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

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

Pete Stark. "Americans are being priced out of the care they need. identified by the White House as a key objective.S. lower benefits for many people. http://www. 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." said Fremont Rep. more individuals. For all the promise of universal coverage. One thing is clear: There will be no free lunch.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/06/13/MNLK185INU. None of these things will be popular. potentially." Obama said Saturday in his weekly radio and Internet address. All sides agree that the current system is trapped in a vicious cycle of rising costs.com/cgi-bin/article. AD: 7-31-09) Starting this week.is even more costly.DTL. following former President Bill Clinton's path to disaster in 1994. It will mean putting the brakes on how doctors and hospitals practice medicine. That failing status quo is why so many people hope health care reform will pass this year. health care reform will be expensive. If it fails.a health system that each year creeps closer to bankrupting more businesses. Changing it is a roll of the dice with an outcome that is critical to Democrats' political future and to the nation's economy.sfgate.S. few officials believe anyone will try again for years to come "The stars are in alignment. health care system. “High Noon on the Hill for Health Care Reform. Treasury itself . But the alternative . Cost containment. That system accounts for more than $1 of every $6 that Americans spend." . "If nothing happens.” June 14. President Obama and Democrats on Capitol Hill will try to do what no Congress or president has done: reform the U. rising numbers of uninsured. falling wages and reduced competitiveness. a top Democrat deeply involved in the House negotiations. It will mean higher taxes and. It may require employers to provide health insurance and individuals to buy it. entire states and ultimately the U. never is.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. we're in trouble.

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

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

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

The next generation of super-computers will be able to crack high-security codes with greater ease.S.S.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.php] The implications of nanotechnology are significant. better process intelligence data and advance the rate of military research. the country or countries that control the manufacturing and benefit from the commercialization of nanotech products will have significant influence over U. Access to these computers by potential terrorists would set us back on our global war on terror. 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.” http://www. . In addition.org/commercialization. Nanomaterials have the potential to save the military billions of dollars by providing wear resistant coatings and protective armors. NanoBusiness Alliance [“Nanotechnology Commercialization: Barriers and Solutions. More importantly however. households increases. breakthroughs in many of the areas impacted by nanotechnology will provide significant political and military leverage to the entity that develops them. as the number of nanotech products in U. particularly for homeland security. access to them and thus on the U.nanobusiness.S. quality of life.

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

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

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

This is not just about covering the uninsured.cleveland. and many of these families are insured as well. To truly understand why health-care reform must be part of an economic recovery plan. Health insurance premiums have risen nearly 6 percent a year over the last several years. Health care is an expense that you cannot postpone or shop around for when you need it.” January 25. A recent survey estimates that 25 percent of people entering foreclosure said that their housing problems resulted from medical debt.600 more in premiums annually for family coverage than they did in 1999.5 million families lose their homes to foreclosure every year because of unaffordable medical costs. But I say that we cannot afford to delay any longer and that this is precisely the time to act. then banks and here we are. Mclatchy-Tribune. First it was the housing crisis. we have to address the crisis in our health-care system.ssf/2009/01/comprehensive_healthcare_refor. An estimated 1. yet wages have not kept pace.html. one only needs to look at the reasons our economy is in free fall. But health-care costs have had a direct impact on foreclosures. . which negatively affected all homeowners.com/opinion/index. Today. The trickle-down effect of the housing crisis is well documented. first housing. the value of our housing stock plummeted. 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.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. Whether we like it or not. If you have a heart attack. AD: 7-31-09) Some say we cannot afford health-care reform during this time of economic upheaval. our health-care financing structure is directly tied to our employment structure. This is about providing real health-care security for all Americans. you go to the nearest emergency room. you go to the doctor. General Motors cannot compete with foreign car companies that do not have the health-care costs burden facing GM. http://www. As more and more homeowners went into foreclosure. being insured does not mean access to affordable health care. “Comprehensive health care reform will restore prosperity and help Americans. If your child has a fever. If we hope for true economic recovery. 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.

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

S. noting the concerns of certain congressional leaders that they will lose jurisdiction with an independent commission." she warned . 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. declaring at the bill signing in Denver. recently discussed his proposal for such a commission during a White House meeting with Obama and other moderate. The recent explosion of government spending to handle the banking collapse and housing crisis has concerned nations like China." Cooper said in an interview. like money for new health-information technologies and preventative disease spending. Early last week. "We would not do an expansion of health care without a lot of savings. For one. This is partly because of resistance by many House liberals to the idea of reducing Social Security benefits. "The key is going to be a required congressional vote. a centrist Democrat. One industry front group. Tennessee Representative Jim Cooper. is likely to take a backseat over the coming months to health-care efforts.time. economy.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.00.8599. In practice." one high-level White House official told TIME last week. It's a campaign promise that Obama made." says Howard Gleckman. a research associate at the Urban Institute." 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.S. other provisions of the stimulus bill. "We have done more in 30 days to advance the cause of health reform than this country has done in a decade." The effort to reform Social Security. Obama is banking on a number of recent developments to allow him to succeed where Bush and Clinton failed. while at the same time telling patients and health providers that bad medicine is on the horizon. so we can't duck the problem any longer. 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. "Covering the uninsured is easy compared to that. In the meantime. which has forced everyone in Washington to focus on the nation's long-term fiscal problems.com/time/politics/article/0. causing quick economic collapse Scherer 9 (Michael. The provision passed. A drop in international interest in U.1881223. this will mean giving uninsured Americans good news. "We are truly going to rise and fall together. which would have a damaging impact on the U. AD: 7-31-09) As daunting as the obstacles to reform are. debt could lead to a spike in interest rates. “Can Obama Actually Achieve Entitlement Reform?” Time Magazine. which buy government debt. http://www.html. a widely recognized first step in controlling costs. there is significant appetite in the Democratcontrolled Congress for providing more health care to the growing ranks of the uninsured. so-called Blue Dog Democrats." Perhaps the biggest advantage that Obama has as he prepares to tackle entitlement is the financial crisis. Obama made no secret of his pride in these measures. Although Administration officials don't like discussing the problem on the record. On Sunday. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urged Chinese leaders to continue their investments in U.S. called the Partnership to Improve Patient Care. but not before its language was changed to decouple the effort from evaluating the costs of competing treatments. "We have to approach the topic very gingerly. which is generally seen as a less complex problem. "Someone is going to have to tell people you are not going to get the care you want. who was able to take over the reins in Congress in part because of the resentment caused by Bush's failed reform effort. 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. an approach supported by many experts as the best way to break the political deadlock. February 23. This group includes House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. have effectively jump-started the move to a more cost-contained health-care system.

on both counts. [It would certainly be good for General Motors. employers slashed 533. The New Stimulus Package To stave off an unwelcome reprise of the 1930s.com.7% and the ranks of the jobless have increased by 2. money to shore up the financial system.S. The broadest measure of unemployment [a figure that includes the unemployed.72 million people -. The reason is that the financial side of the health-care equation is deteriorating rapidly for the average American family. and it would break the health-care reform log-jam. Rx for a Healthy Economy To paraphrase and update a famous quote about General Motors (GM). in 2005. what's good for health-care reform is good for the economy. p. For instance. the largest monthly decline in more than three decades.000 jobs in November [BusinessWeek. Forget any suggestion that reform is too expensive or that it would take too long to have an impact. Considering all the actions being taken by the U. Economists guesstimate the size of the ultimate package at somewhere between $300 billion and $500 billion. faced steep out-of-pocket medical costs relative to their incomes. Yet major health-care reform -. lexis. A bold embrace of universal health care offers policymakers the chance at a fiscal tripleplay: Universal coverage would stimulate the economy. Some 41% of working-age adults -. and that number is guaranteed to have risen in the meantime with the recession that began a year ago. according to the Commonwealth Fund Biennial Health Insurance Survey. were either uninsured for a time. employees laboring part-time.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. The problems associated with America's badly frayed healthcare system are well known. or didn't get the care they needed because of cost. The unemployment rate now stands at 6. and various tax relief measures are all going into the legislative sausage-making apparatus for 2009.5%. But it isn't inconceivable. up from 8.4% a year ago.7 million since December. [That's up from 34%. in 2007 an estimated 116 million people.] Taken altogether.] The list of legislative initiatives is long.] Universal coverage would boost the economy in the short term. . ranks 29th in infant mortality and 48th in life expectancy. [Those over 65 already have a version of universal coverage through Medicare. or two-thirds of working-age adults. the U.] The case for long-term reform is compelling. 12/05/08]. had difficulties paying their medical bills.should top the list.'s Dec. and others barely working] stands at a dismaying 12. 7-31-09) The economy is in a tailspin. too. it would boost the financial security of ordinary Americans. The latest salvo of grim tidings came courtesy of the Labor Dept.specifically. or 12.3 million workers. It would also relieve a major source of economic insecurity for anyone handed a pink slip during the recession. support for struggling homeowners. or 19. Wrong. or 58 million people. The country spends a world-beating 16% of gross domestic product on health.S. the incoming Obama Administration and Congress are preparing a large fiscal stimulus package for the New Year. 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. yet in international comparisons it lags behind a number of key measures. [That's more than double or about triple the tax rebate program from earlier this year.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve to shore up the economy. The number of people without health insurance was 38 million in 2007.had trouble paying their medical bills or were paying off accrued medical debt from the past year. everyone under age 65 would be covered by a qualified health insurance company or through a government-sponsored program. A big boost in public infrastructure spending. With universal health care. universal health care -. Targeting fiscal stimulus toward universal coverage would help ordinary workers rather than Wall Street tycoons.” December 8. 5 employment report: U. the risk that a disinflationary recession deepens into a deflationary depression remains remote.9 million workers. some form of a bailout for the Detroit auto industry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Issue 1.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. The systems needed to command the commons require significant skills in systems integration and the management of large-scale industrial projects.S. They depend on a huge scientific and industrial base for their design and production. military excels.S. the military personnel needed to run these systems are among the most highly skilled and highly trained in the world. superiority in economic resources.S. military can undertake larger projects than any other military in the world.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".1Finally. n14 With 3. where the U.S. defense industry excels. is a key element. According to the Central Intelligence Agency. 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 -. nThe military exploitation of information technology. Vol. The barriers to entry to a state seeking the military capabilities to fight for the commons are very high. 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. International Security. The specific weapons and platforms needed to secure and exploit command of the commons are expensive. the United States produces 23 percent of gross world product (GWP).5 percent of U. a field where the U. .S. gross domestic product devoted to defense (nearly 1 percent of GWP). 28. command of the commons? One obvious source is the general U.S. Pg. In 2001 the U. 5 What are the sources of U.Japan with 7 percent of GWP and China with 10 percent. the U.

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

If we look only at the costs and determine that another country can do all those things cheaper. "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.S.S. as Kissinger puts it. I doubt it very much. R&D. What does it mean if America loses its edge in innovative technologies. and innovation.S. 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.” ASM International. I think that a country has to have an industrial base in order to play a significant role in the world. indeed. the country will still survive. national strength. especially those in manufacturing? At-risk industries and technologies Manufacturing is. . March 1) In 2003. former secretary of state Henry Kissinger told a crowd of technology professionals that "if outsourcing continues to strip the U." If the United States loses its manufacturing capability. then we require careful thought on national policy. Defense Industrial Base. the core of our nation's strength. but will we still be able to lead and." He went on to say: "The question is whether America can remain a great or a dominant power if it becomes a service economy. of its industrial base and the ability to develop its own technology. 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. “The Erosion of the U.Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 25 Health Care Impacts Manufacturing Good – Hegemony Manufacturing is key to hegemony Manzullo 5 (Donald.

The NIST study detailed the service sector’s reliance on U.ita. but the benefits of rising manufacturing productivity extend to the economy as a whole.pdf. 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. in turn.S.S. Manufacturing spurs demand for everything from raw materials to intermediate components to software to financial. every $1 of final demand spent for a manufactured good generates $0.4 Rising productivity is the key to maintaining U. manufacturers for the goods and technology that spur service sector growth. competitiveness in manufacturing. innovations and productivity gains in the manufacturing sector provide benefits far beyond the products themselves. 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.1 The automotive sector provides a good example.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.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. And expanding the power of computers makes on-line banking and other financial services possible. economy. Manufacturing is an integral part of a web of inter-industry relationships that create a stronger economy. economy and to America’s future. Every individual and industry depends on manufactured goods. do not adequately convey the importance of the manufacturing sector to the U. legal. 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.S. Those statistics. however. improvements in cotton harvesting equipment.S. economy. For example. health. help improve the productivity of cotton growers in California and Texas. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.gov/media/Publications/pdf/manuam0104final. A healthy manufacturing sector is critical to America’s economic future for other reasons as well—innovation and productivity. In addition.S. and productivity gains are the key to both economic growth and a rising standard of living. and other services in the course of doing business. transportation. AD: 7-3109) Manufacturing is crucial to the U. Manufacturing sells goods to other sectors in the economy and. economy and to America’s standard of living.45 of GDP in nonmanufacturing sectors. employment. manufactured in the Midwest. January.doc.S. http://www.S. which now makes up more than 70 percent of the U. buys products and services from them. GDP and 11 percent of total U. Manufacturers. accounting.55 of GDP in the manufacturing sector and $0.S. There is no dispute over the significant contribution that manufacturing makes to the U. The sector continues to account for 14 percent of U.S.5 .2 Innovation holds the key to rising productivity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

org/issues/2008/12/health_imperative. AD: 7-31-09) Rising health care costs are the primary reason that our federal budget is on an unsustainable path. Federal spending on Medicare and Medicaid alone is projected to increase from 4 percent of the economy today to 12 percent in 2050.americanprogress. including Medicare. 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. 2008. “The Economic Imperative for Health Reform. but like most public spending on health care. military personnel. their rapid growth accounts for the entire long-run federal fiscal deficit under Congressional Budget Office projections. and health coverage for federal employees. it finances care in the same settings and with the same providers as private insurance. 12-9. Medicaid.” according to Peter Orszag. Medicare has low administrative costs. and veterans. recently designated to head the Office of Management and Budget. As Brookings Institution scholar Henry Aaron has pointed out. Public health care costs are rising at similar rates and for similar reasons as private costs. Medicare will help lead these reforms and derive important financial benefits from them.” online: http://www. Without a new direction.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. Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress. retirees. As the nation’s largest payer of health care services. tax subsidies for private sector insurance. The federal government is responsible for nearly half of America’s health care expenditures.html. higher health care costs will force budget deficits to “levels that will seriously jeopardize long-term economic growth. . 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.

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

During the Bush Administration NASA has done reasonably well in terms of spending: its budget. 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. This is our point. President of Space Consulting Inc. during the Clinton Administration. ending space exploration Miller and Foust 8 (Charles.S. April 14. these long-term trends in Social Security. 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. http://www. However. on average. Medicaid.1 billion in fiscal year 2008.3 billion in 2001.thespacereview. A near-term fiscal crisis is emerging in the next decade. in constant 2008 dollars. if not impossible.com/article/1106/1) Obviously. 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. NASA fared far worse: in constant 2008 dollars. Congress. 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.3 billion in fiscal year 2001 (the last Clinton Administration budget) to $17. has increased from $16.7% real increase per year. it will be difficult. This 0. its budget fell from $20 billion in fiscal year 1993 to $16. or even cancelled. and solving it will be the responsibility of the next President of the United States and the US Congress. By comparison. when both the Democratic White House and Republican Congress sought (and achieved) a balanced budget. 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 Editor and Publisher of the Space Review. 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. and Medicare are not sustainable. is far short of the increases that many space advocates have been seeking. . If that happens. It is unrealistic to expect that NASA will somehow be immune to pressures to cut spending. Recent history provides a taste of what NASA may be facing in the very near future. radically altered. for the current exploration architecture to continue in anything resembling its current form and schedule. It will be significantly delayed. but it is better than what some other agencies have received during the same period.

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

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

actually.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. the first few steps--toward creating one common system. aren't so sure. a lackluster economy in the future by spending less money on these health care programs over time.” December 24. it does. if not impossible. AD: 7-31-09) Some fiscal conservatives. But. way to control health care costs is through system-wide reforms--the kind that are a lot harder. upset that universal health care would require all sorts of new spending upfront. by extension. . not to mention humane.) But the only rational. The reason Medicare and Medicaid are getting so expensive is that health care. (Relative to private health insurance. is getting so expensive. lexis. to implement in the disorganized and volatile insurance environment we have today. overall. If we can only avoid overwhelming deficits and. 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. Medicare and Medicaid control costs a little better. Making sure everybody has insurance is the first step--or. surely spending more money on them now makes no sense. depending on how you do it.

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. small businesses also face larger administrative costs for each worker covered. Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress.” online: http://www.org/issues/2008/12/health_imperative. Small business owners and their employees account for an estimated 27 million of the 47 million Americans without health insurance .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. Without economies of scale. 12-9. AD: 7-31-09) Small businesses also face unique challenges.americanprogress. “The Economic Imperative for Health Reform. 2008. They lack the negotiating clout needed to obtain favorable rates from insurance companies.html.

improve the quality of care. often at a lower cost than treatments widely used today. it might cost the federal government between $100 billion and $150 billion annually. and gather data on effective treatments. 12-9. which can improve health and reduce costs. 2008.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. 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.html. not including any savings it generates by making the health care system more efficient. The first step is universal coverage. “The Economic Imperative for Health Reform. Universal coverage will also facilitate early prevention and detection of disease and better management of chronic diseases. Such a reform may require an up-front investment.americanprogress. Investments can improve the quality of care while reducing costs. .org/issues/2008/12/health_imperative.” online: http://www. 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. Greater use of electronic medical records and other health information technology could reduce errors. Research into the comparative effectiveness of treatments—funded partly by taxpayers—can identify treatments that provide the best results. Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress. These steps can ensure that medical advances continue and are used wisely. But it could also generate very large economic and fiscal benefits. diminish the need for duplicative tests. even in these times of large budget deficits.

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

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

biotech companies across the country filed for bankruptcy. “We share President Obama’s stated goal of expanding access to health care. but Greenwood expected that Congress will take another look at them this year. chief executive of BIO.000 attendees. and lobbying for better protection.businesswire. because more than a dozen initial public offerings were withdrawn. 2-18-09. Another 45 percent have less than 12 months of cash available.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. Further. Venture capital investments dropped as the stock market tanked. Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) President and CEO. which attracted about 1. Congress considered four bills to establish exclusivity for biotech drugs for up to 14 years. But biotech companies oppose health care reform that would lower the cost of prescription drugs. including health care solutions such as new therapies and diagnostics.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. Greenwood said. 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 expects further pain in 2009. http://www. he said. Biotechnology can help bring needed innovation to modernize and add efficiencies to our nation’s health care system. Much of North Carolina's biotech industry. It's a problem particularly for development companies without product revenue. a topic high on the Obama administration's todo list. cash reserves at many companies are dwindling.html The Triangle's two-day biotechnology conference ended Tuesday amid worries about how the industry will weather the crisis in the financial markets. the third-largest nationwide and concentrated in the Triangle. We believe our industry is uniquely positioned to help achieve these goals. depends on investments for survival. Greenwood said. said Jim Greenwood. As public and private investors are tightening their purse strings. the industry's national trade group. Tuesday morning.com/business/story/1409448. Many smaller biotech companies are desperate for cash. which is not expected for at least another five years. Innovation in health care. Health care policy BIO supports universal health care. How to fund operations is among companies' top concerns. Last year. The industry is also preparing for generic competition. Health care reform is key to biotech Jim Greenwood. 2-25-09.newsobserver. http://www. laid off employees and shelved promising drug development programs. has always been and will continue to be central to realizing our health care goals. We believe biotechnology can play a key role in this quest. Greenwood said. About 30 percent of BIO's publicly traded members have less than six months' worth of cash on hand. 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. None of the bills was approved. Greenwood was one of the key speakers at the Council for Entrepreneurial Development's biotech conference. As a result.

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. but scientists see two potential problems specific to these forms of carbon–one problem has to do with their shape and one.collapses the immune system Erosion. It has destroyed entire cultures and has torn apart great empires . As late as the 1950’s it afflicted 10 million people worldwide and killed more than 2 million people every year.26. they tend to clump together rather than exist as single fibers (which have the potential to cause serious respiratory problems as asbestos fibers have). (“No Small Matter! Nanotech Particles Penetrate Living Cells and Accumulate in Animal Organs. detached fibers. once nanotechnologists have figured out how to distract the bouncer guarding the door. could threaten the very existence of human life. “Visions: How Science will revolutionize the twenty-first century” pg 183.edu/ %7Erone/Nanotech/nosmallmatter. 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.sfsu. It laid waste to Alexander the Great’s army in the fourth century BC and killed Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius. . the cells fail to produce an immune response–they welcome the alien carbon like a long lost relative. Two patents on methods of solubilizing nanotubes in organic solutions have issued in the last year to the University of Kentucky (USA). which probably crossed over from animals to humans about 10. to de-clump them–so that they can be more easily used as single. is to control the outbreak of viruses.Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 44 Health Care Impacts Health Care Bad – Nano – Impacts – Disease Nanotech causes disease. what’s the big deal? The big deal is uncertainty. 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. According to Dr. One of the greatest killers in human history has been the virus for smallpox. Wiesner’s comparison of carbon nanotubes with asbestos is not merely rhetorical.” Issue 76. Wiesner. It turns out that Dr. This disease. has to do with their size. Army Medical research Institute for Infectious Diseases in Frederick. Carbon nanotubes resemble asbestos fibers in shape: they are long and needle-like. http://online.25. in our environment. The ability to slip past the immune system may be desirable for drug delivery. highlighting the need to assess the dangers of a material before it becomes ubiquitous. When a nano-sized particle of the same substance — pure carbon — is added to cells (in the form of either nanotubes or fullerenes). but what happens when uninvited nanoparticles come calling? In other words. the cell responds by producing nitric oxide. which indicates that the immune system is working and the body is fighting back against an invading foreign substance. an intensive area of research is to figure out a way to solubilize nanotubes–in effect. carbon nanotubes cannot pose much of a threat at present because. However. has been a deadly killer of humans ever since.html) Again.” such as an airborne AIDS or Ebola virus.24.23. when a 1 micrometer-wide particle of pure carbon (in the form of graphite) is introduced into a cell.” The outbreak of a “doomsday Virus.00 years ago. Maryland. Technology and Concentration Group.S. apparently. “the greater threat to the survival of our species. 2002.

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

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

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

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

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.

Sen. President of the National Center for Policy Analysis. employ part-time workers. A tax on labor (or mandated labor benefits) makes employment more expensive.” September 5. Exactly the same criticism applies to Obama's pay-or-play mandate. It encourages employers to hire fewer workers.to say nothing of all the employers who currently pay less than 75 percent and/or have plans that are insufficiently generous. Were this provision enacted today.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. taxing those who do not provide health insurance for their employees.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. “The Barack Obama Health Plan. it would immediately affect the 40 percent of small employers who do not offer coverage. The Obama plan would impose a "pay-or-play" mandate on all employers.org/pub/ba/ba628/. online: http://www. one can assume this would be an additional tax of 7 percent on payrolls — up to $1. Obama criticized Sen. the 30 million people in families who have at least one worker but no health insurance. 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. During the Democratic Party primary. . Following Commonwealth. AD: 7-31-09) Taxing Labor.ncpa. and millions of Medicaid enrollees who have some workforce connection . As the economics literature affirms. and outsource labor to independent contractors and other entities. adopt labor-saving technology. a payroll tax is almost completely borne by workers themselves.

” . but recognized it was not likely to prompt employers to start offering coverage.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. Deval Patrick asked businesses to help fill the hole. shifting workers to government insurance programs. gently fines those who do not. JudyAnn Bigby. Recent play-or-pay proposals in California and Pennsylvania put the figure at 3 or 4 percent. Levy of the University of Michigan have projected that play-or-pay might push 224. and both failed in part because of business opposition.100 businesses to be fined. So when a substantial budget gap opened in the $869 million health plan this year. “In this day and age.” State officials are gratified that — contrary to national trends — the share of employers offering health benefits has increased slightly. Several other states have enacted similar laws over the last two decades. The amount also was kept low to steer clear of the 1974 federal law prohibiting states from regulating multistate group insurance plans. When negotiating their health plan. State officials hoped the penalty would generate a little revenue.000 workers with group coverage since the state began mandating insurance (a total of 439. Obama would have to set his penalty near 6 percent of payroll (Mercer. One fear about play-or-pay is that if the penalty is too low employers will stop offering coverage and pay the fines instead. Companies with 10 or fewer full-time equivalent employees were exempted. But businesses worry the state will raise their obligation each year. It raised only $7. rejected by voters or challenged in court. while Vermont. AD: 7-31-09) Several econometric models have assumed that Mr. The deal left business leaders satisfied for the moment. giving the state the country’s highest insurance rate). like Massachusetts.” said Dr. They argue they have already absorbed costs of insuring 159. Hawaii is the only state that requires employers to provide health benefits. or about 3 percent of eligible companies.” said Jon Hurst. Massachusetts lawmakers rejected a payroll tax and instead set a “fair share contribution” that was low enough to appease businesses. The state expects 1.000 workers into that category. president of the Retailers Association of Massachusetts.” 10-27 p. “You want the system to work. Economists believe the cost of health benefits is ultimately shifted to employees through lower wages. well under projections. When wages cannot be lowered. up from 855. layoffs may result. Katherine Baicker of Harvard and Helen G.000 have enrolled. but they have been repealed. lexis.000 that Massachusetts employers spend to insure an individual worker. But leaders here also are sensitive to the possibility that further increases in the penalty might stymie wage and job growth. “it wouldn’t take much of a change in policy to push some entities over the brink. the state secretary of health and human services. They recognize that the $295 penalty is a fraction of the $4. a benefits consulting firm says that large employers typically pay 15 percent). “You just want to make sure there isn’t more cost-shifting to businesses because they are paying their fair share.7 million in its first year. 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.

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

p. As Weinberg puts it: "Over the last 12 years.S. economy is remarkably resilient. President Johnson tried to fight the war in Vietnam without raising taxes.the one that people in the rest of the world now perceive as having begun -. growth. a fundamental lesson of history: The U.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. economy bounced back. Japan's economy has managed to contract almost continuously as the United States swung from recession to prosperity. The eventual result was swelling budget deficits. and the nation moved on." Weinberg believes that once the current stock market rally subsides. which raised interest rates and undermined the financial markets.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. enjoying strong growth through much of the 1980s. 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. In the 1960s. March 6.S. only to emerge stronger.will not boost the economies in Europe and Asia by more than the same few tenths of a percent that the slowdown subtracted. and that stretched the economy. after all. Indeed. economic recovery -. 2003 Sunday Still. 2002. It ignores. US ECONOMY IS RESILIENT Los Angeles Times February 9.S." Weinberg argues. . some insist that the stock. the U. 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. In Japan. "The decline in U. Still. Gross's hand-wringing about "hegemonic decay" is terribly overstated. the case can be made that the U. the problems were dealt with. In Europe. what Gross is ignoring is that America has faced tough times before -.S. President Reagan increased the defense budget and cut taxes at the same time.and has successfully worked through them. "By reversing the logic. consumption of the world's products no longer has the power to sway global economies the way it did in the past.S. 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." EMPIRICISM PROVES THAT ECONOMIC SHOCKS WON’T CAUSE DEPRESSION OR WAR. regardless of U. 11 Weinberg contends that U. In 1981. sober minds will turn again to the individual factors underpinning the economies around the world.S. But once again. spurred by great technological advances.

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

not a necessary truth. 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. 28-45.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. or that any of their major economic problems can be attributed to failures to compete on world markets. Foreign Affairs. The growing obsession in most advanced nations with international competitiveness should be seen. The idea that a country's economic fortunes are largely determined by its success on world markets is a hypothesis. Proquest Unfortunately. pg. 2. Professor of Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. his diagnosis was deeply misleading as a guide to what ails Europe. it is simply not the case that the world's leading nations are to any important degree in economic competition with each other. but as a view held in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence. 1994 Competitiveness: A dangerous obsession. Iss. and as a practical. that hypothesis is flatly wrong. 73. empirical matter.Vol. and similar diagnoses in the United States are equally misleading. not as a well-founded concern. flawed arithmetic. That is. .

and Chinese GDP will equal that of the United States and exceed that of the EU. is the Laurence A. but it was not until the First World War that it overtook Britain as a global power. 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. Just project forward the average annual growth rates of the past 30 years. no.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. America overtook Britain in terms of GDP in the 1870s. 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.hoover. 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. http://www. . Hoover senior fellow.org/publications/digest/3058266. 2. if it hasn’t already. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University.html It’s certainly tempting to assume that power is synonymous with gross domestic product: Big GDP equals big power.

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

will only move the country faster toward more government control over the health benefits. 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). Set criteria and demand accountability on Medicaid bailout funds. The House committee report states that "those [items] that are found to be less effective and in some cases.heritage. Congress should also ensure that it provides an appeals process for doctors and patients affected by these decisions. Today. and the doctor-patient relationship. House of Representatives Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) has stated as much. 2. opening the Medicaid program to those unemployed workers without health care coverage. Congress should allow unemployed workers to opt for any private coverage that works best for them and their families during these difficult economic times. mounting unfunded entitlement liabilities. would guarantee greater government control over Americans' health care. 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. The House and Senate bills would establish a framework and funding for comparative effectiveness research and health information technology. Furthermore.org/Research/HealthCare/wm2267. The House and Senate bills would give subsidies for unemployed workers on COBRA coverage.[2] The sundry health provisions in the proposed economic stimulus. prioritize Medicaid spending on a state-by-state basis.[4] In addition. expand dependence on the already-unsound Medicaid entitlement program. http://www. Remove funding for comparative effectiveness and health information technology. with the most fiscally responsible states receiving higher priority. and set up a federal infrastructure that could be used as a tool for government rationing of medical treatments."[3] This type of alarming language is similar to what exists today in the British National Health Service. procedures. “The Stimulus Bill: Why the Senate Must Fix the Health Care Provisions. which recently passed both chambers of Congress.[6] Instead of forcing unemployed workers to choose between a plan they can not afford (COBRA) and an inferior welfare program for the poor.[1] Without broader debate. empower families who want to secure alternative private coverage options. The House and Senate bills would give every state a temporary. 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. COBRA coverage is a prohibitively costly option for the unemployed as well as taxpayers funding the subsidy. Bailing Out State Medicaid Programs. and services. Unfortunately. Senior Policy Analyst in the Center for Health Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Three Essential Changes Congress must make three changes to these controversial health care provisions in the so-called economic "stimulus" package. innovation. 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. the government controls 46 percent of all health care spending. The House bill goes even further. While the Senate's language is broad and vague. Medicaid. 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. Health Care for the Unemployed. For example. professionals. Expand health care options for unemployed workers. 1.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. 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.[5] Instead of bailing out all states. they should at the very least require a review of Medicaid spending by the states. will no longer be prescribed. distort health care choices for unemployed workers."[7] wants to enact such provisions. If Congress reform our health care system. neither bill holds state officials accountable with regard to their past management of their Medicaid programs. Congress should thoroughly debate these provisions and consider their likely impact on medical research. under the guise of emergency economic stimulus legislation. not stimulus. "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. These provisions would fuel fiscal irresponsibility in state Medicaid programs. further destabilizes the already troubled and poor-performing program. regardless of income. President Obama said. are attempting to push forward their radical health care agenda. Congress should require each state to outline how they plan to reform Medicaid to reach long-term fiscal solvency. medical treatments. These provisions would also have a long-lasting impact on the future of the American health care system. more expensive. the House language provides further clarity. and prevent government interference in the doctor-patient relationship. across-the-board increase in their federal match for the nation's largest health care welfare program. The proposed expansion of the Medicaid entitlement program to new categories. and less control of families over their personal health care decisions. we must first begin reforming how government communicates with the American people.cfm) Liberals in Congress. Even with a subsidy. 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. Congress should strip these two provisions. Any other course would be a betrayal of the President's promise of openness with American people. 2/4/2009.” The Heritage Foundation WebMemo #2267. Congress should set up a priority list based on the actions of the states. . (Nina. in combination with the expansion of SCHIP. If Members of Congress insist on these provisions. and its share is expected to reach 49 percent by 2017. 3. At the very least. and procedures that Americans receive. 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. An Infrastructure for Rationing.

especially on drugs and biologics before the whole initiative collapsed in the face of opposition from across the spectrum of health care sectors. We've already noted some rhetorical parallels between Obama's first remarks to Congress on health care and President Clinton's in 1993. AD: 7-31-09) Third. slashing physician payments or forcing hospitals to close. http://invivoblog. to avoid undoing Clinton's first legislative victory. a bipartisan summit on health care reform kicks off on Monday.blogspot. 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.html. quite literally. . policy-first reform. there is no doubt that the budget comes first.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. That reform was supposed to be budget neutral. Just don't call it the Health Care Reform Task Force . 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. 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. a tough fought balanced budget (remember those days?). (See our post here. In 2009. “Obama’s Down Payment on Health Care Reform: How Far Down?” February 26. Clinton's working groups quickly moved into aggressive proposals for restraining spending.com/2009/02/obamas-down-payment-on-health-care. Therein lies the danger for the biopharma industry: in the context of budgetary priorities.) In particular. All in all. 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. Obama's next "down payment" on health care reform will be unveiled Thursday. With that mandate. measures to restrain pharmaceutical prices are tempting offsets with little political downside compared to say.

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

. It's possible today to synthesize virulent pathogens from scratch. Maurer.D. Though not as initially dramatic as a nuclear blast. We have tools such as those based on RNA interference that can block gene expression. The way to combat this serious and ever-growing threat is to develop broad tools to destroy viruses and bacteria. and no military. or to engineer and manufacture prions that. We can now sequence the genes of a new virus in a matter of days. and model any emerging or newly identified infective agent. 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. Director of the Goldman School Project at the University of California. distribute. no matter how astute.com/ex/bio. present or future. but intentionally by man? No intelligence agency. Berkeley on Information Technology and Homeland Security Lifeboat Foundation BioShield http://lifeboat. introduced undetectably over time into a nation's food supply. no matter how powerful and dedicated. 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. 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. would after a long delay afflict millions with a terrible and often fatal disease. With the rapid advancements in technology. Time is running out. identify. biological warfare is potentially far more destructive than the kind of nuclear attack feasible at the operational level of the terrorist. And biological war is itself distressingly easy to wage. natural or otherwise — we need to accelerate the expansion of our capacity to engineer vaccines for immunization. J. 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. It is time to accelerate the development of antiviral and antibacterial technology for the human population. and to manufacture. we are rapidly moving from having to worry about state-based biological programs to smaller terroristbased biological programs. 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.Stephen M. and explore the feasibility of other medicinals to cure or circumvent infections. 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.shield 2007 The new realities of terrorism and suicide bombers pull us one step further.Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 63 Health Care Impacts Biotech Good – Bioterror Biotech is key to preventing bioterror Maurer 7 .

Self-sufficiency will be essential for all projects. the U. nanotechnology and neural networks. “Space Exploration and Biology make an Inseparable Part of The Future. Goldin said. the total power consumption of these systems must be decreased by a factor of 1. something that will occur only through a meaningful cross-pollination among the fields of biology. engineering and physical science. From informing researchers about the nature of intelligence. while ensuring American leadership in a world economy. and designing propulsion methods that achieve a good fraction of the speed of light. reducing energy demands to levels consistent with self-sufficiency. worm-like machine exploring the surface of Mars. page 70). according to Goldin. to explaining how a firefly converts chemical energy into light energy with an efficiency close to 100 percent. active control becomes impossible and mission control irrelevant. At these distances from Earth. the vital link is between biology and biotechnology. Meanwhile. 1 (Brandon. the NASA Administrator for seven years." Mechanical Engineering. said NASA Administrator Daniel S. 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. said Goldin. or a submarine exploring a suspected ocean on Jupiter's fourth moon. whether they involve amachine slithering across Mars. the capabilities of future technologies will hinge upon how well the lessons of biology are incorporated into research. Europa. Goldin said. But. that will happen only with an immediate shift in the way technological advancement is conceived and pursued.000. aerospace program will excite the public and the scientific community alike in the coming years. Goldin discussed where the American aerospace program should be going and how best to get there (see "The Great out of the Small. in the burgeoning fields of biotechnology. Goldin. Goldin warned. Fla. genetic algorithms. Goldin. a probe landing on an asteroid.” January 1) With objectives ranging from a permanent human presence in space to an intelligent. During his plenary address. November 2000.Arizona Debate Institute 2009 Fellows 64 Health Care Impacts Biotech Good – Space Biotech solves space exploration Chase. New materials must be developed to withstand the harsh environments of foreign atmospheres. <IT CONTINUES…> For Goldin. creating machines capable of self-diagnosis and self-healing.S. Nothing short of a wholesale revolution in technology is needed. . during his plenary lecture in November at ASME's International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition in Orlando. Achieving self-sufficiency. to understanding the computational efficiency of the brain. information technology. 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.

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

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

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

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

“I think there’s a great desire to believe that everything that’s good saves money. 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. If health care providers can prevent or delay conditions like heart disease and diabetes.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. the logic goes. there are a lot of things that are good that cost money. That’s old news to the analysts at the Congressional Budget Office. It costs money. All of those prescription drugs and office visits add up to big money. “Is Preventive Care a Cost Saver?” http://www. the nation won’t have to pay for so many expensive hospital procedures. experts say. And some will suffer such attacks despite it.” The reason preventive care doesn’t save money is simple. which can prevent heart attacks. Labor and Pensions Committee that it cannot score most preventive-care proposals as saving money. “Unfortunately. Preventive care — at least the sort delivered by doctors — doesn’t save money. for example. is that the logic is wrong. a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.cqpolitics.com/wmspage. The problem. The same goes for use of cholesterol-lowering statin drugs. as lawmakers are discovering to their frustration.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. Education. Van De Water. To prevent a single stroke. who have told senators on the Health. But many of the patients never would suffer a stroke or heart attack even without treatment. In the end.” says Paul N. . doctors must treat thousands of people who have high blood pressure and therefore are at risk of stroke.

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

Replacing employmentbased health care with a government-run system could reduce employers’ payments for their workers’ insurance. Consequently. . but the amount that they would have to pay in overall compensation would remain essentially unchanged. such a cost reduction is unlikely to occur. Compensation could take some time to adjust to its market-clearing level (the point at which supply and demand are equal). During that time. 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.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.25 But those firms would experience no permanent change in their competitive status. “Key Issues in Analyzing Major Health Insurance Proposals”. 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. except in the short run. http://www. which would boost their profits temporarily. The equilibrium level of overall compensation in the economy is determined by the supply of and the demand for labor. However.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9924/12-18-KeyIssues. Fringe benefits (such as health insurance) are just part of that compensation. Even though changes to the health care system could have various effects on the supply of labor. firms that formerly provided health benefits—especially firms that employ workers under multiyear contracts—could experience substantial reductions in labor costs.cbo. the underlying amount of labor supplied at any given level of compensation would hardly be affected by a change in the health care system. As a result.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.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful