina Romer described last week as the monumental waste waiting to be saved.is even more costly. following former President Bill Clinton's path to disaster in 1994. It will mean higher taxes and. AD: 7-31-09) Starting this week. One thing is clear: There will be no free lunch.sfgate.

New nanotech and biotech drugs will cure decimating diseases. Kurzweil presents his views at greater length in an elegant and articulate essay in Interactive Week ("Promise and Peril. Glen Hiemstra. I reject Joy's call for relinquishing broad areas of technology . The most obvious danger would come if the United States falls behind the rest of the world and finds itself unable to control the technology. 20 October 2000). the Unabomber?". with digitization of patient records cutting costs and increasing transparency and reliability of care. wants to see universal coverage. after presenting the issues raised by Joy in his Wired piece. And the health-care system itself will be overhauled. self-diagnostic technologies that can be used at home will replace costly doctor visits. Kurzweil acknowledged that any technology has To prevent the potential apocalypse Joy fears. and that would likely require militaristic inherent dangers. Though perhaps he has not fully thought out the true implications or the logical conclusions to his 'tune. Goldsmith. AD: 7-31-09) In health care. we must also recognize that technology represents vast power to be used for all humankind's purposes." . October 2000) makes an interesting case for government involvement and even regulation of nanotechnology development: "Deep government involvement in nanotechnology is more than a practical obligation from a research and national defense persepective. then moves on to outline Bill Joy's thesis as presented in his now-famous Wired article. We have no choice but to work hard to apply these quickening technologies to advance our human values." he says. Martin. reporting on comments by Ray Kurzweil at a symposium held at Carnegie Mellon University on 19 October. December 30.org/Updates/Update43/Update43.. on the idea of fine-scale relinquishment: "I do think that relinquishment at the right level needs to be part of our ethical response to the dangers of 21st century technologies.html. http://www. then you're hosed. but will it improve life?. ." The article concludes by quoting Ralph Merkle of Zyvex: "If you've relinquished it. 2000. "you'd basically have to stop all technological development. is unrealistic. Even so. Kurzweil continues: "Nevertheless. Most people. October 2000). So. would agree that such broad-based relinquishment of research and development is not the answer. he is willing to rethink some very basic assumptions. while allowing folks to purchase insurance privately. as well as his response to Joy's arguments. ." by M. As responsible technologists. . author and founder of Futurist. and we need to support much of the early research so it can be closely tied into government regulation." Kurzweil instead presents his thoughts. Innovation and Design Writer for BusinessWeek. Thompson. as much as possible." The however: It's impossible. I do find fault with Joy's prescription — halting the advance of technology and the pursuit of knowledge in broad fields such as nanotechnology. which have appeared elsewhere. .com/innovate/content/feb2009/id20090225_287985.. "I do share his concerns regarding selfreplicating technologies . Failure to fund nano research ensures planetary destruction from grey goo unleashed by malevolent forces Richard Terra.” February 25. Moving away from employer-provided health care will free us like almost nothing else I can think of. despite what often appears to be a lack of consensus on what those values should be. unwieldy medical equipment that until now has been laboriously wheeled around hospital floors is being transformed into portable machinery that can be used at home or in a remote village. Heavy." The issue of relinquishment was also raised in a brief but interesting article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ("Future technology sure to be fantastic. then we would do better to hope that the invisible hand of Adam Smith's marketplace provides a solution. founded by nanotechnology pioneer Eric Drexler ." Kurzweil writes. our ethics should include such 'fine-grained' relinquishment ." This point of view was echoed in an article in the International Herald Tribune ("Technology's Little-Heeded Prophet. Which it might: A possible solution to gray goo is blue goo: tiny self-replicating police robots that keep the other ones from misbehaving. 23 October 2000).htm?chan=innovation_innovation+ %2B+design_top+stories. Spice.foresight. . Martin concludes: "But if the best solution is to put some kind of governmental authority in charge of deciding what science is good and what is not. I believe." state control. accessed 3/19/03 A lengthy article in The Washington Monthly ("Downsizing.Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 6 Health Care Impacts Health Care Good – Nano Health care reform is key to spurring nano Joseph 9 (Damian." by B. "Although I am often cast as the technology optimist who counters Joy's pessimism. to make sure that.5. and discussing Bill Joy's call for relinquishment.businessweek. the main research bases for this technology develop either on our own soil or with close allies.com. . Media Watch 43. there is no doubt he will play a vital role in the coming debate." Kurzweil concludes on a cautiously optimistic note: "Technology will remain a double-edged sword. ." by N." After a brief overview of the potential benefits and dangers of nanotechnology. The article opens with this outrageous question: "What do you get if you cross Bill Gates with Theodore Kaczynski . the article concludes: "Whatever Bill Joy decides to do. to ask Joy to be more specific about his suggested course of action." he said. ." Thompson goes on to suggest that London." 23 October 2000). “Innovations of the Future. UK-based The Ecologist Magazine ran an interesting piece ("Discomfort and Joy. the article asserts: "There's a gaping hole in Joy's proposed strategy the "logical solution is controlled development.' his intentions are clear.) According to the article. Again. and the story of the 21st century has not yet been written. and unlike others in his field." by Z. . The United States needs to push the science forward but we also need . It's close to becoming a moral imperative. . rather unsuccessfully. . "Health care is at the center of almost all business-labor issues. One salient example of this is the proposed ethical guideline by the Foresight Institute. After attempting. (Taped comments by Bill Joy were also presented. The article cogently summarizes Kurzweil's thesis on the "accelerating pace of innovation" and its likely consequences. But Joy's "call for relinquishment of whole areas of technology . http://www. ." While acknowledging the validity of Joy's concerns about GNR technologies. while we must acknowledge and deal with the dangers.

Our only hope is the emergence of labor-saving technology -pharmacological. if your money is invested in Medicare Advantage Fee-for-Service plans. [As for C:] So far. as President Obama considers it a first target for "infrastructure investment. “Guidance for getting nano right” January 5. and it has also created a web of confusion concerning the actual resources that are being allocated to improving our knowledge of these risks." The federal government's effort so far has resulted in limited understanding of the risks posed by the novel nano-based materials." To further harp about the missed opportunities of the Bush administration to address the risks posed by nanomaterials and foster public trust would be a waste of time. the lack of a comprehensive strategic risk research plan could clearly jeopardize the $14 billion investment governments and private industry worldwide have made in nanotechnology. PEN's analyses over the past three years have highlighted a substantial over-inflation of the government's nanotechnology risk-research investment figures. Finally. The Internet may save costs or be a cost driver.com/columns/?article=262. energy and manufacturing.http://www.aspx. "The committee is concerned that the actual amount of federal funding specifically addressing the EHS risks posed by nanotechnology is far less than portrayed in the [National Nanotechnology Initiative] document and may be inadequate. specialty drugs -. Louis-Charles: What is the best investment opportunity in health care today? Reinhardt: The health system now is this country's economic locomotive and largest job creator. we simply cannot afford to maintain this labor-intensive style. The coming years provide an opportunity for the Obama administration to learn from the past. now would be a good (or late) time to get out. http://www. as well as its great promise for huge advancements in health care. “Can Health Care Heal Our Ailing Economy?. As this technology advances.Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 7 Health Care Impacts Health Care Good – Nano Health care reform is key to public acceptance of nano Rejeski 9 (David. expensive. "An effective national EHS strategic research plan is essential to the successful development of and public acceptance of nanotechnology-enabled products. Professor at Princeton University. Director of the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. I am not so sure about item D. As noted in the new NRC report. These findings were echoed by a Government Accountability Office report from last year and the new NRC report. . "The committee concludes that if no new resources are provided and the current levels of agency funding continue. AD: 7-31-09) Health care traditionally has been highly labor-intensive -.com/investing/general/2009/02/03/can-health-care-heal-our-ailing-economy.g. nanotechnology -. For capitalists. Technology that buys added clinical benefits at enormous costs -." the NRC report says. It has boundless employment opportunities.that can substitute for this expensive labor input.e.hence." Health care reform spurs nano Reinhardt 9 (Uwe.” February 3.5 now to about two by 2025. "Such an evaluation is critical for ensuring that the future of nanotechnology is not burdened by uncertainties and innuendo about potential adverse health and environmental effects. more sophisticated software has been an enabler of ever more perplexing complexity on health care administration.nanotech-now. Microsoft itself has recently released a study on cyberchondria. the research that is generated cannot adequately evaluate the potential health and environment risks and effects associated with engineered nanomaterials to address the uncertainties in current understanding." Cost-reducing medical technology of any kind will be a winner.may have a tougher time selling [its] innovations. health information technology will become a fertile field for investment. But with the number of working-age adults per elderly declining from about 3. which says. Items A and B above fit this bill.. Power plants in Cuba strike me as a more promising deal.fool. electronic. It has not been cost saving overall. AD: 7-31-09) Public perceptions can have large economic impacts.

Founder. Chairman Emeritus. Nanotechnology. and SM from MIT.net/HK/Engines. assemblers definitely are feasible.pdf [Bapodra] Sheer curiosity seems reason enough to examine the possibilities opened by nanotechnology. These developments will sweep the world within ten to fifty years . the conclusions of the following chapters suggest that a wait-and-see policy would be very expensive . . and perhaps end life on Earth. and since molecular machines can direct chemical reactions according to programmed instructions. Is the case for the feasibility of nanotechnology and assemblers firm enough that they should be taken seriously? It seems so. These are (1) that existing molecular machines serve a range of basic functions.that is. “Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology.” 1986. What is more. “Mr. and (2) that parts serving these basic functions can be combined to build complex machines.Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 8 Health Care Impacts Health Care Good – Nano – Impacts – Extinction Nanotechnology can save millions of lives due to its feasibility Eric Drexler. because the heart of the case rests on two wellestablished facts of science and engineering. and Chairman of the Board of Advisors of Foresight Institute. Since chemical reactions can bond atoms together in diverse ways. PhD in Molecular Nanotech.” http://www. within the expected lifetimes of ourselves or our families. but there are stronger reasons.that it would cost many millions of lives. SB.dvara.

The ability to cheaply produce renewable energy on a massive scale will put a political faction in the position to suddenly destabilize the petroleum economy or greatly increase industrial throughput for military applications. breakthroughs in many of the areas impacted by nanotechnology will provide significant political and military leverage to the entity that develops them. quality of life.” http://www.org/commercialization. as the number of nanotech products in U.S.S. access to them and thus on the U. .nanobusiness. better process intelligence data and advance the rate of military research. Access to these computers by potential terrorists would set us back on our global war on terror. Nanomaterials have the potential to save the military billions of dollars by providing wear resistant coatings and protective armors.S. More importantly however. particularly for homeland security.php] The implications of nanotechnology are significant. In addition.Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 9 Health Care Impacts Health Care Good – Nano – Impacts – Heg Renewable energy nanotech is key to US hegemony NBA ‘7. households increases. the country or countries that control the manufacturing and benefit from the commercialization of nanotech products will have significant influence over U. NanoBusiness Alliance [“Nanotechnology Commercialization: Barriers and Solutions. The next generation of super-computers will be able to crack high-security codes with greater ease.

metal and ceramic surface is microscopically different and has its own 'fingerprint'. This is a system so secure that not even the inventors would be able to crack it since there is no known manufacturing process for copying surface imperfections at the necessary level of precision. As well as the security implications. The LSA system recognises the inherent 'fingerprint' within all materials such as paper.the Laser Surface Authentication system (LSA).asp?nid=2254] Ingenia Technology Limited today launches an exciting breakthrough proprietary technology. "Our findings open the way to a new and much simpler approach to authentication and tracking. http://nanotechwire. This applies to almost all paper and plastic documents. Professor Cowburn's LSA system uses a laser to read this naturally occurring 'fingerprint'. in the case of pharmaceuticals. Inspection agencies and customs controls could use the technology to confirm the identity of imported goods and prevent counterfeit. particularly packaging. holograms and watermarks. including passports. The accuracy of measurement is often greater than that of DNA with a reliability of at least one million trillion. developed by Imperial College London and Durham University . This technological breakthrough has been masterminded by Professor Russell Cowburn. plastic. The nearest comparisons to this technology are: barcodes. terrorism and identity theft. metal and ceramics. The main difference is that these products are overt. . whereas Professor Cowburn's is covert (invisible to the naked eye).Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 10 Health Care Impacts Health Care Good – Nano – Impacts – Terror Nano developments provide surveillance systems that solve terror NanoTechWire ‘5 [“Nanotechnology breakthrough by Imperial College will help the war against terrorism. ID cards and other documents such as birth certificates. and therefore more liable to abuse. The LSA system has been brought to market by Ingenia Technology Limited. They can be easily identified with this new technology. plastic. The LSA system is a whole new approach to security and could prove valuable in the war against terrorism through its ability to make secure the authenticity of passports." said Professor Cowburn. The inherent 'fingerprint' is impossible to replicate and can be easily read using a low-cost portable laser scanner.com/news. For example. This could potentially save millions through the avoidance of fraud and reduce the flow of funds to would-be terrorists. credit cards and product packaging. up to 10% of all pharmaceuticals are counterfeits either containing little or no active ingredients. Also Professor Cowburn's technology is resistant to damage and cannot be copied.” 8/26/05. the technology can be applied to commercial applications. Every paper. "This system can be a powerful weapon against fraud. Professor of Nanotechnology in the Department of Physics at Imperial College London. a London-based company which deploys nanoscience to create secure systems.

and closed-cycle life support systems could permit isolation of the shelters from surface contamination. Superconductivity Researcher at U of MD. http://www. Active devices could assist in the absorption of shock-wave energy. No material structure can survive the fireball of a nuclear blast.edu/~mgubrud/nanosec1. Advanced nanotechnology. advanced nanotechnology could eventually undermine their potency as deterrents. and a great improvement in the likelihood of surviving a limited nuclear exchange. perhaps with the aid of nanodevices that pre-cut neat fissures in the rock to minimize energy consumption. The system of shelters could be sufficiently dispersed that it would present no obvious targets for concentrated attack. The result would be a great reduction in the radius of lethality of nuclear explosives. A transportation infrastructure adequate to evacuate urban populations in a crisis (perhaps in as little as a few hours) could also be provided. and nanosystems. .csr. are likely to be especially sensitive to ionizing radiation. “Nanotechnology and International Security. provide relatively effective means of mass civil defense against limited nuclear threats. however. Shelters would probably be located underground.” Foresight 5th Conference Paper.html [Bapodra] If nuclear weapons remain limited in number. could. 1997. especially early generations of them.umd. Moreover. the use of self-replicating systems as a manufacturing base implies that such protection could be afforded to ordinary citizens. in deep tunnels dug by assembler-built machinery. potentially to the entire population.Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 11 Health Care Impacts Health Care Good – Nano – Impacts – Nuclear War Nanotech ensures nuclear survivability Mark Avrum Gubrud.

" Some budget specialists are skeptical. “A Warning for Obama on Deficits. who has been invited to the summit. the New Hampshire Republican who backed out of his commitment to be Obama's commerce secretary and then voted against the stimulus bill. Another frequently mentioned option is raising the retirement age. he said. Despite the embarrassment caused by Gregg's about-face. Robert Reischauer. But any measure will be even more controversial than usual because so many Americans have seen their private retirement plans pummeled by the stock market collapse. you have a greater probability of getting people to sign on to some fiscal diet." Analysts across the political spectrum agree that the current path is unsustainable.” February 23. and tax policy. Obama suggested during his campaign that he might support changing the level of income at which Social Security taxes are calculated. federal spending will go from being about 20 percent of the nation's economy to 42 percent in 2050. A key player in the summit will be Senator Judd Gregg. In any case. He said he is worried that nothing will happen on the most difficult issues until political leaders "have a gun at our heads. warning him not to repeat what they regard as the mistake of President Franklin Roosevelt. about three-quarters of US debt was purchased by foreign interests. That is why many analysts are urging Obama to link changes in Medicare with an overhaul of the health system. a reference to criticism that Obama's stimulus bill was too partisan. . "When you are shoveling out the goodies. In the last four years. the government-run healthcare program for older Americans. according to the Concord Coalition. Gregg said that under such a procedure. as long as most of the benefit cuts and tax increases were not slated to take effect until well after the recession is over.boston. which would translate into higher costs for US taxpayers. http://www. who launched the New Deal but eventually heeded calls to curtail deficit spending. AD: 7-31-09) Budget analysts are worried that a continuing economic crisis will make it impossible to raise sufficient funds from foreign markets to finance the nation's debt. "It can either be very nice public relations or move the ball down the road on what is an impending fiscal tsunami. The major reason is that entitlement programs for older Americans are running short of funds. The system tends to respond only in the face of unavoidable crisis. If other nations lose confidence that the United States will pay its debts. the measures could be passed within a year.Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 12 Health Care Impacts Health Care Good – Economy Health care reform is key to prevent global Depression. some economists fear an international financial crisis could escalate and turn into a worldwide depression. which is expected to increase quickly as baby boomers retire. Medicare. "We need an up-or-down vote on a package that will be unquestionably bipartisan and fair. Medicare." Gregg said. only to see a new recession batter his presidency. most prominently by China. the White House believes that he could be one of its most important allies in the overhaul of Social Security. said Obama should have seized the opportunity to pair the stimulus bill with the overhaul of Social Security. former head of the Congressional Budget Office. Yet some analysts are offering Obama conflicting advice. however." said Reischauer. Medicare. Asked about his hopes for the summit. Unless there is a major budgetary change. and the tax code. Obama is being urged by some analysts to start moving toward a balanced budget as soon as possible to send a signal to the world that deficit spending will abate. is already running a deficit. Social Security is slated to pay out more money than it receives by 2017. it is widely expected that debt purchasers will soon demand higher interest rates. It’s the only way to send a signal of long-term fiscal solvency and prevent a short-term spiraling sell-off of US debt Boston Globe 9 (Michael Kranish. That is because Gregg is the co-sponsor of the measure that would create a bipartisan commission to put together far-reaching recommendations for an up-or-down vote by Congress. In an interview.com/news/nation/articles/2009/02/23/a_warning_for_obama_on_deficits/.

cleveland. If we hope for true economic recovery. The trickle-down effect of the housing crisis is well documented. http://www. then banks and here we are. first housing.com/opinion/index.Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 13 Health Care Impacts Health Care Good – Economy – A2: Small Businesses Health care reform is the only way to resolve the core economic problems and prevent certain collapse – health costs drive foreclosures and kill small businesses McDermott 9 (Jim. the value of our housing stock plummeted. But I say that we cannot afford to delay any longer and that this is precisely the time to act. How could GM possibly compete when it is facing double-digit increases in the cost of health care? Health insurance costs also have resulted in a stagnation of wages for all workers — giving them less discretionary income to spend. our health-care financing structure is directly tied to our employment structure. As more and more homeowners went into foreclosure. Workers are now paying $1. Another contributing factor to our economic recession has been the growing inability of our large and small businesses to afford health care.html.5 million families lose their homes to foreclosure every year because of unaffordable medical costs.ssf/2009/01/comprehensive_healthcare_refor. But health-care costs have had a direct impact on foreclosures. you go to the doctor.600 more in premiums annually for family coverage than they did in 1999. we have to address the crisis in our health-care system. AD: 7-31-09) Some say we cannot afford health-care reform during this time of economic upheaval. An estimated 1. being insured does not mean access to affordable health care. one only needs to look at the reasons our economy is in free fall. If you have a heart attack. “Comprehensive health care reform will restore prosperity and help Americans. Health care is an expense that you cannot postpone or shop around for when you need it.” January 25. which negatively affected all homeowners. yet wages have not kept pace. A recent survey estimates that 25 percent of people entering foreclosure said that their housing problems resulted from medical debt. This is about providing real health-care security for all Americans. Today. Health insurance premiums have risen nearly 6 percent a year over the last several years. General Motors cannot compete with foreign car companies that do not have the health-care costs burden facing GM. and many of these families are insured as well. This is not just about covering the uninsured. If your child has a fever. First it was the housing crisis. you go to the nearest emergency room. Mclatchy-Tribune. . Whether we like it or not. To truly understand why health-care reform must be part of an economic recovery plan.

September 16.Preventing.500 savings in medical costs for the typical family. Sen. With large patient pools. adjunct law professor at McGeorge School of Law. . Mr. We spend 40% more than other countries such as Canada and Switzeraland on health care -. insecurity and a flood of personal bankruptcies. Doctors and hospitals today are paid for performing procedures. The doubling of health insurance premiums since 2000 makes employers choose between cutting benefits and hiring fewer workers.com/article/SB122152292213639569. the impact of the Obama plan will be profound. Berkeley.and the Obama direction is far superior. We know these savings are attainable: other countries have them today. Given the current inefficiencies in our system. and businesses and individuals would no longer have to subject themselves to that costly and stressful process.but our health outcomes are no better. The lower cost of benefits will allow employers to hire some 90. . Besides the $2. Workers currently locked into jobs because they fear losing their health benefits would be able to move to entrepreneurial jobs. The Obama plan would give individuals and small firms the option of joining large insurance pools. Barack Obama and John McCain propose to lead us in opposite directions -. The result is lost profits and lost wages. He does this in five ways: . money and resources weeding out the healthy from the sick. Obama's proposal will modernize our current system of employer.Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 14 Health Care Impacts Health Care Good – Economy Health care reform is key to the economy – comparatively. not for helping patients. In today's health-care market. allowing millions previously priced out of the market to afford insurance.Pooling. tax credits for those still unable to afford private coverage. according to our research annual business-sector costs will fall by about $140 billion.Learning. 9 “Why Obama's Health Plan Is Better. .000 low-wage workers currently without jobs because they are currently priced out of the market. and the option to buy in to the federal government's benefits system.Covering. Guaranteeing access to preventive services will improve health and in many cases save money. made and kept follow-up appointments) in a coordinated effort to focus the entire payment system around better health. Our figures suggest that decreasing employer costs by this amount will result in the expansion of employer-provided health insurance to 10 million previously uninsured people.500 for the typical family.and government-provided health care. keeping what works well. less than one dollar in 25 goes for prevention.html. in addition to pointless risk. In addition. portable alternative at a price they can afford.” The Wall Street Journal. . and making the investments now that will lead to a more efficient medical system. a few people incurring high medical costs will not topple the entire system. It also would pull one and a half million more workers out of low-wage low-benefit and into high-wage high-benefit jobs. . treatments and patient management strategies. Insurers make money by dumping sick patients. but the rising cost of health care. Rising health costs push total employment costs up and wages and benefits down. [J. The reforms described above will lower premiums by $2.Rewarding. not by keeping people healthy. even though preventive services -. not just more care. or simply work part time. . Bradford Delong and Ann Marie Marciarille] professor of economics at Harvard professor of economics at University of California. AD: 7-31-09) The big threat to growth in the next decade is not oil or food prices. http://online.nearly $1 trillion -. Fifty billion dollars will jump-start the long-overdue information revolution in health care to identify the best providers.wsj. Controlling long-run health-care costs requires removing the hidden expenses of the uninsured. Obama proposes to base Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements to hospitals and doctors on patient outcomes (lower cholesterol readings. it’s the biggest internal link to strong growth Cutler et al 8 (David. will ensure that all individuals have access to an affordable. so insurers would no longer need to waste time.regular screenings and healthy lifestyle information -.are among the most cost-effective medical services around. Sustained growth thus requires successful health-care reform. One-third of medical costs go for services at best ineffective and at worst harmful.

an approach supported by many experts as the best way to break the political deadlock.com/time/politics/article/0. Obama is banking on a number of recent developments to allow him to succeed where Bush and Clinton failed. a research associate at the Urban Institute. like money for new health-information technologies and preventative disease spending.Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 15 Health Care Impacts Health Care Good – Economy – Debt Failure on health care reform collapses international support for holding US debt. "We are truly going to rise and fall together. On Sunday. which would have a damaging impact on the U. http://www. a widely recognized first step in controlling costs. this will mean giving uninsured Americans good news.S. recently discussed his proposal for such a commission during a White House meeting with Obama and other moderate. who was able to take over the reins in Congress in part because of the resentment caused by Bush's failed reform effort. which has forced everyone in Washington to focus on the nation's long-term fiscal problems. The provision passed. declaring at the bill signing in Denver. "Someone is going to have to tell people you are not going to get the care you want. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urged Chinese leaders to continue their investments in U.8599." The effort to reform Social Security. "The key is going to be a required congressional vote.S. "Covering the uninsured is easy compared to that.1881223. Tennessee Representative Jim Cooper. noting the concerns of certain congressional leaders that they will lose jurisdiction with an independent commission. which is generally seen as a less complex problem." one high-level White House official told TIME last week. is likely to take a backseat over the coming months to health-care efforts." Perhaps the biggest advantage that Obama has as he prepares to tackle entitlement is the financial crisis." The companies that depend on federal and state health largesse are already mobilizing to fight back against spending reductions that could hurt their balance sheets. mobilized last month to water down a House plan for more than $1 billion in the stimulus bill to study the relative effectiveness of certain medical treatments. "We would not do an expansion of health care without a lot of savings. a centrist Democrat. economy. The recent explosion of government spending to handle the banking collapse and housing crisis has concerned nations like China. It's a campaign promise that Obama made. other provisions of the stimulus bill. One industry front group. Although Administration officials don't like discussing the problem on the record. In the meantime.00. the White House has not yet ruled out the idea of establishing an independent commission (outside the congressional committee structure) to look at creating a specific reform plan. debt could lead to a spike in interest rates. This is partly because of resistance by many House liberals to the idea of reducing Social Security benefits. A drop in international interest in U.html. but not before its language was changed to decouple the effort from evaluating the costs of competing treatments. have effectively jump-started the move to a more cost-contained health-care system. Early last week." says Howard Gleckman." she warned . "We have to approach the topic very gingerly. For one. so-called Blue Dog Democrats. This group includes House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. debt. February 23." Cooper said in an interview. Obama made no secret of his pride in these measures. AD: 7-31-09) As daunting as the obstacles to reform are.S. causing quick economic collapse Scherer 9 (Michael.time. there is significant appetite in the Democratcontrolled Congress for providing more health care to the growing ranks of the uninsured. while at the same time telling patients and health providers that bad medicine is on the horizon. "We have done more in 30 days to advance the cause of health reform than this country has done in a decade. which buy government debt. called the Partnership to Improve Patient Care. In practice. so we can't duck the problem any longer. “Can Obama Actually Achieve Entitlement Reform?” Time Magazine. which he now intends to pair with a demand to reduce long-term health-care inflation in what some observers have called a grand bargain.

Forget any suggestion that reform is too expensive or that it would take too long to have an impact. or didn't get the care they needed because of cost. p. and it would break the health-care reform log-jam. on both counts.3 million workers. With universal health care. The New Stimulus Package To stave off an unwelcome reprise of the 1930s.9 million workers. it would boost the financial security of ordinary Americans.7 million since December. Considering all the actions being taken by the U.com.had trouble paying their medical bills or were paying off accrued medical debt from the past year. [It would certainly be good for General Motors. or 19. the incoming Obama Administration and Congress are preparing a large fiscal stimulus package for the New Year.5%. support for struggling homeowners.72 million people -. 12/05/08]. [That's up from 34%.7% and the ranks of the jobless have increased by 2. the risk that a disinflationary recession deepens into a deflationary depression remains remote.4% a year ago.] Universal coverage would boost the economy in the short term. The problems associated with America's badly frayed healthcare system are well known. Targeting fiscal stimulus toward universal coverage would help ordinary workers rather than Wall Street tycoons.000 jobs in November [BusinessWeek. [Those over 65 already have a version of universal coverage through Medicare. Treasury and Federal Reserve to shore up the economy. and various tax relief measures are all going into the legislative sausage-making apparatus for 2009. employers slashed 533. The country spends a world-beating 16% of gross domestic product on health. lexis. in 2005. faced steep out-of-pocket medical costs relative to their incomes. only major health care reform can reverse course and boost the economy in the short and long term Business Week 8 (“Want Real Stimulus? Try Universal Health Care. some form of a bailout for the Detroit auto industry. the U.S. 5 employment report: U. and that number is guaranteed to have risen in the meantime with the recession that began a year ago. Wrong. yet in international comparisons it lags behind a number of key measures. ranks 29th in infant mortality and 48th in life expectancy. But it isn't inconceivable.S. For instance. had difficulties paying their medical bills. were either uninsured for a time. in 2007 an estimated 116 million people. . and others barely working] stands at a dismaying 12.” December 8. The reason is that the financial side of the health-care equation is deteriorating rapidly for the average American family. according to the Commonwealth Fund Biennial Health Insurance Survey.'s Dec. The number of people without health insurance was 38 million in 2007.should top the list. A big boost in public infrastructure spending.specifically. The broadest measure of unemployment [a figure that includes the unemployed.] Taken altogether. or 12.Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 16 Health Care Impacts Health Care Good – Economy/AT: Alt Cause/Economy Low Our internal link swamps every alt-cause and takeout – 1930’s-style Great Depression now. Rx for a Healthy Economy To paraphrase and update a famous quote about General Motors (GM). It would also relieve a major source of economic insecurity for anyone handed a pink slip during the recession. Some 41% of working-age adults -. up from 8. or 58 million people. Yet major health-care reform -. too. money to shore up the financial system.S. The latest salvo of grim tidings came courtesy of the Labor Dept. everyone under age 65 would be covered by a qualified health insurance company or through a government-sponsored program.] The list of legislative initiatives is long. employees laboring part-time. the largest monthly decline in more than three decades. universal health care -. A bold embrace of universal health care offers policymakers the chance at a fiscal tripleplay: Universal coverage would stimulate the economy. Economists guesstimate the size of the ultimate package at somewhere between $300 billion and $500 billion. The unemployment rate now stands at 6. [That's more than double or about triple the tax rebate program from earlier this year. 7-31-09) The economy is in a tailspin. or two-thirds of working-age adults.] The case for long-term reform is compelling. what's good for health-care reform is good for the economy.

but we waste as much as $700 billion a year on tests and treatments that cannot be shown to improve health.5 million jobs and cut incomes by $1. straining families. “The Economic Imperative for Health Reform. according to one study. Overhauling this health care system to cover everyone and reduce waste is an economic imperative for three reasons. virtually none of the benefits of any growth will be felt Kvaal 8 (James. The rising tide of red ink that threatens to drown the federal budget and swamp the economy in the coming years is primarily due to rising health care costs. even at the cost of higher deficits in the short term. AD: 7-31-09) America’s economy is buckling under a broken health care system.americanprogress. businesses. There are 46 million Americans without health insurance. First.html. Uninsured individuals who lacked access to quality health care in 2006 cost the economy as much as $200 billion. Year after year.Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 17 Health Care Impacts Health Care Good – Economy ( ) Health care reform accesses the biggest internal link to the economy – without reform. Finally. and government budgets. Some patients receive excellent care. Accidents and illnesses can drive the families who lack adequate health coverage deep into debt and devastate their financial security. health care costs grow faster than the rest of the economy. it could be the most fiscally responsible course. Some have suggested that we cannot afford to address these problems in the midst of a recession. 12-9. ever-rising health care costs are threatening to drive an unsustainable explosion in the national debt. Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress. If health reform slows growth in health care costs. The higher taxes and insurance premiums necessary to meet rising health care costs threaten to consume the benefits of nearly all economic growth over the next four decades. Second. Addressing health care can stimulate the economy and create jobs now.” online: http://www. high health care costs put many American businesses at a disadvantage to their foreign competitors and lead to lower wages and fewer jobs.700. . while laying the foundation for stronger and shared economic growth in the coming years. 2008. But postponing health reform would be penny-wise and pound-foolish. our system is a threat to families’ health and financial security. A 20 percent increase in health insurance premiums would cost 3.org/issues/2008/12/health_imperative.

That funnels cash back into the economy. More important. where would the money come from? And. they start spending money on other things.” December 24. universal health insurance will require an infusion of somewhere between $50 billion and $130 billion per year. Fully implemented. because infrastructure spending creates jobs. But spending on what exactly? Infrastructure is the most obvious target. expanding those programs provides a superb economic stimulus. "is good for our economy. surely it's more important to maximize the number of people with jobs and steady incomes. most proposals for universal coverage start with a federally financed expansion of Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. a well-respected budget expert. That means more poor people would get health insurance right away. On the other hand. surely come by sincerely." . promoting growth.Stimulus Health care reform key to the economy – provides a short-term stimulus by freeing up income The New Republic 8 (“Dynamic Duo. they purchase medical goods and services. But recent reports suggest that the number of projects that are ready to go--that is. even the most hard-core fiscal conservatives are discovering their inner Keynesians. while it's important to maximize the number of people with health insurance. On the contrary. By now." Gruber concluded. There's also the possibility of tax rebates. the economic downturn actually makes the case for universal health insurance even stronger than it was before. With the annual budget deficit likely to hit $1 trillion this year. AD: 7-31-09) It's a superficially logical argument--one that people like Reischauer. And. But recent experience suggests that all but the poorest tend to save the money rather than spend it--which basically defeats the purpose. calling for new government spending to stimulate the economy. Start with the present economic crisis. "Health care reform.Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 18 Health Care Impacts Health Care Good – Economy . But neither argument holds up that well under scrutiny. as economist Jonathan Gruber argued recently in The New York Times. since they no longer have to put aside money to pay for medical emergencies. When poor people get health insurance. which is just a fraction of the stimulus many economists say we need in the very near future. lexis. those that could start up as soon as money is available--would account for only tens of billions in new spending.

lexis. this phenomenon. They may hire fewer workers eligible for insurance and work them longer hours. Making health insurance universally available would change that.” online: http://www." distorts the labor market and makes the economy less efficient than it would be otherwise. that universal health care should ultimately make life easier for businesses struggling with the cost of employee coverage. AD: 7-31-09) Universal health care can also bolster the economy's long-term health in other ways. Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress. As a result.americanprogress. . Don't forget. too. whether by encouraging investments in information technology (something most reform plans would do. Employers have incentives to hire part-time workers who are ineligible for health benefits. Sometimes people stay in jobs they'd prefer to leave just because they fear losing their insurance. many workers do not want to leave their jobs because they fear losing or changing health insurance. Reform increases labor market efficiency and encourages innovation in other sectors The New Republic 8 (“Dynamic Duo. Rising costs exacerbate these problems. AD: 7-31-09) Our health care system also distorts the labor market. the fragmented system of health insurance creates “job lock” that impairs the flexible labor markets that strengthen the economy. known as "job lock. “The Economic Imperative for Health Reform. If that need doesn't sound pressing to you.html. And. 12-9. check out the auto companies' latest stock prices.org/issues/2008/12/health_imperative. just like investments in infrastructure. investments in health care--properly targeted--can improve productivity. At the same time. in order to streamline record-keeping) or simply by creating a healthier workforce.” December 24.Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 19 Health Care Impacts Health Care Good – Economy – Labor Market Reform increases labor market flexibility – that’s key to the economy Kvaal 8 (James. 2008.

invasions and mass destruction attacks. in this context. American appeasement and disarmament.com/stormw. renowned expert in geopolitics and international relations. due in part to a policy of massive credit expansion. the planet’s economy would contract and untold millions would die of starvation. the American people will likely support politicians who advocate further restrictions and controls on our market economy – guaranteeing its strangulation and the steady pauperization of the country. A future financial crash.” . we can expect to see policies of appeasement and unilateral disarmament enacted. But this time the war would be waged with mass destruction weapons and the United States would be blamed because it is the center of global capitalism. “The Political Consequences of a Financial Crash. Sen. Furthermore. above all. Furthermore. Nationalistic totalitarianism. “We drank the poison and now we must die. As one observer recently lamented.S.Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 20 Health Care Impacts Health Care Good – Economy – Impacts – War U. 5 [J. therefore. therefore.” February 4. WorldNetDaily contributing editor. Russia and China. that the coming economic contraction. will have serious political consequences for the Republican Party (to the benefit of the Democrats). The withdrawal of the United States from the Middle East. economic decline causes global economic decline and war Nyquist. an economic contraction will encourage the formation of anti-capitalist majorities and a turning away from the free market system.R..financialsense. In Congress today. would once again bring war to Asia and Europe. if the anti-capitalist party gains power in Washington. fueled by a politics of blame. Edward Kennedy supports nearly all the economic dogmas listed above. www. would be an admission of guilt before the court of world opinion. The political left openly favors the collapse of America’s strategic position abroad.2005/0204. would exploit this admission to justify aggressive wars. But we cannot do this. Should anti-capitalist dogmas overwhelm the global market and trading system that evolved under American leadership. must be prevented at all costs. The danger here is not merely economic. It is easy to see.. the Far East and Europe would catastrophically impact an international system that presently allows 6 billion people to live on the earth’s surface in relative peace.html] Should the United States experience a severe economic contraction during the second term of President Bush.

Often. Moreover. according to a report by the Employment Policy Foundation.9 trillion annually on healthcare expenses. Democrats embrace expanding public-private partnerships while Republicans generally favor less government control. For small business owners they can be even more devastating. “Healthcare Costs and U.” it is apparent that “under a million service-sector jobs in the United States have been lost to offshoring to date.S. have shied away from making such estimates. however. businesses will outsource jobs overseas or offshore business operations completely.S. the country with the second highest expenditures. In 2004. when 65 percent of the country had some form of employer coverage. Competitiveness. and individuals. and some have criticized Blinder’s approach. and estimates that by 2008 that number could reach $2. With the 2008 presidential campaign in full swing. though the specifics of competing plans vary wildly. based on data from the Kaiser Family Foundation. According to 2005 data from the U.500 to the sticker price of every automobile it makes. “In many places.” Sarbanes says. Census Bureau. These costs prompt fears that an increasing number of U. online: http://www. told CFR. economists disagree on the number of U. a member of the House Education and Labor Committee.Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 21 Health Care Impacts Health Care Good – Competitiveness Rising health care costs tank U. GM says healthcare costs alone add $1. the most recent official data available. rising 87 percent since 2000. Competitive Disadvantage Employer-funded coverage is the structural mainstay of the U. competitiveness – reform is key Teslik 8 (Lee Hudson. It is difficult to quantify the precise effect high healthcare costs have had so far on the U. in a 2006 Foreign Affairs article.S. Representative John P. AD: 7-31-09) Factoring in costs borne by government.” March 18.org that in light of these concerns a “consensus is emerging” on Capitol Hill to do something to ease pressures on U. more than any other industrialized country. footing healthcare costs presents an enormous expense—the company says it spent roughly $5. Blinder. The Princeton economist Alan S.S.S. the United States spends over $1. Many other economists. Those numbers have fallen since 2001. says that judging by data compiled from “fragmentary studies. .1 million employees and former employees.cfr. Democratic and Republican candidates disagree sharply on which way reform should go. that healthcare expenses affect every level of U. U.S. and 134 percent more than the median for member states of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).000.S. the private sector. Researchers at Johns Hopkins Medical School estimate the United States spends 44 percent more per capita than Switzerland.org/publication/13325/.S. employer-provided health benefits cover 175 million Americans. or about 60 percent of the population.S. Premiums have skyrocketed. employers. Associate Editor for the Council on Foreign Relations. Sarbanes (D-MD). For large corporations they mean the massive “legacy costs” associated with insuring retired employees. which covers more than 1. healthcare expenses make it impossible for small business owners to hire candidates they would otherwise desire. you have small businesses that simply cannot afford to offer coverage.6 billion on healthcare expenses in 2006. job market.S. employers.” Blinder goes on to predict that somewhere between 28 million and 42 million U. jobs that have been lost to offshoring—the transfer of business operations across national boundaries to friendlier operating environments. health insurance system. Many experts recommend some form of increased public-private partnership.S. however. jobs are “susceptible” to offshoring in a future where technology allows the more efficient transfer of jobs. industry.S. a nonprofit focused on healthcare issues. It is clear. health coverage became the most expensive benefit paid by U. he says. Healthcare is one of several factors—entrenched union contracts are another—that make doing business in the United States expensive and it’s difficult to parse the effects of each factor. These ballooning dollar figures place a heavy burden on companies doing business in the United States and can put them at a substantial competitive disadvantage in the international marketplace. For large multinational corporations like General Motors.

industry. Economists believe that over time higher premiums primarily translate into lower wages. according to research by Katherine Baicker and Amitabh Chandra. Today.5 million workers their jobs. particularly for the workers most likely to incur higher health care costs. and cut average annual income by $1. according to the New America Foundation. Rising health care costs will drive up taxes and premiums. which have been the primary source of health coverage for nearly 75 years. American manufacturers are paying more than twice as much on health benefits as most of their foreign competitors (measured in cost per hour).S. particularly manufacturing Kvaal 8 (James.700. Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress.americanprogress. eating up 95 percent of the growth in per capita gross domestic product between 2005 and 2050.” online: http://www. 2008.Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 22 Health Care Impacts Health Care Good – Competitiveness – Manufacturing Rising health care costs hose the competitiveness of U. A 20 percent increase in health insurance premiums would cost 3. businesses. Higher health insurance premiums translate directly into higher labor costs.S. AD: 7-31-09) Rising health care costs put a particular burden on U.org/issues/2008/12/health_imperative. “The Economic Imperative for Health Reform. . lead a similar number of workers to move from full-time to part-time work. Premiums are expected to increase by 20 percent in less than four years. the majority of Americans—158 million people—receive health coverage from their job or a family member’s job.html. forcing employers to cut back their workforces. Older industries are particularly burdened by the cost of health coverage for their workers and retirees. 12-9.

Issue 1. where the U. military excels. Vol. 5 What are the sources of U.Japan with 7 percent of GWP and China with 10 percent. According to the Central Intelligence Agency. the military personnel needed to run these systems are among the most highly skilled and highly trained in the world.S.1Finally. command of the commons? One obvious source is the general U.S.S. is a key element. superiority in economic resources. In 2001 the U. The specific weapons and platforms needed to secure and exploit command of the commons are expensive. Pg. They depend on a huge scientific and industrial base for their design and production. n14 With 3.5 percent of U.S. the U. it has more than twice as many resources under the control of a single political authority as either of the next two most potent economic powers -. defense industry excels. the United States produces 23 percent of gross world product (GWP).Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 23 Health Care Impacts Health Care Good – Competitiveness – Key to Hegemony Competitiveness key to maintain a military that discourages any challengers Barry Posen (Political Science Professor at MIT) Summer 2003 “Command of the Commons".S. . Department of Defense budgeted nearly as much money for military research and development as Germany and France together budgeted for their entire military efforts. International Security.S. a field where the U. nThe military exploitation of information technology. 28. military can undertake larger projects than any other military in the world. The barriers to entry to a state seeking the military capabilities to fight for the commons are very high.S. gross domestic product devoted to defense (nearly 1 percent of GWP). The development of new weapons and tactics depends on decades of expensively accumulated technological and tactical experience embodied in the institutional memory of public and private military research and development organizations. The systems needed to command the commons require significant skills in systems integration and the management of large-scale industrial projects.

this is the biggest impact – nuclear war.The worst effects of the new Dark Age would be felt on the edges of the waning great powers. the great plagues of AIDS and malaria would continue their deadly work. An economic meltdown in China would plunge the Communist system into crisis. say. In Latin America. that this Dark Age would be an altogether more dangerous one than the Dark Age of the ninth century. Be careful what you wish for. terrorists could disrupt the freedom of the seas. Technology has upgraded destruction. as Europe's Muslim enclaves grew. “A World Without Power” Foreign Policy http://www. Houston or Chicago. and capital—has raised living standards throughout the world. labor.S. professor of history at Harvard University. senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. globalization—the integration of world markets for commodities.Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 24 Health Care Impacts Health Care Good – Competitiveness – Impacts – Heg A world without United States leadership would create a power vacuum. the prospect of an apolar world should frighten us today a great deal more than it frightened the heirs of Charlemagne. aircraft carriers. The few remaining solvent airlines would simply suspend services to many cities in these continents. wretchedly poor citizens would seek solace in Evangelical Christianity imported by U. except where countries have shut themselves off from the process through tyranny or civil war. visit. The reversal of globalization—which a new Dark Age would produce—would certainly lead to economic stagnation and even depression. And far more dangerous forces than rival great powers would benefit from such a not-so-new world disorder. religious orders. It would be apolarity—a global vacuum of power. targeting oil tankers. unleashing the centrifugal forces that undermined previous Chinese empires. or even a return to the good old balance of power.The trouble is. If the United States retreats from global hegemony—its fragile self-image dented by minor setbacks on the imperial frontier—its critics at home and abroad must not pretend that they are ushering in a new era of multipolar harmony.mtholyoke. Meanwhile. too. increasing trans-Atlantic tensions over the Middle East to the breaking point. who would wish to leave their privately guarded safe havens to go there?For all these reasons. For the world is much more populous—roughly 20 times more—so friction between the world's disparate “tribes” is bound to be more frequent. now human societies depend not merely on freshwater and the harvest but also on supplies of fossil fuels that are known to be finite.edu/acad/intrel/afp/vac. In Africa. Incipient anarchy. economic collapse. As the United States sought to protect itself after a second September 11 devastates. A coming retreat into fortified cities. so it is now possible not just to sack a city but to obliterate it. July/August 2004.htm So what is left? Waning empires. These are the Dark Age experiences that a world without a hyperpower might quickly find itself reliving. The alternative to unipolarity would not be multipolarity at all. disease Niall Ferguson.limited nuclear wars could devastate numerous regions. . With ease. Western investors would lose out and conclude that lower returns at home are preferable to the risks of default abroad.For more than two decades. Technology has transformed production. while Western nations frantically concentrated on making their airports secure. less hospitable for foreigners seeking to work. it would inevitably become a less open society. beginning in the Korean peninsula and Kashmir. Religious revivals. Meanwhile. or do business. and cruise liners. Islamist extremists' infiltration of the EU would become irreversible.The wealthiest ports of the global economy—from New York to Rotterdam to Shanghai—would become the targets of plunderers and pirates. perhaps ending catastrophically in the Middle East. of course.

"play a significant role in the world"? The goal of this presentation is to get everyone to think more strategically--more long-term--about U. national strength. If we look only at the costs and determine that another country can do all those things cheaper." If the United States loses its manufacturing capability. I doubt it very much. especially those in manufacturing? At-risk industries and technologies Manufacturing is. as Kissinger puts it. then we require careful thought on national policy. former secretary of state Henry Kissinger told a crowd of technology professionals that "if outsourcing continues to strip the U." He went on to say: "The question is whether America can remain a great or a dominant power if it becomes a service economy.S.S. indeed. “The Erosion of the U. R&D. the country will still survive. of its industrial base and the ability to develop its own technology. I think that a country has to have an industrial base in order to play a significant role in the world. then we limit our strength and the speed of our innovation cycles to that of low-cost nations. With a strong manufacturing base comes engineering. and innovation. Defense Industrial Base.S. Do we really want to race to the bottom? At what point has so much technology and manufacturing skill left the United States that we become too reliant on foreign suppliers for the core components of our defense manufacturing capabilities? Here's a short list of "at-risk" industries and technologies to which we must begin to pay much more attention. March 1) In 2003. but will we still be able to lead and.Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 25 Health Care Impacts Manufacturing Good – Hegemony Manufacturing is key to hegemony Manzullo 5 (Donald. What does it mean if America loses its edge in innovative technologies. the core of our nation's strength. .” ASM International.

in turn. transportation. which now makes up more than 70 percent of the U. There is no dispute over the significant contribution that manufacturing makes to the U.S.5 . Those statistics. and other services in the course of doing business. do not adequately convey the importance of the manufacturing sector to the U. And expanding the power of computers makes on-line banking and other financial services possible.gov/media/Publications/pdf/manuam0104final. The sector continues to account for 14 percent of U.Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 26 Health Care Impacts Manufacturing Good – Economy Strong manufacturing is independently key to the economy Chamber of Commerce 4 (“Manufacturing in America: A Comprehensive Strategy to Address the Challenges to U. improvements in cotton harvesting equipment. economy and to America’s standard of living. economy and to America’s future.1 The automotive sector provides a good example.ita. AD: 7-3109) Manufacturing is crucial to the U. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. buys products and services from them.3 As one leading economist put it: A nation’s standard of living in the long term depends on its ability to attain a high and rising level of productivity in the industries in which its firms compete. help improve the productivity of cotton growers in California and Texas. The NIST study detailed the service sector’s reliance on U. It emphasized “the substantial dependency of services on manufacturing firms for technology” and the “critical role” manufacturing plays in stimulating growth in the services sector. A healthy manufacturing sector is critical to America’s economic future for other reasons as well—innovation and productivity.S. January. every $1 of final demand spent for a manufactured good generates $0. economy. Manufacturing is an integral part of a web of inter-industry relationships that create a stronger economy.S. For example. Manufacturers.pdf. A recent study by the National Institute of Standards and Technology reinforces how the benefits of improved manufacturing productivity extend to other sectors in the economy.S.45 of GDP in nonmanufacturing sectors. but the benefits of rising manufacturing productivity extend to the economy as a whole. health. Every individual and industry depends on manufactured goods.55 of GDP in the manufacturing sector and $0.4 Rising productivity is the key to maintaining U. employment.S. however. Manufacturing spurs demand for everything from raw materials to intermediate components to software to financial. manufacturers for the goods and technology that spur service sector growth. GDP and 11 percent of total U. and productivity gains are the key to both economic growth and a rising standard of living.S.S. competitiveness in manufacturing. manufactured in the Midwest. http://www.S. legal. innovations and productivity gains in the manufacturing sector provide benefits far beyond the products themselves.doc.S. In addition. accounting.2 Innovation holds the key to rising productivity. Manufacturing sells goods to other sectors in the economy and. economy. The production of automobiles stimulates the demand for everything from raw materials in the form of coal and iron to manufactured goods in the form of robots to the purchase of services in the form of health insurance for the automobile companies’ employees.

A recent epidemic scare happened in 2007 when Andrew Speaker. Imagine what could have happened if Speaker could not have seen a doctor. Earlier detection also helps to reduce the likelihood that drug-resistant strains develop in the general population. David versus Goliath. proceeded to travel overseas and back on commercial flights for his wedding and honeymoon. Imagine a situation where a patient actually sees a doctor. a company that makes health and fitness DVDs. Speaker was diagnosed and authorities were informed that he was infected. but the bacteria becomes resistant to penicillin. The flu epidemic of 1918 killed one-fifth of the world’s population in about two years. Fortunately. creating drug-resistant strains. "I was an Obama supporter. The Stamford Times. Early detection is a key advantage in controlling epidemics and preventing deaths. after receiving a diagnosis of drug-resistant tuberculosis." Health care reform is key to prevent diseases from becoming pandemics. Poverty also compromises the strength of one’s immune system. It solves mutation and transmission Vanessa Mason. resulting in more deaths from the epidemic than World War I. and I think they virtually have to solve this.com/story/462337. http://thestamfordtimes. Speaker was already out of the country when before authorities realized that he was infected with multi-drug resistant tuberculosis. This is really a new time. if so. which is the most difficult strain to treat. Kamen was hopeful that presidentelect Obama's administration would provide a solution. The greed of the past is gone. Implementing universal health care is an important step in the right direction. 3) Universal health care enables consistent access to proper treatment. infecting others. While it seems that one side has the brute strength and power to counter the other. 2008.” December 28. and. the body can not fight infections well. Treating infections with the wrong medication or with an insufficient dosage can cause the pathogen to mutate. August 16. overwhelmed with cases. The doctor. MRSA and other “superbugs” are becoming increasingly frequent. Imagine a situation caused that as a byproduct of his socioeconomic status. Two business owners appeared to square off over whether universal health care was desirable or even possible. Public health officials would have greater difficulty finding the source of the infection because there would be so many more cases. The patient takes the medication.Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 27 Health Care Impacts Health Care Good – Pandemics Health care reform is necessary to prevent pandemics Norris 8 (Amanda. Preventing epidemics should be a priority of paramount concern if the government actually wants to ensure national security.wordpress. “Locals provide input for Obama’s transition team. 2) Increasing access to health care allows health care professionals to identify patients at risk and intervene to offer ways to reduce the risk of infection." Kamen said. AD: 7-31-09) One group debated whether health care should be universally provided by the government the same way that public education is. said he is certain that the nation could not handle a major pandemic or biological-based terrorist attack. His condition worsens and he can spread a drugresistant strain to others. we all know how the second conflict ends. owner of Kamen Entertainment. Avian flu and pandemic flu are also looming biological dangers. Our interconnected society makes epidemics more likely to occur with the ease of mobility within countries and in between them. no one was infected. http://vanessamason. There is a new mindset. Roy Kamen. Imagine a situation where a patient has a bacterial infection but never goes to see a doctor because they can not afford the visit. "catastrophic" plans with limited coverage for more minor procedures and services. . "I don't think the insurance companies are going to solve this. at what cost and to whom. also fortunately.com/2008/08/16/universalhealth-care-series-the-national-security-argument/ Fences and security checkpoints versus pathogens. but in a crowded emergency room. 1) Universal health care provides a greater likelihood of early detection to curb infections before they grow too quickly. BA from Yale. the patient lives in conditions that are ripe for the spread of infections: close quarters and poor ventilation. Both of the men said they provided health insurance to all their employees and both said the exorbitant cost of doing so had led them to provide basic. The patient would continue to pass through the general population. leaving the body open to infections and once infected. quickly diagnoses the bacterial infection and prescribes penicillin.

in fact. might be an entirely different and emptier place altogether.Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 28 Health Care Impacts Health Care Good – Pandemics – Impacts – Extinction Viral pandemics threaten planetary extinction The Toronto Sun. October 16. Suppose that the headliner germ had been a new strain of Ebola that dissolves internal organs into a bloody tar or the mysterious "X" virus that killed thousands in the Sudan last year." beyond the waning reach of antibiotics. and the world might now be mourning a "new Black Death. a socalled "emerging virus. Pg. . the final death toll might have been millions." The planet. 1994. Had such a microbe been unleashed. Imagine. a kind of false alarm in a much larger microbial saga. if Surat had aroused a different airborne microbe. M6 Nor did the media go beyond Surat and explain how this largely inconsequential epidemic. for a moment. was another sharp warning of our species' growing vulnerability to infectious disease.

5) But with the US presently engaged in a “war on terror. Reassuringly. a healthy fighting force is no longer enough to ensure national security. tying up medical responders and overwhelming medical resources. concerning the power of external security threats to stimulate reform. “Bioterrorism and Health Care Reform: No Preparedness Without Access. this is not a novel proposal.” May Virtual Mentor. Without significant reform to ensure access to health care for all Americans. I submit. Sigerist. in the case of diseases that are transmissible person to person. Why Access? Using infectious diseases as weapons. Vol. infecting others. Consider the threat of bioterrorism: the potential use of biological weapons against this country raises the specter of a unique kind of war in which battles will be fought not against soldiers and artillery but against epidemics. MD. both in preparation for and in response to an attack. is the new banner for health care reform" [3]. . a nation's ability to go about its daily business. hence. emergency physician and medical ethicist C. Moreover. MD. A nation's greatest defense against bioterrorism. the US will be unable to fight such battles effectively. is a population in which an introduced biological agent cannot get a foothold. recently declared: “National security. Ph.D. Similarly. the time has come for this country to take up reforms that promote the health of all Americans. ie. Director of Outreach at the Ontario Genomics Institute. and so on. each infected individual becomes a human weapon.” in which not only soldiers but also civilians are targets. No. Reflecting upon statements made in 1944 by American medical historian Henry E. the AMA Journal of Ethics. “[t]his incendiary moment may be just the time for rekindling reform" [2].Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 29 Health Care Impacts Health Care Good – Bioterrorism Health care reform is the only way to prevent the impact to bioterror Green 4 (Shane. healthy people with easy access to health care. a recent editorial in the American Journal of Public Health suggested that. bioterrorism threatens to weaken the civilian workforce and.. PhD. Griffin Trotter. 6. who then infect others.

“Report Sounds Alarm Over Bioterror.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/29/AR2008112901921.Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 30 Health Care Impacts Health Care Good – Bioterrorism The Threat of a bioterror attack is real." the report says. It calls on the Obama administration to develop a comprehensive approach to preventing bioterrorism and to "banish the 'too-hard-to-do' mentality that has hobbled previous efforts. An adaptable pharmaceutical base is crucial to survival Warrick 8 (Joby. or genetically modified germs designed to resist ordinary vaccines and antibiotics. http://www.” November 30.html. AD: 7-31-09) Seven years after the 2001 anthrax attacks.washingtonpost." the draft states. a congressionally ordered study finds a growing threat of biological terrorism and calls for aggressive defenses on par with those used to prevent a terrorist nuclear detonation. Washington Post Staff Writer.Due for release next week." Continues "Rapid scientific advances and the global spread of biotechnology equipment and know-how are currently outpacing the modest international attempts to promote biosecurity. Continues "The more probable threat of bioterrorism should be put on equal footing with the more devastating threat of nuclear terrorism. . a draft of the study warns that future bioterrorists may use new technology to make synthetic versions of killers such as Ebola.

but is now considered defensive. "Anthrax is a concern. captured documents showed. government's own anthrax program.Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 31 Health Care Impacts Health Care Good – Bioterrorism – Impacts – Death A bioterror attack would inflict mass casualties Charles J. awarded its first contract last November. microbe collection director. where microbiologists fear that ever-stricter controls might stifle their ability to exchange samples and conduct research. Drying and refining anthrax spores into particles readily inhaled. applied to shrapnel. Magdoub said.000 dying. which has no "biosecurity" laws.000 people in an American city exposed to aerosolized anthrax bacteria spread by terrorists via a truck sprayer. "The American people have become so sensitive towards a lot of normal. a bioweapons authority at the University of Maryland. he estimated. the FBI analyst said in a Washington interview. The Iraqis apparently never weaponized Agent G. As a result.S. congressional researchers noted in a 2004 study. asking. reporting. Tom Ridge former homeland security secretary. to tighten security at microbe collections worldwide. conservation and security. Project Bioshield to develop bioterrorism countermeasures. new laws clamp controls on clostridia and other "select agents. Team member Youssef Hamdi told The Associated Press all such resources should be combined in a single "National Culture Collection" to "insure purity. director of the International Weapons Control Center at Chicago's DePaul University. "What's going to Today clostridium perfringens is one of 49 microbes on come at you is impossible to predict. 11 attacks. dollars won't go far. arms inspectors later learned.S. since only three on the list — anthrax." said Donald Van Duyn of the FBI's Counterterrorism Division. is a formidable challenge. Because of the high quality of those 2001 anthrax spores. Others question whether anything will come. Magdoub's Egypt Microbial Culture Collection is one. But this pathogen can also be a weapon: Iraqi scientists worked for years to mobilize this "Agent G" for Saddam Hussein's wars.N." Milton Leitenberg. Kellman.2933. people calling saying." Few question the need.500 major repositories — which maintain. said Nabil Magdoub. a cause of food poisoning." said Barry Kellman. writer for Associated Press. "What if Ted Kaczynski" — America's notorious Unabomber — "had been a biology professor instead of a math professor?" . however.html They're among Earth's most common germs — clostridia perfringens. 11-02-05 http://www.S. Four years after the Sept. Egypt. still at large." molecular biologist Roger Brent told a U. terrorist use of disease agents to inflict mass casualties looms more and more as the bottom line of America's sum of all fears. investigators found. has said authorities don't believe terror groups can build nuclear bombs. contends the threat has been "systematically exaggerated. It took Iraqi scientists five years to weaponize anthrax in the 1980s.com/story/0." After all." he said.S. smallpox (and botulinum toxin — are being addressed so far in stepped-up biodefense research programs. House panel in July. U. but only individual governments can enforce restrictions. would kill the wounded by spreading virulent gas gangrene in their shrapnel wounds. and so bioweapons become the greater threat. too. But a team of Egyptian microbiologists noted in a recent study that smaller collections have proliferated in Egypt. was not linked to foreign terrorists. apparently failed to find a virulent strain — let alone a workable way to "weaponize" anthrax — before being arrested in 2001 after returning to Malaysia. budget's bottom line as well: Spending on civilian "biodefense" has leaped 18-fold since 2001. U. The toxin-spewing clostridium perfringens. in a laboratory protected by foolproof electronic keys.S." demanding registrations. postal system in late 2001 and five people died. although the bacteria at Ain Shams University are kept in a locked refrigerator. the U. Meanwhile. Perhaps one-third of the world's microbe collections are poorly protected. whose homemade sarin chemical agent killed 12 people in 1995. And that's not counting any new genetically re-engineered microbes. "Even a Ph. Only 500 of the estimated 1." Internationally.6 billion this year." poses a bioterrorism threat. He worries more about a homegrown menace. exchange and sell samples for research and diagnostics — subscribe to the World Federation for Culture Collections' voluntary security guidelines. meanwhile. The anthrax scare began when someone mailed anthrax powder through the U. agrees with those who doubt that Al Qaeda. and transfers of cultures must be reported. echoing a sentiment heard increasingly in America. In an America nervous over bioterrorism. "You could do as much damage with anthrax and other substances" as with a nuclear bomb." U. That research began decades back as an offensive weapons program. but possibly to the U. microbiologist doesn't know the dark arts of putting microbes into weapons. "the problem is the ones you don't know about. What do I do?'" said Van Duyn." he said. a specimen for research. experts believe the perpetrator. Even a terror group as well-financed and educated as Japan's Aum Shinrikyo.S. failed to isolate a virulent strain in four years' work on anthrax. in view of what Tucker calls Al Qaeda's "gap in technical sophistication. in a region roiled by terrorism. a bioweapons expert with California's Monterey Institute for International Studies. Usama bin Laden's Al Qaeda also pursued anthrax in Afghanistan. "I'd say we get five white-powder threats a week. from the toxin abrin to the plague bacteria yersinia pestis tells some that billions of U.D.174323. But it turned the job over to a Malaysian with a mere bachelor's degree in biology. any hospital is also rife with dangerous microorganisms.foxnews. 'I found white powder. The World Health Organization plans a "guidance document" next year promoting laboratory biosecurity. but not "unreasonable. background checks on scientists. ordinary matters. and then engineering equipment to spread them extensively. others in Saddam's secret program were working on "Agent G. and eventually reported to inspectors they had destroyed all 900 gallons they made. list of "select agents" considered potential "severe threats.S. accessible by one authorized technician." American laboratories handling the germ must register with the government. however. has no such laws. however. He. "We have to be alert. Hanley.S. The fear is reflected in the U. to $7. One attack scenario now used in U. $877 million for 75 million doses of a new anthrax vaccine. That list's length." said Jonathan Tucker. "in a cave in Afghanistan.00. their personnel must undergo background checks.S. planning sees more than 300. with more than 13.

php. . “Health Care for America Now. how do we control costs? We control costs first and foremost by getting everyone in America affordable coverage with benefits that meet their needs.nationaljournal. So. they get the care they need.” 2-23-09. We do this by giving people a choice to keep their private health insurance plan or the option to buy into a public health insurance plan.com/2009/02/obamas-fiscal-responsibility-s. So it's not just the federal government that has a problem. As this chart from the Center for Economic and Policy Research shows. Fiscal responsibility therefore means controlling all health care costs. President Obama understands this problem. The cost of health care must be brought under control to claim fiscal responsibility. With one out of every five dollars in our economy writ large projected to be spent on health care. And it's not just Medicare and Medicaid. our budget deficit will stabilize. Deputy Director of Online Campaigns. and not just the cost of Medicare and Medicaid but the cost of health care for everyone.Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 32 Health Care Impacts Health Care Good – Entitlement Spending Health care reform is key to prevent budgetary collapse from entitlement costs Rosembaum 9 (Jason. This prevention lowers cost and improves health outcomes. not just catastrophic care at the emergency room when their health problems become dire (which is much more expensive). Medicare and Medicaid are in fact set to rise in cost dramatically. AD: 7-31-09) As pointed out by others here and elsewhere. a cost that's projected to reach almost 20% of GDP by 2017 if current trends continue. http://healthcare. if we can get our health care costs in line with other countries (the "Low Health Care Costs line) as opposed to our projected exponential growth. and though it may require an upfront federal investment. When people are covered by insurance. every person in this country has a problem. filling in the gaps in private insurance so everyone can have coverage. in the long run it's the only way to use taxpayer money wisely. and this is indeed a problem. not just Medicare and Medicaid. Our entire health care system is set to rise in cost.

higher health care costs will force budget deficits to “levels that will seriously jeopardize long-term economic growth. including Medicare.html. Without a new direction. Our nation should not abandon its commitment to health care access for low-income and senior Americans or adopt the large tax increases that will be required to finance projected spending. Medicaid. The federal government is responsible for nearly half of America’s health care expenditures.” according to Peter Orszag. A better approach would be to reform the entire health care delivery system to slow spending increases by promoting more efficient delivery of care and better choices about new medical technologies. Medicare will help lead these reforms and derive important financial benefits from them. military personnel.org/issues/2008/12/health_imperative.Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 33 Health Care Impacts Health Care Good – Entitlement Spending – Key to Econ Health care reform is key to stop massive increases in entitlement medical spending – that’s independently key to the economy Kvaal 8 (James. recently designated to head the Office of Management and Budget. Medicare has low administrative costs. 2008. Public health care costs are rising at similar rates and for similar reasons as private costs. . and veterans. AD: 7-31-09) Rising health care costs are the primary reason that our federal budget is on an unsustainable path. tax subsidies for private sector insurance. their rapid growth accounts for the entire long-run federal fiscal deficit under Congressional Budget Office projections. and health coverage for federal employees. but like most public spending on health care. “The Economic Imperative for Health Reform. retirees. As Brookings Institution scholar Henry Aaron has pointed out.americanprogress. Federal spending on Medicare and Medicaid alone is projected to increase from 4 percent of the economy today to 12 percent in 2050. Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress. As the nation’s largest payer of health care services.” online: http://www. 12-9. it finances care in the same settings and with the same providers as private insurance.

This is true.S.S. and funding Medicare. “Impotent Power? Re-Examining the Nature of America’s Hegemonic Power. September/October) The domestic economic picture is not so promising. hegemony – forces massive tradeoffs with military resources Layne 6 (Christopher.S. or.S. . Just down the road. on the other hand. defense spending and entitlement expenditures are squeezing out discretionary spending on domestic programs. hegemony overlook a huge change in the U. fiscal picture. on the one hand. the United States is facing stark "warfare" or "welfare" choices between. Moreover. either. They assert that the United States can afford to maintain its hegemony because defense spending now accounts only for about 4 percent of U.Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 34 Health Care Impacts Entitlement Reform Good – Hegemony Failure to rein in entitlement medical spending will end U. the proponents of U. The annual federal budget deficits are just the tip of the iceberg. GDP. but very misleading. Here. The real problems are the federal government's huge unfunded liabilities for entitlement programs that will begin to come due about a decade hence. discretionary spending on domestic needs. Medicaid and Social Security. Associate Professor of International Affairs at the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M. maintaining the overwhelming military capabilities upon which its primacy rests.” The National Interest.

A near-term fiscal crisis is emerging in the next decade. Recent history provides a taste of what NASA may be facing in the very near future. Medicaid. or even cancelled. its budget fell from $20 billion in fiscal year 1993 to $16.S. and solving it will be the responsibility of the next President of the United States and the US Congress. It is unrealistic to expect that NASA will somehow be immune to pressures to cut spending. when both the Democratic White House and Republican Congress sought (and achieved) a balanced budget. It will be significantly delayed. is far short of the increases that many space advocates have been seeking.1 billion in fiscal year 2008. has increased from $16. http://www. This 0.com/article/1106/1) Obviously. and Editor and Publisher of the Space Review. this small budget increase has taken place during a time when balancing the budget has not been a priority for either a Republican President or the U. for the current exploration architecture to continue in anything resembling its current form and schedule. President of Space Consulting Inc.thespacereview. If that happens. radically altered.3 billion in fiscal year 2001 (the last Clinton Administration budget) to $17. during the Clinton Administration. By comparison. if not impossible. However. During the Bush Administration NASA has done reasonably well in terms of spending: its budget. ending space exploration Miller and Foust 8 (Charles. This is our point. . in constant 2008 dollars. These fiscal pressures will force the next president—regardless of whoever is elected in November—to make some hard decisions in the years to come about discretionary spending. it will be difficult. April 14. Congress. Considering the budgetary challenges created by the retirement of the baby boomers. and our national leaders will be forced to do something about it. and Medicare are not sustainable. these long-term trends in Social Security. NASA fared far worse: in constant 2008 dollars. a decline of nearly 20 percent.Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 35 Health Care Impacts Entitlement Reform Good – Space Failure to fix entitlement costs kills funding for NASA. on average. A budget cut in the next Administration that is equivalent to last decade’s cut would result in reduction of NASA’s budget of over $3 billion per year. but it is better than what some other agencies have received during the same period.7% real increase per year.3 billion in 2001. the next graph may be a better guide to the austerity NASA will face in the years to come than its experience of the last few years.

Dartmouth researchers concluded that Medicare spending could be reduced by 29 percent without reducing effective care or affecting health outcomes. Because Americans move from insurer to insurer. and neonatal intensive care are helpful for some patients. There is strong evidence that much of this spending does not contribute to better health.4 trillion on health care in 2008. At least one-third of medical procedures have questionable benefits. The finding suggests that the entire American health care system spends roughly $700 billion a year that does not improve health outcomes.S. Based on a study of regional variation. there is little incentive for investments such as preventive care and the effective management of chronic diseases that will reduce costs in the long run.Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 36 Health Care Impacts AT: Health Care Bad – Spending Reform could eliminate hundreds of billions in wasteful health care spending – decreasing costs overall Kvaal 8 (James. AD: 7-31-09) America has far and away the most expensive health care system in the world. Our health care system is focused on treating diseases. not preventing them. consuming an increasing share of our nation’s resources. And health care costs are expected to nearly double to $4. 12-9. Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress. Treatments such as spinal fusion. Americans will spend $2. which is equal to $7. . and yet our life expectancy and infant mortality rates are below average. Americans spend twice as much per person as the average among other industrialized countries.html. advanced medical technologies work miracles. The United Kingdom has achieved universal health care while spending less per person than U. “The Economic Imperative for Health Reform. Our fragmented approach to financing health care also discourages investments that could both make care more effective and bring down costs. according to the Rand Corporation. but widely overused.org/issues/2008/12/health_imperative.3 trillion within a decade and continue to consume a larger and larger share of our economy in the years to come. a greater use of information technology could make the system as a whole more efficient but requires someone to make up-front investments. routine episiotomies.americanprogress. but other expensive tests and treatments contribute little or nothing to our health. federal and state governments.” online: http://www.900 a person. Similarly. Health care costs have grown faster than the overall economy for decades. Some costly. 2008.

families. At the same time. 2008. businesses.Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 37 Health Care Impacts AT: Health Care Bad – Bad During Recession Reform is key to turn the current recession around Kvaal 8 (James.org/issues/2008/12/health_imperative.html. Conclusion There is an urgent economic need to address the failures of the American health care system. Up-front investments in expanding coverage and initiatives to reduce waste could stimulate the economy and create jobs now. AD: 7-31-09) Some have suggested that we cannot afford to reform health care in the midst of a recession and financial crisis. Expanding coverage can create jobs in health services.americanprogress. they could lay the groundwork for a stronger health care system that covers every American and imposes lower costs on families. and promote consumer spending. and taxpayers .” online: http://www. 12-9. help states avoid cuts to Medicaid and children’s health insurance. Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress. But health reform can strengthen the economy and create jobs now. “The Economic Imperative for Health Reform. And an immediate investment in electronic medical records would create jobs in the technology sector.

if not impossible. it does. They argue--rightly--that the rising cost of Medicare and Medicaid is the primary reason why the federal government's long-term budget picture is so scary. Making sure everybody has insurance is the first step--or. the first few steps--toward creating one common system. by extension. depending on how you do it. a lackluster economy in the future by spending less money on these health care programs over time.) But the only rational. surely spending more money on them now makes no sense. (Relative to private health insurance. not to mention humane. to implement in the disorganized and volatile insurance environment we have today. AD: 7-31-09) Some fiscal conservatives. Medicare and Medicaid control costs a little better. way to control health care costs is through system-wide reforms--the kind that are a lot harder. If we can only avoid overwhelming deficits and. .Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 38 Health Care Impacts AT: Health Care Bad – Entitlement Spending Reform ensures lower overall entitlement spending – massive health care costs and inefficiencies are the fundamental cause The New Republic 8 (“Dynamic Duo. lexis.” December 24. actually. But. overall. The reason Medicare and Medicaid are getting so expensive is that health care. upset that universal health care would require all sorts of new spending upfront. is getting so expensive. aren't so sure.

Small business owners and their employees account for an estimated 27 million of the 47 million Americans without health insurance .americanprogress.html. 12-9.Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 39 Health Care Impacts AT: Health Care Bad – Small Businesses Small business is massively burdened by the current health care system Kvaal 8 (James. 2008.org/issues/2008/12/health_imperative. “The Economic Imperative for Health Reform. Without economies of scale. They lack the negotiating clout needed to obtain favorable rates from insurance companies. small businesses also face larger administrative costs for each worker covered. AD: 7-31-09) Small businesses also face unique challenges.” online: http://www. and their inability to spread risk across a large group of employees means that the health problems of a single employee can drive premiums up to unaffordable levels. Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress.

Coverage is an essential step toward controlling health care spending because it allows a rational financing system that does not rely on inefficient and inequitable crosssubsidies to care for some Americans.americanprogress. “The Economic Imperative for Health Reform. Universal coverage will also facilitate early prevention and detection of disease and better management of chronic diseases. and gather data on effective treatments. Such a reform may require an up-front investment. not including any savings it generates by making the health care system more efficient. which can improve health and reduce costs. But it could also generate very large economic and fiscal benefits. The first step is universal coverage.Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 40 Health Care Impacts AT: Health Care Bad – Innovation Reform stimulates investment into research that ensures innovation continues and most effective treatments are used Kvaal 8 (James.html. improve the quality of care. 12-9.org/issues/2008/12/health_imperative. Greater use of electronic medical records and other health information technology could reduce errors. AD: 7-31-09) The good news is that there is an opportunity for health reform that covers every American and slows the growth in health care costs. Investments can improve the quality of care while reducing costs. even in these times of large budget deficits. These steps can ensure that medical advances continue and are used wisely. . diminish the need for duplicative tests. Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress. it might cost the federal government between $100 billion and $150 billion annually. 2008. Research into the comparative effectiveness of treatments—funded partly by taxpayers—can identify treatments that provide the best results.” online: http://www. often at a lower cost than treatments widely used today.

We are likely to see some plan for universal healthcare coverage move forward in the near future -. The pharmaceutical industry shares these goals and needs to play an active role in this dialogue. Never before is research and cutting-edge science more important to ensure a steady flow of innovation. and delivering this information in an understandable and compelling way to health care decision-makers. Daiichi Sankyo made several such strategic agreements including the acquisition of German biotech company. are the challenges that await us in 2009 and beyond. A universal healthcare system that is based upon a single government payer model. wrote in a recent pharmaceutical industry report: “Obama’s new universal health-care program will increase demand for drugs.Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 41 Health Care Impacts AT: Health Care Bad .dailyrecord.Innovation Health care reform forces innovation through generics and rescues pharma from imminent collapse Pieroni 9 (Joe. We are making significant effort as an industry. http://www. Health care reform helps drug companies – expanded demand overwhelms any hit they would take Timothy P. Continued economic pressures may actually facilitate other such merger and acquisition activity between biotech and pharmaceutical companies in 2009. ensuring that new approaches will support both a healthy nation and a healthy industry. Patients who do not take medications as prescribed risk suffering undesirable medical outcomes. Health care access and affordability will be important goals of the Obama administration as they tackle health care reform. both branded and generic. However. adherence to medication regimens to treat chronic illnesses. President and CEO. While this is a serious health issue for patients who need these medications to manage their illness.html La Merie. not physicians. there is concern that the government would have a heavy hand in setting formularies and price controls. http://www.” Sounds like a good deal for drug makers. the industry. Carney. Daiichi Sankyo Inc. our country and the government. limits patient choice and removes incentives for competition and innovation. we certainly will face more than a few challenges in 2009. a “business intelligence” publisher. ultimately puts prescribing rights in the hands of lawmakers.and this is a good thing for patients. which patients feel directly) on the rise. 2-25-09. reduce the need for free drug programs due to universal health-care coverage. February 1. Understanding how to conduct clinical trials to reveal these important dimensions of a new therapy.dcexaminer. This requires companies to supplement their own research and development efforts through external alliances and in-licensing of promising compounds. which ultimately are much more expensive for the health care system. which could stifle research and development. and certainly within Daiichi Sankyo. to be able to articulate that new "value proposition" for our products in order to ensure informed decisions by physicians and the health care system administrators. Unrestricted access to value-based medicine is where our future lies. As patents expire and generic medications come onto the market as lower-cost alternatives to branded drugs. the health of the pharmaceutical industry will rest on our ability to bring innovative products to market.com/politics/Insurers-drug-makers-poised-to-profit-fromObama-health-plan_02_25-40257852. U3 Pharma. it's also a financial concern for society. With patient costs associated with medical care (including copayments. Therefore. as well as an agreement for a new product and technology platform with Massachusettss-based ArQule. AD: 7-31-09) While the pharmaceutical industry was not hit as hard as other industries this past year. can suffer. . and boost pediatric drug and vaccine programs. a top priority for pharmaceutical companies is to ensure that our new products offer patients and society incremental and quantifiable benefits over existing therapies.com/article/20090201/BUSINESS/902010393/1003. Last year. such as heart disease.

at best. and the feds have to cooperate in moving money around.C.“Fried: Looks Like the Health Reform Train is Finally Leaving the Station. AD: 7-31-09) Comprehensive health reform is hard to do on a state level.” December 10.Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 42 Health Care Impacts AT: Health Care Bad – States Solve State reforms are insufficient – only federal action ensures an effective health system Fried 8 (Eric. swamping the Good Samaritans. columnist for Fort Collins Now.com/article/20081210/NEWS/812109993/1026/NONE&title=Fried:%20Looks%20Like %20the%20Health%20Reform%20Train%20is%20Finally%20Leaving%20the%20Station.. and really requires a national solution. D. But now states willing to innovate will find an eager partner in Uncle Sam. and state reform efforts will provide both valuable laboratories and further impetus for national action. cooperation from Washington. was a dicey proposition.fortcollinsnow. People may flock from miserly states to generous ones. . online: http://www. In the recent past.

He expects further pain in 2009. None of the bills was approved. cash reserves at many companies are dwindling. Health care policy BIO supports universal health care. Greenwood said.businesswire. the third-largest nationwide and concentrated in the Triangle. has always been and will continue to be central to realizing our health care goals. Venture capital investments dropped as the stock market tanked. We believe our industry is uniquely positioned to help achieve these goals. which is not expected for at least another five years.html The Triangle's two-day biotechnology conference ended Tuesday amid worries about how the industry will weather the crisis in the financial markets. http://www. Much of North Carolina's biotech industry. Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) President and CEO. he said. We believe biotechnology can play a key role in this quest. Greenwood was one of the key speakers at the Council for Entrepreneurial Development's biotech conference. As a result. How to fund operations is among companies' top concerns.000 attendees. Another 45 percent have less than 12 months of cash available.Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 43 Health Care Impacts AT: Health Care Bad – Biotech The biotech sector is on the verge of collapse – health care reform is key The News and Observer. Congress considered four bills to establish exclusivity for biotech drugs for up to 14 years. we believe that market-based reforms provide the best opportunity to achieve the goal of universal access while providing high quality care and incentives for the discovery and development of innovative improvements throughout the health care delivery system . he talked with staff writer Sabine Vollmer about what keeps BIO members up at night: Funding The biotech industry raised 55 percent less in funding in 2008 compared with the year before. The industry is also preparing for generic competition. Innovation in health care. http://www. Further.com/portal/site/home/permalink/? ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20090225006333&newsLang=en “The biotechnology community applauds and shares many of the priorities outlined by President Obama last night. It's a problem particularly for development companies without product revenue. biotech companies across the country filed for bankruptcy. including health care solutions such as new therapies and diagnostics. the industry's national trade group. laid off employees and shelved promising drug development programs. chief executive of BIO. 2-25-09. Last year. and lobbying for better protection. As public and private investors are tightening their purse strings. Many smaller biotech companies are desperate for cash. said Jim Greenwood. Greenwood said. 2-18-09. but Greenwood expected that Congress will take another look at them this year. because more than a dozen initial public offerings were withdrawn. Health care reform is key to biotech Jim Greenwood. which attracted about 1. a topic high on the Obama administration's todo list. Biotechnology can help bring needed innovation to modernize and add efficiencies to our nation’s health care system. But biotech companies oppose health care reform that would lower the cost of prescription drugs. Greenwood said. Tuesday morning. About 30 percent of BIO's publicly traded members have less than six months' worth of cash on hand.com/business/story/1409448. depends on investments for survival. “We share President Obama’s stated goal of expanding access to health care.newsobserver.

what’s the big deal? The big deal is uncertainty.collapses the immune system Erosion. google books) One of the missions in the twenty-first century of the Centers for Disease Control and prevention (CDC) in Atlanta and the heavily guarded facilities at Fort Derrick at the U. apparently. when a 1 micrometer-wide particle of pure carbon (in the form of graphite) is introduced into a cell. It turns out that Dr. This disease. to de-clump them–so that they can be more easily used as single. an intensive area of research is to figure out a way to solubilize nanotubes–in effect.sfsu. It laid waste to Alexander the Great’s army in the fourth century BC and killed Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius. Maryland.24. 2002. which probably crossed over from animals to humans about 10. As late as the 1950’s it afflicted 10 million people worldwide and killed more than 2 million people every year. detached fibers. However. but scientists see two potential problems specific to these forms of carbon–one problem has to do with their shape and one. According to Dr. Two patents on methods of solubilizing nanotubes in organic solutions have issued in the last year to the University of Kentucky (USA). Technology and Concentration Group. “the greater threat to the survival of our species.Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 44 Health Care Impacts Health Care Bad – Nano – Impacts – Disease Nanotech causes disease. is to control the outbreak of viruses.23.edu/ %7Erone/Nanotech/nosmallmatter. carbon nanotubes cannot pose much of a threat at present because. in our environment. “Visions: How Science will revolutionize the twenty-first century” pg 183. One of the greatest killers in human history has been the virus for smallpox.” The outbreak of a “doomsday Virus. It has destroyed entire cultures and has torn apart great empires . which indicates that the immune system is working and the body is fighting back against an invading foreign substance. how can you be sure you’re still keeping out the riff-raff? Immunologist Silvana Fiorito has discovered in preliminary research that Unchecked disease cause extinction Kaku 99 (Michio.26. http://online. has been a deadly killer of humans ever since. Wiesner’s comparison of carbon nanotubes with asbestos is not merely rhetorical.S.” Issue 76. The ability to slip past the immune system may be desirable for drug delivery.00 years ago. Army Medical research Institute for Infectious Diseases in Frederick. they tend to clump together rather than exist as single fibers (which have the potential to cause serious respiratory problems as asbestos fibers have).” such as an airborne AIDS or Ebola virus. the cells fail to produce an immune response–they welcome the alien carbon like a long lost relative. once nanotechnologists have figured out how to distract the bouncer guarding the door. When a nano-sized particle of the same substance — pure carbon — is added to cells (in the form of either nanotubes or fullerenes). Very few studies have been done to learn what might happen if nanotube fibers were breathed in or if they were used in drug delivery or disease diagnoses or as biosensors. could threaten the very existence of human life. Wiesner. highlighting the need to assess the dangers of a material before it becomes ubiquitous. (“No Small Matter! Nanotech Particles Penetrate Living Cells and Accumulate in Animal Organs.25. but what happens when uninvited nanoparticles come calling? In other words. has to do with their size.html) Again. . Carbon nanotubes resemble asbestos fibers in shape: they are long and needle-like. the cell responds by producing nitric oxide.

sfgate. energy production.DTL The U. the organization's health program director. which lie at the base of much of the food chain. For example. a joint publication of the U. However. a leading environmental group says. the particles might destroy river bacteria.have many possible valuable uses in medicine. environmental cleanups.e. nanoparticles used as anti-tumor agents are so small that they might slip inside the human brain and perhaps damage it. John Balbus. He and three colleagues wrote an article about the potential downsides of nanotechnology for a recent issue of the journal Issues in Science and Technology. with diameters measured in nanometers. they cautioned. San Francisco Chronicle. or billionths of a meter -. Likewise. Because the toxic aspects of nanotechnology remain a frontier subject of research. uncertainties linger over the possible harm of nanomaterials and nanoparticles on human health and the environment.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/10/20/MNGREFB1S71." said Dr. representatives of the Washington-based group Environmental Defense acknowledged at a news conference Wednesday. National Academy of Sciences and the University of Texas.i.S. "our traditional ways of thinking about hazardous materials are going to have to broaden a bit..com/cgi-bin/article. scientists war”. technology and other areas. water treatment.S.Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 45 Health Care Impacts Health Care Bad – Nano – Impacts – Environment Nanotech causes environmental damage Davidson 05 (Keay. if leaked from a factory. 11/20/05. government should spend more money investigating potential health and environmental hazards of nanotechnology. . New types of materials and chemicals that are invisibly small -. “Nanotechnology may hold risks. http://www.

the effect of each new extinction on the remaining species increases dramatically. species offer many direct and indirect benefits to mankind. humans live off of other species. 143 Mil. Both trends carry serious future implications. and new At some point. as the number of species decline. (Diner. mankind pursued this domination with a single minded determination to master the world. Drexler provides a vivid example of how quickly the damage could pile up beginning with one rogue replicator. United States Army. sewage treatment. with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects. Like a mechanic removing. unbranched circle of threads -.Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 46 Health Care Impacts Health Care Bad – Nano – Impacts – Extinction A Nano accident will end live throughout the universe ETC 03 (Action Group on Erosion. No one knows how many [*171] species the world needs to support human life. Recipient. In a closely interconnected ecosystem. Many. In less than a day. could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Ohio State University. -. Scientific and Utilitarian Value. Biologically diverse ecosystems arec haracterized by a large number of specialist species. In addition species replaced the old.over the plants and animals of the world. Judge Advocate’s General’s Corps. causing widespread extinctions.etcgroup.Ecological value is the value that species have in maintaining the environment. . Rev. one by one.D. College of Law. to food. Utilitarian value is the direct utility humans draw from plants and animals." n79 By . a large portion of basic scientific research would be impossible. in which each knot is connected to others by several strands. the number of species could decline to the point at which the ecosystem fails. n77 As the current mass extinction has progressed. “If the first replicator could assemble a copy of itself in one thousand seconds. Winter. .like a net. so does the risk of ecosystem failure. n76 4.” Loss of each species risks ecological collapse and human extinction.M. In most cases. and exploit nature for the maximum benefit of the human race. the loss of a Moreover. So why should the world be concerned now?The prime reason is the world's survival. "The more complex the ecosystem. and biodegradation.) No species has ever dominated its fellow species as man has. These ecosystems inherently are more stable than less diverse systems. if not most. harelip sucker. Nonetheless. n73 Only a fraction of the [*172] earth's species have been examined. B. Ohio State University.by allowing certain species to become extinct -. they would weigh a ton. Recipient.org/documents/TheBigDown. n69 erosion. they would exceed the mass of the Sun and all the planets combined. filling narrow ecological niches. humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems . such a fabric can resist collapse better than a simple. At the end of ten hours. as many as ninety percent of the existing species perished. because their extirpations could affect a directly useful species negatively. Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. in another four hours. United States Army. 1994. and flood control are prime benefits certain species provide to man. n72 Without plants and animals. 1994.pdf> GRAY GOO What if nanobots start building chairs and don’t stop? The self-replicating and assembly processes could go haywire until the world is annihilated by nanobots or their products. -. species affects other species dependent on it. J. tame the wilderness. n75 the world's biological diversity generally has decreased. 161. and to find out -. This trend occurs within ecosystems by reducing the number of species. n70 oxygen production. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa. Like all animal life. n67 In past mass extinction episodes.pollution control.S. Technology and Concentration Atomtech: Technologies Converging at the Nano-scale January 2003) <http://www.would not be sound policy. LL. in less than two days. and the eight build another eight. Plants and animals also provide additional ecological services -.extinction or survival -. each new animal or plant extinction. there are not thirty-six new replicators. and yet the world moved forward. . they may be critical in an indirect role. Theoretically. n68 2. Gray Goo refers to the obliteration of life that could result from the accidental and uncontrollable spread of selfreplicating assemblers. Ecological Value. and mankind may someday desperately need the species that it is exterminating today. David N. Biological Diversity. and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. For most of history. Diner. species are useless to man in a direct utilitarian sense. -. but over 68 billion. the four build another four. the more successfully it can resist a stress. the rivets from an aircraft's wings. Lexis-Nexis.Scientific value is the use of species for research into the physical processes of the world. the two replicators could then build two more in the next thousand seconds.which if cut anywhere breaks down as a whole. As biologic simplicity increases. people have assumed the God-like power of life and death -. “The Army and the Endangered Species Act: Who’s Endangering Whom?” Military Law Review. L. and within species by reducing the number of individuals. The Judge Advocate General’s School. n71 3. humankind may be edging closer to the abyss. Pest. they would outweigh the Earth. and then humans also would become extinct.The main premise of species preservation is that diversity is better than simplicity. To accept that the snail darter. or Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew n74 could save mankind may be difficult for some.

for example. the opposite is true of nanotech. Nuclear weapons require massive research effort and industrial development. the smallest insect is about 200 microns. this creates a plausible size estimate for a nanotech-built antipersonnel weapon capable of seeking and injecting toxin into unprotected humans. and more compact power handling would allow greatly improved robotics. These ideas barely scratch the surface of what's possible. The most obvious is the massive destructiveness of all-out nuclear war. nanotech weapons are not very similar to nuclear weapons. unless nanotech is tightly controlled. and their bullets could be selfguided. but nuclear weapons also have a high long-term cost of use (fallout.org/overview. increasing the chance of a regional conflict blowing up. nanotech weapons can be developed much more rapidly due to faster. Finally. perhaps can be credited with preventing major wars since their invention. As an example. collapsing deterrence and making all scenarios for conflict more likely Center For Responsible Nanotechnology. Nuclear weapons. it would be much harder to spot on radar. Nuclear weapons cause indiscriminate destruction. The human lethal dose of botulism toxin is about 100 nanograms. However. nuclear weapons cannot easily be delivered in advance of being used. 2007 (Results of Our Ongoing Research) <http://www. cheaper prototyping. An important question is whether nanotech weapons would be stabilizing or destabilizing.crnano. contamination) that would be much lower with nanotech weapons. nanotech weapons could be targeted. or about 1/100 the volume of the weapon. Guns of all sizes would be far more powerful. built with minimal or no metal. Nuclear stability stems from at least four factors. Greater uncertainty of the capabilities of the adversary. As many as 50 billion toxin-carrying devices—theoretically enough to kill every human on earth—could be packed into a single suitcase. All-out nanotech war is probably equivalent in the short term. and better targeted destruction of an enemy's visible resources during an attack all make nanotech arms races less stable. . Aerospace hardware would be far lighter and higher performance. Also. Embedded computers would allow remote activation of any weapon. less response time to an attack. Molecular manufacturing raises the possibility of horrifically effective weapons.htm> Nanotech weapons would be extremely powerful and could lead to a dangerously unstable arms race.Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 47 Health Care Impacts Health Care Bad – Nano – Impacts – War Unregulated nanotech sparks massive arms races. the number of nanotech nations in the world could be much higher than the number of nuclear nations. which can be tracked far more easily than nanotech weapons development.

These moves will have little effect on the larger threat posed by the 18 per cent. we will be spending 20 per cent of our gross domestic product on healthcare by 2017.Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 48 Health Care Impacts Health Care Bad – Economy Obama’s health care system will cripple the economy Montgomery.Mr Orszag points out that we spend over 50 per cent more per capita than the next most expensive country. Mr Orszag writes that unless we act.html) Our current healthcare system threatens our economy. the Obama administration could plunge our economy into much darker times. 9 (James Montgomery. the threat to our economy won’t be the same. Bethesda MD and Editor for the Financial Times. The CEA. even if we adopt all Mr Orszag’s measures. 6/22/2009. the Obama administration is not planning to do anything significant about this threat.For instance. Unfortunately. that money will have to come from budget cuts and increased taxes. And it has decided to do largely the same with the 30 per cent waste in our expenditures the CEA describes.ft. According to the CEA report. however. contrary to Mr Orszag’s implications. since the administration will not reduce healthcare’s GDP share.com/cms/s/0/32g8c42a-5ec5-11de-91ad00144feabc0. . http://www. says we are already spending 18 per cent and even if we adopt the president's plan we will still spend near 20 per cent by 2017. there will be no money spun off to cover the now uninsured. As he spells out. the Obama administration plans to leave that disparity in place. Finally.To sum up. “Healthcare Will Remain A Threat to the US Economy”. in fact they will worsen it as we can see in the June 2 report on reform from the president’s own Council of Economic Advisors.

Arizona Debate Institute 2009
Fellows

49 Health Care Impacts

Health Care Bad – Economy
Healthcare reform kills the economy—increased spending makes the deficit worse Sahadi 09 Senior Writer for CNN. CNNMoney Jeanne Sahadi. June 18 2009. Senior writer at CNN. CNNMoney.
How Healthcare Reform may help or hurt. http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/18/news/economy/health_care_reform/index.htm?section=money_topstories]
One reason health reform hasn't happened yet: It is painfully hard to figure out how to do it right.

And economically, there are serious risks if health reform is done wrong. For Book, reform will have failed if everyone gets covered but has to wait for essential care. "People will be sick, less productive and not get what they paid for," he said. He believes taxing a portion of workers' health care benefits could lead to a more efficient use of health services. But, he said, using other tax increases to fund reform could place a drag on GDP. If that happens, that will "mak[e] it far more difficult to escape the debt trap," wrote Harvard economist Kenneth Rogoff in a Financial Times op-ed. To Holtz-Eakin, who advised John
McCain in last year's presidential race, failed health reform would mean that "everyone gets coverage but we don't change the underlying cost dynamics. Health care spending goes up and we

haven't solved our deficit problem." In that scenario, health reform would make the deficit worse -which "could prove the straw that breaks the camel's back," Rogoff wrote. And the deficit could get worse even if lawmakers pass measures that can pay for health reform in full. Here's why: some of the biggest savings from reform might not be realized for at least a decade because they will require key changes in how medicine works. In the interim, however, there is a risk that lawmakers will undermine those savings by tweaking reform policies -- such as succumbing to political pressure to defer scheduled payment cuts for providers. If lawmakers are really serious about putting the
federal budget on a sustainable path, the CBO said, that just won't do.

Arizona Debate Institute 2009
Fellows

50 Health Care Impacts

Health Care Bad – Economy
The healthcare bill tanks the insurance industry and worsens the budget deficit CQ Today 6/23/09 (Midday Update, “Public Plan ‘Devastating’ In Any Form, Insurers Say.”
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=cqmidday-000003151041) Lobbies representing the insurance industry said in a letter to Sen. Edward M. Kennedy , D-Mass., that a “government plan” option in any form would have “devastating consequences” for current health insurance coverage as well as for the budget deficit and “existing provider systems.” Friday’s letter from America’s Health Insurance Plans and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association of America also expresses concern about insurance exchanges proposed in a plan developed by Kennedy that is being marked up by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. The “gateways,” as they are known in the proposal, could be overly regulatory and should not be the only place where people can get subsidies to help buy coverage under a system in which everyone is required to have health insurance, the letter says. The letter follows growing efforts in the Senate to fashion a compromise on the controversial issue of creating a new government-run insurance plan as part of overhauling health care. Sen. Kent Conrad , D-N.D., for example, has suggested creating member-run health insurance co-operatives as a form of public plan instead of creating a government-run insurance alternative to private health insurance. But the insurers appeared to reject that attempt at compromise. “A government-run plan — no matter how it is initially structured — would dismantle employer-based coverage, significantly increase costs for those who remain in private coverage, and add additional liabilities to the federal budget,” the letter says. A public plan would pay providers less and therefore charge lower premiums, attracting growing numbers of enrollees, the letter says. Providers would charge private plans more to make up for the lower payments, “causing further declines in private coverage and leaving hundreds of billions of dollars to be covered by the federal budget.”

Arizona Debate Institute 2009
Fellows

51 Health Care Impacts

Health Care Bad – Economy – Taxes
Health care reform will require raising capital gains tax – that reduces growth Goodman 8 (John, President of the National Center for Policy Analysis, “The Barack Obama Health Plan,”
September 5, online: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba628/, AD: 7-31-09) Taxing Capital . Obama intends to pay for his plan by repealing the "Bush tax cuts for the rich." But there have been no tax cuts for the rich. Lower rates on capital gains and dividends have induced wealthy investors to realize more income than ever - leading to record high tax revenues. Reversing these rate cuts is unlikely to produce any extra revenue. In the process, higher tax rates on capital will lead to a lower capital stock and a smaller national income in the future. It is always bad economic policy to tax capital to pay for current consumption. To tax capital to pay for wasteful health care spending that promises miniscule health benefits at the margin is especially bad practice.

A tax on labor (or mandated labor benefits) makes employment more expensive. “The Barack Obama Health Plan. Were this provision enacted today. President of the National Center for Policy Analysis. During the Democratic Party primary.org/pub/ba/ba628/. As the economics literature affirms. a payroll tax is almost completely borne by workers themselves. . taxing those who do not provide health insurance for their employees. and outsource labor to independent contractors and other entities.ncpa.to say nothing of all the employers who currently pay less than 75 percent and/or have plans that are insufficiently generous. Sen. It encourages employers to hire fewer workers. Exactly the same criticism applies to Obama's pay-or-play mandate. adopt labor-saving technology. it would immediately affect the 40 percent of small employers who do not offer coverage. Obama criticized Sen. and millions of Medicaid enrollees who have some workforce connection . employ part-time workers. Following Commonwealth. the 30 million people in families who have at least one worker but no health insurance. one can assume this would be an additional tax of 7 percent on payrolls — up to $1.Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 52 Health Care Impacts Health Care Bad – Economy – Jobs Obama’s health plan would cost a vast amount of jobs through reduced hiring and offshoring Goodman 8 (John.25 per hour per employee — imposed on employers who fail to pay at least 75 percent of their employees' premiums for a minimum benefit package. Clinton's proposal to mandate coverage by asserting she would try to force people to buy something they cannot afford and then tax them when they don't buy it — leaving them worse off than they were. online: http://www.” September 5. AD: 7-31-09) Taxing Labor. The Obama plan would impose a "pay-or-play" mandate on all employers.

Several other states have enacted similar laws over the last two decades. They recognize that the $295 penalty is a fraction of the $4. giving the state the country’s highest insurance rate). “it wouldn’t take much of a change in policy to push some entities over the brink. but they have been repealed. like Massachusetts. Levy of the University of Michigan have projected that play-or-pay might push 224. The deal left business leaders satisfied for the moment. up from 855. the state secretary of health and human services. They argue they have already absorbed costs of insuring 159. JudyAnn Bigby. State officials hoped the penalty would generate a little revenue. but recognized it was not likely to prompt employers to start offering coverage. well under projections. or about 3 percent of eligible companies. When negotiating their health plan. Recent play-or-pay proposals in California and Pennsylvania put the figure at 3 or 4 percent.000 have enrolled.” said Dr. But leaders here also are sensitive to the possibility that further increases in the penalty might stymie wage and job growth.Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 53 Health Care Impacts Health Care Bad – Economy – Jobs A health care mandate either drastically reduces wages or forces mass layoffs New York Times 8 (“Businesses Wary of Details in Obama Health Plan.” 10-27 p. It raised only $7. One fear about play-or-pay is that if the penalty is too low employers will stop offering coverage and pay the fines instead. Obama would have to set his penalty near 6 percent of payroll (Mercer.” . and both failed in part because of business opposition. Gov. He compromised on a revised formula that is projected to bring in $30 million by increasing the number and average size of firms that will be penalized. Deval Patrick asked businesses to help fill the hole. a benefits consulting firm says that large employers typically pay 15 percent). “You want the system to work. shifting workers to government insurance programs.000 workers with group coverage since the state began mandating insurance (a total of 439. “In this day and age. Hawaii is the only state that requires employers to provide health benefits. But businesses worry the state will raise their obligation each year.000 that Massachusetts employers spend to insure an individual worker.” State officials are gratified that — contrary to national trends — the share of employers offering health benefits has increased slightly. So when a substantial budget gap opened in the $869 million health plan this year. gently fines those who do not. president of the Retailers Association of Massachusetts. Companies with 10 or fewer full-time equivalent employees were exempted. lexis.000 workers into that category. The state expects 1. rejected by voters or challenged in court. while Vermont. Economists believe the cost of health benefits is ultimately shifted to employees through lower wages. Katherine Baicker of Harvard and Helen G.” said Jon Hurst. AD: 7-31-09) Several econometric models have assumed that Mr. layoffs may result. “You just want to make sure there isn’t more cost-shifting to businesses because they are paying their fair share. The amount also was kept low to steer clear of the 1974 federal law prohibiting states from regulating multistate group insurance plans. Massachusetts lawmakers rejected a payroll tax and instead set a “fair share contribution” that was low enough to appease businesses. When wages cannot be lowered.7 million in its first year.100 businesses to be fined.

They also worry that any time his health plan faces a shortfall. “If they do that. “We will ask all but the smallest businesses who don’t make a meaningful contribution today to the health coverage of their employees to do so by supporting this new plan. Mr. Obama’s health plan. the devil will be in the unknown details. economists believe he might require large and medium companies to contribute as much as 6 percent of their payrolls. forget it.” That may be smart politics. Obama might impose an unmanageable burden.” he said. Left undefined has been what size firms would be exempted. which like this state’s landmark 2006 law would subsidize coverage for the uninsured by taxing employers who do not cover their workers. businesses will be asked to up their ante. Ratner said.” said David M. what constitutes a “meaningful contribution. Obama’s plan. Obama has not released details. but Mr. and small businesses would be offered tax credits to provide benefits. Senator John McCain. The tax credits are projected to cost at least $110 billion. It’s literally that we’ve decided not to decide. the Republican nominee. might impose as part of his plan to provide affordable coverage for the uninsured. badgered Mr. Mr. as has happened in Massachusetts. Those beneath certain income levels would be granted tax credits to make premiums affordable. that is one of the significant concerns about Mr. With Mr.” and how much noncompliant businesses would be required to pay. he emphasized that employers would share in the cost.” Writ large.000 and by reducing health spending.Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 54 Health Care Impacts Health Care Bad – Economy – Business Obama’s health plan would be catastrophic for a vast range of businesses – shatters confidence New York Times 8 (“Businesses Wary of Details in Obama Health Plan. Obama in two of their debates to define the penalty. lexis. But when he announced the plan in May 2007. prices go up and employment goes down because nobody can absorb that. And it is a primary reason that so-called play-or-pay proposals have had an unsteady history for nearly two decades. Obama would prohibit insurers from rejecting applicants because of medical conditions. would be catastrophic to a low-margin business like his. require health insurance for children and create a new federal health plan to provide comprehensive coverage to the uninsured. “We made a decision even before the plan was rolled out not to decide. Obama did not rise to the bait. But it makes business groups nervous that Mr. “It’s not that there’s a decision out there that we’re not telling.” 10-27 p. Cutler. which has 90 employees. business leaders say.” he said. the Democratic presidential nominee. AD: 7-31-09) But the penalty in Massachusetts is picayune compared with what some health experts believe Senator Barack Obama. Mr. Though Mr. a Harvard economist who speaks for the campaign on health care. . Obama has said he would pay for it primarily by raising income taxes on those making more than $250. That. 29 of them full-time workers who are offered health benefits. “To all of a sudden whack 6 to 7 percent of payroll costs.

S. It ignores. economic recovery -. the case can be made that the U. after all. sober minds will turn again to the individual factors underpinning the economies around the world. and that stretched the economy. In 1981." EMPIRICISM PROVES THAT ECONOMIC SHOCKS WON’T CAUSE DEPRESSION OR WAR. spurred by great technological advances." Weinberg argues. he sees an eventual recognition that the slowdown was caused by a drop in real incomes over the past two years and that the problem will need its own solution.the one that people in the rest of the world now perceive as having begun -. "By reversing the logic.market spree was inspired more by investors covering positions after the government changed the rules on short-selling than by genuine expectations that the United States will dig Japan out of its rut.Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 55 Health Care Impacts Health Care Bad – Economy – Impacts – A2: War US ECONOMY NOT KEY TO GLOBAL ECONOMY The International Herald Tribune. consumption of the world's products no longer has the power to sway global economies the way it did in the past. p. 2002. what Gross is ignoring is that America has faced tough times before -. regardless of U.S. enjoying strong growth through much of the 1980s. only to emerge stronger.S. President Johnson tried to fight the war in Vietnam without raising taxes. "The decline in U. a fundamental lesson of history: The U. The eventual result was swelling budget deficits. March 6. 11 Weinberg contends that U. In Europe. .will not boost the economies in Europe and Asia by more than the same few tenths of a percent that the slowdown subtracted. the problems were dealt with. Still. the U. But once again. growth. economy is remarkably resilient.and has successfully worked through them. and the nation moved on. As Weinberg puts it: "Over the last 12 years.S.S. Gross's hand-wringing about "hegemonic decay" is terribly overstated. Indeed. In Japan." Weinberg believes that once the current stock market rally subsides. economy bounced back. Japan's economy has managed to contract almost continuously as the United States swung from recession to prosperity. which raised interest rates and undermined the financial markets. The result was the runaway inflation of the 1970s and a crisis in the dollar that forced President Nixon to cut the greenback loose from the gold standard. imports from their peak to their apparent trough in this business cycle will add up to only a few tenths of a percent of world GDP. 2003 Sunday Still. US ECONOMY IS RESILIENT Los Angeles Times February 9. In the 1960s. President Reagan increased the defense budget and cut taxes at the same time. some insist that the stock.S.

S. http://www. health insurance system. Moreover. in a 2006 Foreign Affairs article. ”Healthcare Costs and U.000 to the sticker price of every automobile it makes. ( Toni Johnson. General Motors.500 and $2. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that number will rise to 25 percent by 2025 without changes to federal law (PDF). Teslik s articles have been published by writings have been published by the Council on Foreign Relations. according to the U.S.S. higher than any other developed nation. have shied away from making such estimates. says that judging by data compiled from "fragmentary studies. Teslik 09 . however.org/publication/13325/. and it's difficult to parse the effects of each factor.6 billion on healthcare expenses in 2006. The Princeton economist Alan S.S.These ballooning dollar figures place a heavy burden on companies doing business in the United States and can put them at a substantial competitive disadvantage in the international marketplace. for instance." it is apparent that "under a million service-sector jobs in the United States have been lost to offshoring to date.It is difficult to quantify the precise effect high healthcare costs have had so far on the overall U. and some have criticized Blinder's approach. Chrysler. A November 2008 Kaiser Foundation report notes that access to employer-sponsored health insurance has been on the decline (PDF) among low-income workers. jobs that have been lost to offshoring--the transfer of business operations across national boundaries to friendlier operating environments." Blinder goes on to predict that somewhere between 28 million and 42 million U. about 71 percent of private employees in the United States had access to employer-sponsored health plans in 2006. jobs are "susceptible" to offshoring in a future where technology allows the more efficient transfer of jobs.Lee Hudson Teslik. Assistant Editor of CFR.S. Health care is one of several factors--entrenched union contracts are another--that make doing business in the United States expensive. and health premiums for workers have risen 114 percent in the last decade.S. economists disagree on the number of U. March 2009. Health benefits for unionized auto workers became a central issue derailing the 2008 congressional push to provide a financial bailout to GM and its ailing Detroit rival. .S.cfr. According the U. Cpr. TIME Europe and others.org at the Council on Foreign Relations. Competitiveness” .Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 56 Health Care Impacts Health Care Bad – Competitiveness Healthcare kills U. footing healthcare costs presents an enormous expense. Chamber of Commerce. covers more than 1. At 12 percent. Small businesses are less likely than large employers to be able to provide health insurance as a benefit. Many other economists. and the company says it spent roughly $5. Newsweek. For large multinational corporations. employers. AD: 7-31-09) The United States spent 16 percent of its GDP in 2007 on health care. Council on Foreign Relations .1 million employees and former employees. Bureau of Labor Statistics. GM says healthcare costs add between $1.S. job market. Employer-funded coverage is the structural mainstay of the U.S competiveness. health care is the most expensive benefit paid by U. Blinder.

And yet it is clearly a view that people very much want to hold--a desire to believe that is reflected in a remarkable tendency of those who preach the doctrine of competitiveness to support their case with careless. his diagnosis was deeply misleading as a guide to what ails Europe. The idea that a country's economic fortunes are largely determined by its success on world markets is a hypothesis. 73. or that any of their major economic problems can be attributed to failures to compete on world markets.Vol. Proquest Unfortunately. pg. Foreign Affairs. but as a view held in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence. 2. and similar diagnoses in the United States are equally misleading. . 28-45. empirical matter. Professor of Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The growing obsession in most advanced nations with international competitiveness should be seen. 1994 Competitiveness: A dangerous obsession. that hypothesis is flatly wrong. not a necessary truth. Iss. not as a well-founded concern.Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 57 Health Care Impacts Health Care Bad – Competitiveness – Impacts – A2: Key to Econ Overwhelming evidence that competitiveness doesn’t improve the economy Paul Krugman. flawed arithmetic. and as a practical. it is simply not the case that the world's leading nations are to any important degree in economic competition with each other. That is.

but it was not until the First World War that it overtook Britain as a global power.html It’s certainly tempting to assume that power is synonymous with gross domestic product: Big GDP equals big power.org/publications/digest/3058266. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University. 2. and Chinese GDP will equal that of the United States and exceed that of the EU. Just project forward the average annual growth rates of the past 30 years. If the institutions aren’t in place to translate economic output into military hardware—and if the economy grows faster than public interest in foreign affairs—then product is nothing more than potential power. if it hasn’t already. is the Laurence A. http://www. no. Hoover senior fellow. within just two decades (see figure 3). Hence many analysts point to China’s huge economy and rapid growth as evidence that the country will soon gain superpower rank.hoover. 2003 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: What Is Power? Which global players have power today—and which are likely to acquire it in the coming decades? Hoover Institute Digest. America overtook Britain in terms of GDP in the 1870s. .Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 58 Health Care Impacts Health Care Bad – Competitiveness – Impacts – A2: Key to Heg Competitiveness doesn’t translate into power Niall Ferguson. Gross Domestic Product in 1998 and Projected GDP in 2018 (millions of constant 1990 international dollars) But GDP doesn’t stand for Great Diplomatic Power.

but it will still pay Medicare rates. In the Exchange. Medigap and prescription drug insurance) and still have less coverage (such as the drug-plan "doughnut hole") than those who are privately insured. This means the plans would make a profit on healthy enrollees and suffer a loss on less healthy enrollees. there will be inexorable pressure for providers to respond to a two-tier payment system with two-tiered quality of care.ncpa.Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 59 Health Care Impacts Health Care Bad – Quality Health care reform would reduce health care access and quality Goodman 8 (John. . Encouraging a Two-Tier Health System . healthy families . Already. health plan advertisements during open enrollment period picture young. Consequently. And some plans discriminate against sicker enrollees to keep costs down for healthier ones. Medicare for the young is reconfigured to look like normal insurance. the plans would have strong financial incentives to attract the healthy and avoid the sick. their incentives would be to over-provide to the healthy (to retain their membership and attract more of them) and under-provide to the sick (to discourage their continued membership and repel others like them). President of the National Center for Policy Analysis. Most Medicare enrollees pay three premiums to three plans (basic Medicare.” September 5. Obama would allow people to join a public plan (presumably modeled after Medicare) as part of the Exchange. “The Barack Obama Health Plan.never people with costly illnesses. If a large number of people are added to plans that pay well below private fees. Many doctors today will not accept new Medicare patients and in some specialties Medicare patients face much longer waits for treatment than younger patients.org/pub/ba/ba628/. it will not be very attractive to consumers. AD: 7-31-09) Creating Perverse Incentives for Health Plans . health plans would be free to set their own premiums. After enrollment. In the Commonwealth plan. online: http://www. If it really looks like Medicare. in the federal employee system. but they would be required to charge the same premium to all comers.

the government controls 46 percent of all health care spending. distort health care choices for unemployed workers. If Members of Congress insist on these provisions. there is no assessment of whether a state has expanded the program beyond the traditional federal income thresholds and/or adopted policies that place the program's fiscal solvency at risk. and less control of families over their personal health care decisions. Congress should require each state to outline how they plan to reform Medicaid to reach long-term fiscal solvency. they should at the very least require a review of Medicaid spending by the states.cfm) Liberals in Congress. 3. Lasting Impact of the Health Care Provisions Buried deep in the House economic stimulus bill are health-related provisions that would have far-reaching consequences for the way Americans finance and obtain health care. Understanding the basic impact these two elements could have on the current system of delivery of care should be debated in the context of health reform. The House bill goes even further. Congress should allow unemployed workers to opt for any private coverage that works best for them and their families during these difficult economic times. America is rushing toward the financial tipping point in health care--the point where the federal government controls more health care spending than will the private sector. under the guise of emergency economic stimulus legislation. COBRA coverage is a prohibitively costly option for the unemployed as well as taxpayers funding the subsidy.org/Research/HealthCare/wm2267. http://www. Set criteria and demand accountability on Medicaid bailout funds. medical treatments. The proposed expansion of the Medicaid entitlement program to new categories.[6] Instead of forcing unemployed workers to choose between a plan they can not afford (COBRA) and an inferior welfare program for the poor. it should do so not tagged on a fast-tracked stimulus bill but with a full and public debate so that the American people understand the impact of these health care decisions on their lives. with the most fiscally responsible states receiving higher priority.” The Heritage Foundation WebMemo #2267."[3] This type of alarming language is similar to what exists today in the British National Health Service. Congress should thoroughly debate these provisions and consider their likely impact on medical research. and set up a federal infrastructure that could be used as a tool for government rationing of medical treatments.heritage. President Obama said. not stimulus. will only move the country faster toward more government control over the health benefits. and services. and the doctor-patient relationship. Any other course would be a betrayal of the President's promise of openness with American people. would guarantee greater government control over Americans' health care. which recently passed both chambers of Congress. The House committee report states that "those [items] that are found to be less effective and in some cases. The House and Senate bills would give subsidies for unemployed workers on COBRA coverage. Even with a subsidy. regardless of income. will no longer be prescribed. Medicaid.[4] In addition. Expand health care options for unemployed workers. professionals. Today. the House language provides further clarity. House of Representatives Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) has stated as much. Congress should also ensure that it provides an appeals process for doctors and patients affected by these decisions. 1. These provisions would also have a long-lasting impact on the future of the American health care system. The House and Senate bills would give every state a temporary. more expensive. While the Senate's language is broad and vague.[2] The sundry health provisions in the proposed economic stimulus. Fast-Tracking Government Control of Health Care Congressional efforts to fast-track passage of an economic stimulus package and expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). An Infrastructure for Rationing.[1] Without broader debate. The House and Senate bills would establish a framework and funding for comparative effectiveness research and health information technology. billions of dollars would be spent on a health IT information "architecture" for exchanging information and training health care Combining the comparative effective research with the health IT portal opens the door to direct government intervention in the clinical decisions by physicians and other health care providers. Broken Promises President Obama would break a fundamental promise to the American people by enacting the trillion-dollar economic stimulus package in its present form. innovation. neither bill holds state officials accountable with regard to their past management of their Medicaid programs. Senior Policy Analyst in the Center for Health Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. further destabilizes the already troubled and poor-performing program. we must first begin reforming how government communicates with the American people. in combination with the expansion of SCHIP. Bailing Out State Medicaid Programs. across-the-board increase in their federal match for the nation's largest health care welfare program. . and prevent government interference in the doctor-patient relationship.[5] Instead of bailing out all states. “The Stimulus Bill: Why the Senate Must Fix the Health Care Provisions. are attempting to push forward their radical health care agenda. empower families who want to secure alternative private coverage options. Health Care for the Unemployed. prioritize Medicaid spending on a state-by-state basis. These provisions would fuel fiscal irresponsibility in state Medicaid programs."[7] wants to enact such provisions. For example. Three Essential Changes Congress must make three changes to these controversial health care provisions in the so-called economic "stimulus" package. and its share is expected to reach 49 percent by 2017. If Congress reform our health care system. Congress should set up a priority list based on the actions of the states. mounting unfunded entitlement liabilities. Unfortunately. 2/4/2009. Furthermore. expand dependence on the already-unsound Medicaid entitlement program. (Nina. Congress should strip these two provisions. procedures. opening the Medicaid program to those unemployed workers without health care coverage. and procedures that Americans receive. Remove funding for comparative effectiveness and health information technology. "In order for us to Veiled under this massive economic stimulus proposal are profoundly controversial and far-reaching health care provisions that would set the country on a path toward more fiscal irresponsibility. 2.Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 60 Health Care Impacts Health Care Bad – Biotech Healthcare reform will cause the government to strangle the biotech industry Owcharenko. At the very least.

html.) In particular. policy-first reform. Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America CEO Billy Tauzin and Biotechnology Industry Organization CEO Jim Greenwood did a pretty good job of predicting how the address would go. “Obama’s Down Payment on Health Care Reform: How Far Down?” February 26. All in all. Clinton's working groups quickly moved into aggressive proposals for restraining spending. AD: 7-31-09) Third. With that mandate.com/2009/02/obamas-down-payment-on-health-care. In 2009. the discussion of health care reform was framed clearly in the context of addressing the long-term economic health of the country rather than as a response to the short-term economic crisis. We've already noted some rhetorical parallels between Obama's first remarks to Congress on health care and President Clinton's in 1993. especially on drugs and biologics before the whole initiative collapsed in the face of opposition from across the spectrum of health care sectors. (See our post here. Therein lies the danger for the biopharma industry: in the context of budgetary priorities. a tough fought balanced budget (remember those days?). That reform was supposed to be budget neutral. . the address lends credence to Tauzin's suggestion that the departure of Tom Daschle from his expected position as the Obama Administration's health care general means incremental change driven by the the economic team rather than comprehensive. there is no doubt that the budget comes first. http://invivoblog. Just don't call it the Health Care Reform Task Force .Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 61 Health Care Impacts Health Care Bad – Biotech Budget priorities mean health care reform will hurt biotech McCaughan 9 (Michael. slashing physician payments or forcing hospitals to close. a bipartisan summit on health care reform kicks off on Monday. quite literally. Obama's next "down payment" on health care reform will be unveiled Thursday.blogspot. to avoid undoing Clinton's first legislative victory. measures to restrain pharmaceutical prices are tempting offsets with little political downside compared to say. Translation: reform proposals will be judged on their ability to reduce spending and shrink deficits--there will be no stimulus-style spending to expand coverage with promises to restore balance in the future.

Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 62 Health Care Impacts Health Care Bad – Biotech – Impacts – A2: Bioterror NO RISK OF BIOLOGICAL TERRORISM Gregg Easterbrook. . But if that's the case-anthrax letters notwithstanding--the focus is in the wrong place. Having harmed only a few people thus far." 11/5. 2001 ["The Real Danger is Nuclear: The Big One.tnr. while living things have gone through four billion years of evolution that render them resistant to runaway organisms.com/110501/easterbrook110501.html] Psychologically. And it is possible that none ever will: Biological agents are notoriously hard to culture and to disperse. Biological weapons are bad. but so far none has ever caused an epidemic or worked in war. http://www. it may be that society can only concentrate on one threat at a time. the anthrax scare may tell us as much about bioterrorism's limitations as about its danger. The New Republic Editor.

biological warfare is potentially far more destructive than the kind of nuclear attack feasible at the operational level of the terrorist. Berkeley on Information Technology and Homeland Security Lifeboat Foundation BioShield http://lifeboat. It is time to accelerate the development of antiviral and antibacterial technology for the human population. It's a new world. How would we react to the devastation caused by a virus or bacterium or other pathogen unleashed not by the forces of nature.shield 2007 The new realities of terrorism and suicide bombers pull us one step further. Though not as initially dramatic as a nuclear blast. We can now sequence the genes of a new virus in a matter of days. It would be more cost effective if those funding the BioShield set specific goals and gave prize money to the people/organizations that accomplished them than simply funding research without such goals. no matter how powerful and dedicated. or to engineer and manufacture prions that. and administer what we need in a timely and effective manner that protects us all from the threat of bioengineered malevolent viruses and microbial organisms. It's possible today to synthesize virulent pathogens from scratch. With the rapid advancements in technology. . We propose that we take the measure of this threat and make preparations today to engage it with the force and knowledge adequate to throw it back wherever and however it may strike. natural or otherwise — we need to accelerate the expansion of our capacity to engineer vaccines for immunization. no matter how astute. distribute. would after a long delay afflict millions with a terrible and often fatal disease. We have tools such as those based on RNA interference that can block gene expression. Time is running out.Stephen M.Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 63 Health Care Impacts Biotech Good – Bioterror Biotech is key to preventing bioterror Maurer 7 . can assure that a small terrorist group using readily available equipment in a small and apparently innocuous setting cannot mount a first-order biological attack. introduced undetectably over time into a nation's food supply. Director of the Goldman School Project at the University of California. present or future. so our goal is within reach! We call for the creation of new technologies and the enhancement of existing technologies to increase our abilities to detect. and no military. but intentionally by man? No intelligence agency. identify. and to manufacture. The way to combat this serious and ever-growing threat is to develop broad tools to destroy viruses and bacteria. and explore the feasibility of other medicinals to cure or circumvent infections. J. we are rapidly moving from having to worry about state-based biological programs to smaller terroristbased biological programs. and model any emerging or newly identified infective agent. Maurer.D. And biological war is itself distressingly easy to wage.com/ex/bio.

Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 64 Health Care Impacts Biotech Good – Space Biotech solves space exploration Chase. during his plenary lecture in November at ASME's International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition in Orlando. Goldin. Self-sufficiency will be essential for all projects. Achieving self-sufficiency. and designing propulsion methods that achieve a good fraction of the speed of light. to explaining how a firefly converts chemical energy into light energy with an efficiency close to 100 percent. During his plenary address. New materials must be developed to withstand the harsh environments of foreign atmospheres. Nothing short of a wholesale revolution in technology is needed. the capabilities of future technologies will hinge upon how well the lessons of biology are incorporated into research. 1 (Brandon. Goldin discussed where the American aerospace program should be going and how best to get there (see "The Great out of the Small. “Space Exploration and Biology make an Inseparable Part of The Future. genetic algorithms. that will happen only with an immediate shift in the way technological advancement is conceived and pursued. the total power consumption of these systems must be decreased by a factor of 1.000. reducing energy demands to levels consistent with self-sufficiency. Fla. will require producing robots that are capable of assessing their environment and making decisions on how to proceed. Technologies will have to mimic the complexities of the biological world. <IT CONTINUES…> For Goldin. Europa. November 2000. Goldin. At these distances from Earth.S. information technology. Goldin said. engineering and physical science. aerospace program will excite the public and the scientific community alike in the coming years. while ensuring American leadership in a world economy. said Goldin. is an advocate of interplanetary space travel who played a major role in establishing the International Space Station and an ongoing series of robotic missions to Mars. page 70). said NASA Administrator Daniel S. Meanwhile. something that will occur only through a meaningful cross-pollination among the fields of biology. worm-like machine exploring the surface of Mars. the NASA Administrator for seven years. to understanding the computational efficiency of the brain. But. nanotechnology and neural networks. . creating machines capable of self-diagnosis and self-healing. whether they involve amachine slithering across Mars. the U. a probe landing on an asteroid. according to Goldin." Mechanical Engineering. active control becomes impossible and mission control irrelevant.” January 1) With objectives ranging from a permanent human presence in space to an intelligent. From informing researchers about the nature of intelligence. the vital link is between biology and biotechnology. or a submarine exploring a suspected ocean on Jupiter's fourth moon. in the burgeoning fields of biotechnology. Goldin warned. Goldin said.

Indeed. designed to humiliate the Americans and present them as scientific laggards. completing an orbit of the Earth in the Vostok satellite. He gave vast amounts of money to Nasa. and Washington in particular. There was respect for the Russians. was an indolent military man who preferred golfing and quail shooting to the hard work of politics. as I shall try to show. when the UN . but a likelihood. He tried to react calmly to the Soviet triumph. Those on the far left. So how on earth will it regulate the space race. 06 (Glasglow. It is even now cluttered with surveillance and intelligence gathering equipment. When John F Kennedy was elected president. such control might be the only way of retaining that status.Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 65 Health Care Impacts Biotech Good – A2: Space Space exploration makes wars inevitable.if it still exists . But not before the Soviets once more trumped the Americans. it has saved space? . Dwight Eisenhower. and the space age began. WMDs a likelihood The Herald. To some extent it has already been colonised by the military men. it will be able to claim that. which is increasingly bellicose? Or is that too bleak a conclusion? Could it just be that in 2045. He further declared that the two Sputniks amounted to the greatest challenge to America's security in its entire history. In this century. "suicide satellites" . and a sense that they had pulled one over the Americans. The president. Johnson was his vicepresident . But what seized the world's imagination was that inside it there was a sentient being. These were ominous and prophetic words. weighing more than 1100lbs. Fat chance. Many US strategists are convinced that fully-f ledged warfare in space is not just a possibility. In the UK there was a generalised admiration for the Soviet achievement. Colossal amounts of money will be lavished on the development of space technologies and orbitology. L/N. not just in the US. satellites that are themselves weapons of mass destruction . So it would be naive to think of space as some pristine new world in which mankind can move in a spirit of idealistic exploration.celebrates its centennial. but in China. how long will it take us to catch up with the Russians' two satellites?" he asked with a wellhoned sense of melodrama. but his opponents ensured that was not an option. with Republican help. while it may not have saved the world.and he was in charge of space. oh God. But the space race was to become increasingly militaristic. when it became clear that control of the air would become crucially important in the winning of wars. The tiny satellite successfully orbited our planet. The Democrat Lyndon Johnson. This was a much bigger satellite. But there is no world agency capable of preventing this gruesome colonisation of the final frontier.that is. Space will instead become the ultimate environment for warfare. The Americans worry that there is at present unimpeded access to space. People called "orbitologists" will increasingly have the ear of politicians. “Blast off in battle for control of the final frontier”. The frenzy increased when the Soviets had the gall to send up a second Sputnik a month later. This was as much a propaganda coup as a scientific breakthrough. "Enhancing space capability" is already a key aim of the Pentagon. The reactions in the UK and the US were very different. regarded the Sputnik mission as proof that the communists were well ahead when it came to the technologies of the future.will be developed. Harry Reid. to introduce legislation that paved the way for the creation of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Nasa). accessed on 7/14/08) AN ANNIVERSARY we shall be celebrating next year will be that of the launch by the Russians of the first Sputnik satellite in October 1957. will become the plaything of the world's military men. December 14. and they want to ensure that the US can control this access before it loses its status as the world's only superpower. money that could obviously be better spent for the direct benefit of mankind in so many other areas. and various early-warning systems. seized the moment. Worse. space. The UN can hardly manage small-scale peacekeeping. Satellites will be used to direct and propel weapons of mass destruction. and the Apollo programme was launched. the final frontier. There are parallels with the development of air power in the first part of last century. Later that year Johnson was able. " he announced. Early in 1958 Johnson told his fellow Democrats that a powerful US space programme was imperative. a vast untainted sanctuary that is pure and untrammelled by our more base instincts and aspirations. India and elsewhere. In the US. the reaction was one of panic. perhaps the most consummate politician the US has ever produced. let alone effective intervention in an area of humanitarian crisis such as Darfur. when in 1961 the cosmonaut Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin became the first man to travel in space. "Control of space means control of the world. a dog called Laika. the fellow travellers. "How long. These Soviet triumphs were largely political stunts.

and he reckons this need not lead to disaster. America's health-care system for the old and disabled. Push Merck officials on the prospects for drug-price controls. Winds of change. He reckons that a 20% cut in drugs prices paid by Medicare. In practice. there will be less to invest in innovation and everyone will suffer. However. lexis Perhaps surprisingly. It argues that if limits are imposed on drug prices in America. The industry makes much of its profit in the unfettered American market. 2008. The more likely outcome is that government health schemes will start demanding discounts from drugs firms. will shave profits at the biggest drugs firms by a mere 5%. and price controls threaten that flow of cash. since the rest of the world free-rides on American spending. America is unlikely to impose draconian price controls. .Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 66 Health Care Impacts Health Care Bad – Pharmaceutical Industry Healthcare reform would destroy the pharmaceutical industry The Economist. Dr Anderson has crunched the numbers. PhRMA now supports most aspects of health-care reform being mooted. and will buy more generics. in that businesses need the prospect of profit in order to invest. this acceptance of change goes only so far. Pharmaceuticals. December 13. and their unflinching answer is that they are "completely opposed" to such European-style "rationing" of care. though. from universal coverage to restructuring the insurance market. That argument is correct.

aei. But there are policy options to address these troubling issues without preying on medical innovation and its health contributions. 2008. So-called specialty drugs for rare diseases have an even lower chance of approval. Gottlieb 8 (Scott. A lot of that money shifted into Internet companies.org/publications/filter. up-front disclosures on co-pays and not stick patients with unbearable bills only after sickness strikes. who have long maligned drug companies for targeting too many routine medical problems with drugs that were "merely" tweaks on existing medicines.D. M. The last time policymakers waged a concerted effort to control the price of and the access to the most innovative but expensive new drugs as part of broader health care reform in the mid-1990s. They will lower expectations that untreated diseases can continue to be repriced. 2008.org/publications/filter. with little allowance for innovation--could push drug development over a tipping point.asp. They can also forego traditional discovery altogether in favor of less socially useful but lucrative areas such as lifestyle medications or prescription cosmetics.all. and the cost of development is high.” November 3.. including approaches that tie their reimbursement to evidence that an individual patient is benefiting..all. AD: 7-31-09) Most new pharmaceuticals have a one-in-ten chance of receiving approval and reaching the market. I work with health care investors and companies firsthand. Health insurers need to provide new policy holders with clear.Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 67 Health Care Impacts Health Care Bad – Innovation Obama’s health plan would collapse pharmaceutical innovation Gottlieb 8 (Scott. This will shortchange the contributions innovations provide. They can reallocate capital in the face of protracted political uncertainty. Obama's policies on drug access and his party's plans to control pricing will distort the financial incentives that inspire innovations.28881/pub_detail. even with very effective new drugs. This is one way an Obama administration would pay for the candidate's plan to create a Medicare-like program for the under-sixty-five cohort. Drug companies need to explore alternative pricing mechanisms. Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.pubID. These new controls--based on a view of health care as a commodity to be purchased at the lowest price. Now these same detractors. This is part of a shift underway in the pharmaceutical industry to give up on routine medical problems in favor of discovering specialty drugs for rare diseases and unmet medical needs like cancer. The shift is driven in part by the industry's critics in Washington. Of course. online: http://www. AD: 7-31-09) The most economically pernicious effect of price and access controls is not the impact on revenue from existing drugs--but how they distort future investment decisions.D. “How Obama Would Stifle Drug Innovation. are also proposing controls on access to and eventually pricing of the specialty drugs.asp.pubID. “How Obama Would Stifle Drug Innovation.28881/pub_detail. Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. M. Senator Barack Obama's drug price and access control proposals will distort future investment decisions and smother the financial incentives that inspire innovation. . Specialty drugs typically appear on the "fourth tier" of health plans and have expensive co-pays. online: http://www. the percentage of venture capital going into biotech fell by almost half in a single year. repricing diseases does not help people struggling to get basic health care or those burdened by high co-pays. led by House Democrats.” November 3. Pfizer recently said it is exiting the development of drugs for common conditions like heart disease.aei. The FDA can also help lower overall drug spending by adopting reasonable regulatory pathways for diagnostic tests that would enable doctors to target drugs more efficiently to patients most likely to benefit.

the initial fight against SARS focused on finding an existing medicine that worked. profit-driven market. “A strong pharmaceutical industry is the best defense against pandemics. online: http://www. Should the disease mutate and infect humans. flu now worries many medical professionals. San Diego Union Tribune. we could see a phenomenon like the flu pandemic that swept the world in 1918 and 1919. and the disease has killed two score people in Thailand and Vietnam. explained: "Given how little we know about SARS and the reality that it is killing people. .html Bird. Gurinder Shahi. Outbreaks have been reported in Indonesia and North Korea.Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 68 Health Care Impacts Innovation Good – Bird Flu Lack of pharmaceutical innovation makes bird flu break outs inevitable Bandow 5 (Doug.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050327/news_lz1e27bandow.” March 27. or avian. demonstrate how we all benefit from profitable drugmakers and abundant pharmaceutical research. Indeed. Senior Fellow at the CATO Institute. Although governments have an important role to play in fighting any disease pandemic. it is justified for us to be daring and innovative in coming up with solutions. Diseases like SARS and avian flu. Indeed. Laboratories screened some 2. necessary for developing any effective treatment and putting into mass production any vaccine or other medicine is private industry." Daring innovation is most likely in a competitive. killing 40 million or 50 million people. which have proved resistant to drugs commonly used to fight influenza viruses. former Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson called the avian flu "a really huge bomb" that could kill upward of 70 million people.000 federally approved and experimental drugs to see if they were useful in fighting SARS. a doctor in Singapore.

” The reason preventive care doesn’t save money is simple. Labor and Pensions Committee that it cannot score most preventive-care proposals as saving money. All of those prescription drugs and office visits add up to big money. “I think there’s a great desire to believe that everything that’s good saves money. Education. the expense of the preventive care for thousands of people outweighs the expense of treating the few that would have suffered strokes or heart attacks without treatment. who have told senators on the Health. doctors must treat thousands of people who have high blood pressure and therefore are at risk of stroke. But many of the patients never would suffer a stroke or heart attack even without treatment. as lawmakers are discovering to their frustration. That’s old news to the analysts at the Congressional Budget Office. which can prevent heart attacks. Van De Water. In the end.Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 69 Health Care Impacts AT: Health Care Good – Economy Arguments that UHC will save the economy are false—preventive care costs too much CQ Today 6/29/09 (Midday Update. “Unfortunately. The same goes for use of cholesterol-lowering statin drugs. is that the logic is wrong. a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. the logic goes. experts say. To prevent a single stroke. Preventive care — at least the sort delivered by doctors — doesn’t save money.com/wmspage. If health care providers can prevent or delay conditions like heart disease and diabetes. the nation won’t have to pay for so many expensive hospital procedures. “Is Preventive Care a Cost Saver?” http://www. . The problem.cfm?docID=cqmidday-000003156324&topic=health) Senate Democrats drafting the big health care overhaul were hoping not only to improve Americans’ health by promoting preventive care but also to squeeze out savings for the government to help provide insurance coverage to people who lack it.” says Paul N. there are a lot of things that are good that cost money. And some will suffer such attacks despite it. It costs money. for example.cqpolitics.

But the basic point is moot. the program faces huge deficits. is increasing waiting times to see a physician. have a right to healthcare? The arguments are already in process across the 'vine. With the "Massachusetts model" frequently cited as a blueprint for health care reform. Health care reform fails – massachussets proves Tanner 09 (Michael D. * A shortage of providers. Universal Healthcare Won't Make a Difference. Those not talented enough to hang their own shingle. ----. Do people. * Health care costs continue to rise much faster than the national average. are now refusing to process any insurance. In a Capitalist Society. April 8 2008. total state health care spending has increased by 28 percent. in general. If by some chance they do.org/pub_display. Some doctors. it is important to recognize that giving the government greater control over our health care system will have grave consequences for taxpayers. You can make an appointment and pay in cash — at their prices — and then submit an insurance claim on your own time. the increase in the number of insured is primarily due to the state's generous subsidies. The government's emergence onto the health scene will further complicate the already complex world of paperwork and administration. combined with increased demand.. typically good ones. and health care consumers. providers.. http://basseq. 112. critics warned that they would result in a slow but steady spiral downward toward a government-run health care system. * New regulations and bureaucracy are limiting consumer choice and adding to health care costs. As such. not the celebrated individual mandate. The government could mandate that all doctors accept the government's health plan. * Program costs have skyrocketed. senior fellow with the Cato Institute and coauthor of Healthy Competition: What's Holding Back Health Care and How to Free It (2007). That is the lesson of the Massachusetts model. because it's already happening.Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 70 Health Care Impacts AT: Health Care Good – Pandemics Their impacts are false—healthcare won’t work Whittet 08[John Whittet. the country ends up with doctors.php?pub_id=10268) When Massachusetts passed its pioneering health care reforms in 2006. . 6/9. the rich are receiving better care. Since 2006. Despite tax increases.newsvine. However. those predictions appear to be coming true: * Although the state has reduced the number of residents without health insurance. In order to make this business plan work. so to speak. will remain behind to service the blue collar masses who simply cannot afford any better. as the dollar will trump food stamps (or "health stamps" in this case). 200. who are available only to those who can pay themselves. If you're a rich American. if you so desire. Insurance premiums have increased by 8–10 percent per year. fed up with insurance mandated prices and the general hassle of insurance claims. and it may not be legal. Moreover. nearly double the national average.cato. The state is considering caps on insurance premiums. I don't think it's possible. This will happen. even with the existence of a universal healthcare plan. “Massachusetts Miracle or Massachusetts Miserable: What the Failure of the "Massachusetts Model" Tells Us about Health Care Reform. and even the possibility of a "global budget" on health care spending—with its attendant rationing. and the good doctors will simply get out. cuts in reimbursements to providers. no less — there will always be a doctor who will strike out on his or her own and charge the individual whatever the MD desires. it'll be a serious blow to the field of medicine.000 people remain uninsured.com/_news/2008/04/08/1419142-in-a-capitalist-society-universalhealthcare-wont-make-a-difference] Unless the government mandates that every medical doctor accept the government's plan1 — at the government's prices. the doctor in question must be a good one. you find these doctors in order to receive the best care. as being good at your job will mean nothing. And lo and behold.1. Writer for NewsVine. Three years later. http://www.” Briefing Paper no.

Consequently. Compensation could take some time to adjust to its market-clearing level (the point at which supply and demand are equal).Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 71 Health Care Impacts AT: Health Care Good – Competitiveness Healthcare reform can’t solve competitiveness – employer savings on insurance offset by wage increase CBO 8 (Congressional Budget Office. but the amount that they would have to pay in overall compensation would remain essentially unchanged. cash wages and other forms of compensation would have to rise by roughly the amount of the reduction in health benefits for firms to be able to attract the same number and types of workers. the underlying amount of labor supplied at any given level of compensation would hardly be affected by a change in the health care system.pdf) Some observers have asserted that domestic producers that provide health insurance to their workers face higher costs for compensation than competitors based in countries where insurance is not employment based and that fundamental changes to the health insurance system could reduce or eliminate that disadvantage.25 But those firms would experience no permanent change in their competitive status. As a result. Replacing employmentbased health care with a government-run system could reduce employers’ payments for their workers’ insurance. . except in the short run. “Key Issues in Analyzing Major Health Insurance Proposals”. http://www. During that time. Fringe benefits (such as health insurance) are just part of that compensation.cbo. Even though changes to the health care system could have various effects on the supply of labor. The equilibrium level of overall compensation in the economy is determined by the supply of and the demand for labor. which would boost their profits temporarily.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9924/12-18-KeyIssues. However. the costs of fringe benefits are borne by workers largely in the form of lower cash wages than they would receive if no such benefits were provided by their employer. such a cost reduction is unlikely to occur. firms that formerly provided health benefits—especially firms that employ workers under multiyear contracts—could experience substantial reductions in labor costs.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Descarregar
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->