Professional Documents
Culture Documents
San Francisco Chronicle 9 (Carolyn Lochhead, “High Noon on the Hill for Health Care Reform,” June 14,
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/06/13/MNLK185INU.DTL, AD: 7-31-09)
Starting this week, President Obama and Democrats on Capitol Hill will try to do what no Congress or
president has done: reform the U.S. health care system. That system accounts for more than $1 of
every $6 that Americans spend.
Changing it is a roll of the dice with an outcome that is critical to Democrats' political future and to the
nation's economy. One thing is clear: There will be no free lunch. For all the promise of universal
coverage, 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, health care
reform will be expensive. It will mean higher taxes and, potentially, lower benefits for many people. It
will mean putting the brakes on how doctors and hospitals practice medicine. It may require
employers to provide health insurance and individuals to buy it. None of these things will be
popular. Cost containment, identified by the White House as a key objective, never is. But the
alternative - a health system that each year creeps closer to bankrupting more businesses, more
individuals, entire states and ultimately the U.S. Treasury itself - is even more costly. All sides agree
that the current system is trapped in a vicious cycle of rising costs, rising numbers of uninsured, falling
wages and reduced competitiveness. "Americans are being priced out of the care they need," Obama
said Saturday in his weekly radio and Internet address. That failing status quo is why so many people
hope health care reform will pass this year. If it fails, following former President Bill Clinton's path to
disaster in 1994, few officials believe anyone will try again for years to come "The stars are in
alignment," said Fremont Rep. Pete Stark, a top Democrat deeply involved in the House negotiations.
"If nothing happens, we're in trouble."
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 6
Fellows Health Care Impacts
Failure to fund nano research ensures planetary destruction from grey goo unleashed by
malevolent forces
Richard Terra, Media Watch 43, December 30, 2000,
http://www.foresight.org/Updates/Update43/Update43.5.html, accessed 3/19/03
A lengthy article in The Washington Monthly ("Downsizing," by N. Thompson, 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. It's close to becoming a moral imperative." After a brief overview of the potential benefits
and dangers of nanotechnology, and discussing Bill Joy's call for relinquishment, the article asserts: "There's a gaping hole in Joy's proposed strategy
the "logical solution is controlled development. The United
however: It's impossible." Thompson goes on to suggest that
States needs to push the science forward but we also need . . . to make sure that, as much as possible, the
main research bases for this technology develop either on our own soil or with close allies, and we need to
support much of the early research so it can be closely tied into government regulation. 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." The article concludes by quoting Ralph Merkle of Zyvex: "If you've relinquished it, then you're hosed." The
London, UK-based The Ecologist Magazine ran an interesting piece ("Discomfort and Joy," by Z. Goldsmith, October 2000). The article opens with this
outrageous question: "What do you get if you cross Bill Gates with Theodore Kaczynski . . . the Unabomber?", then moves on to outline Bill Joy's thesis as
presented in his now-famous Wired article. After attempting, rather unsuccessfully, to ask Joy to be more specific about his suggested course of action, the
article concludes: "Whatever Bill Joy decides to do, there is no doubt he will play a vital role in the coming debate. Though perhaps he has not fully thought
out the true implications or the logical conclusions to his 'tune,' his intentions are clear, and unlike others in his field, he is willing to rethink some very basic
assumptions." The issue of relinquishment was also raised in a brief but interesting article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ("Future technology sure to be
fantastic, but will it improve life?," by B. Spice, 20 October 2000), reporting on comments by Ray Kurzweil at a symposium held at Carnegie Mellon
University on 19 October. (Taped comments by Bill Joy were also presented.) According to the article, Kurzweil acknowledged that any technology has
To prevent the potential apocalypse
inherent dangers. But Joy's "call for relinquishment of whole areas of technology ... is unrealistic."
Joy fears, "you'd basically have to stop all technological development," he said, and that would likely require militaristic
state control. Kurzweil presents his views at greater length in an elegant and articulate essay in Interactive Week ("Promise and Peril," 23 October 2000).
The article cogently summarizes Kurzweil's thesis on the "accelerating pace of innovation" and its likely consequences, as well as his response to Joy's
arguments. "Although I am often cast as the technology optimist who counters Joy's pessimism," Kurzweil writes, "I do share his concerns regarding self-
replicating technologies . . . Even so, I do find fault with Joy's prescription — halting the advance of technology and the pursuit of knowledge in broad
fields such as nanotechnology." While acknowledging the validity of Joy's concerns about GNR technologies, Kurzweil continues: "Nevertheless, I reject
Joy's call for relinquishing broad areas of technology . . . Most people, I believe, would agree that such broad-based relinquishment of research and
development is not the answer." Kurzweil instead presents his thoughts, which have appeared elsewhere, 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. One salient example of this is
the proposed ethical guideline by the Foresight Institute, founded by nanotechnology pioneer Eric Drexler . . . As responsible technologists, our ethics
should include such 'fine-grained' relinquishment . . ." Kurzweil concludes on a cautiously optimistic note: "Technology will remain a double-edged sword,
and the story of the 21st century has not yet been written. So, while we must acknowledge and deal with the dangers, we must also recognize that
technology represents vast power to be used for all humankind's purposes. We have no choice but to work hard to apply these quickening technologies to
advance our human values, despite what often appears to be a lack of consensus on what those values should be." This point of view was echoed in an
article in the International Herald Tribune ("Technology's Little-Heeded Prophet," by M. Martin, 23 October 2000). Again, after presenting the issues
raised by Joy in his Wired piece, 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, then we would do better to hope that the invisible hand of Adam Smith's marketplace provides a solution. Which it might:
A possible solution to gray goo is blue goo: tiny self-replicating police robots that keep the other ones
from misbehaving."
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 7
Fellows Health Care Impacts
Rejeski 9 (David, Director of the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, “Guidance for getting nano right”
January 5,http://www.nanotech-now.com/columns/?article=262, AD: 7-31-09)
Public perceptions can have large economic impacts. As this technology advances, 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, as well as its great promise
for huge advancements in health care, energy and manufacturing. As noted in the new NRC report, "An
effective national EHS strategic research plan is essential to the successful development of and public
acceptance of nanotechnology-enabled products." The federal government's effort so far has resulted in
limited understanding of the risks posed by the novel nano-based materials, and it has also created a web of
confusion concerning the actual resources that are being allocated to improving our knowledge of these risks.
PEN's analyses over the past three years have highlighted a substantial over-inflation of the government's
nanotechnology risk-research investment figures. These findings were echoed by a Government
Accountability Office report from last year and the new NRC report, which says, "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." To further harp about the missed opportunities of the Bush administration to address the risks
posed by nanomaterials and foster public trust would be a waste of time. The coming years provide an
opportunity for the Obama administration to learn from the past. "The committee concludes that if no
new resources are provided and the current levels of agency funding continue, 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 NRC report says.
"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."
Reinhardt 9 (Uwe, Professor at Princeton University, “Can Health Care Heal Our Ailing Economy?,” February
3, http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2009/02/03/can-health-care-heal-our-ailing-economy.aspx, AD: 7-31-09)
Health care traditionally has been highly labor-intensive -- hence, expensive. But with the number of
working-age adults per elderly declining from about 3.5 now to about two by 2025, we simply cannot afford
to maintain this labor-intensive style. Our only hope is the emergence of labor-saving technology --
pharmacological, electronic, nanotechnology -- that can substitute for this expensive labor input. Items A
and B above fit this bill. [As for C:] So far, more sophisticated software has been an enabler of ever more
perplexing complexity on health care administration. It has not been cost saving overall. I am not so sure
about item D. Microsoft itself has recently released a study on cyberchondria. The Internet may save costs or
be a cost driver. 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. It has boundless
employment opportunities. For capitalists, health information technology will become a fertile field for
investment, as President Obama considers it a first target for "infrastructure investment." Cost-reducing
medical technology of any kind will be a winner. Technology that buys added clinical benefits at enormous
costs -- e.g., specialty drugs -- may have a tougher time selling [its] innovations. Finally, if your money is
invested in Medicare Advantage Fee-for-Service plans, now would be a good (or late) time to get out. Power
plants in Cuba strike me as a more promising deal.
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 8
Fellows Health Care Impacts
Eric Drexler. PhD in Molecular Nanotech, SB, and SM from MIT, Founder, Chairman Emeritus, and Chairman of
the Board of Advisors of Foresight Institute, “Mr. Nanotechnology.” 1986. “Engines of Creation: The Coming Era
of Nanotechnology.” http://www.dvara.net/HK/Engines.pdf [Bapodra]
Sheer curiosity seems reason enough to examine the possibilities opened by nanotechnology, but there
are stronger reasons. These developments will sweep the world within ten to fifty years - that is, within the
expected lifetimes of ourselves or our families. What is more, the conclusions of the following chapters
suggest that a wait-and-see policy would be very expensive - that it would cost many millions of lives,
and perhaps end life on Earth. Is the case for the feasibility of nanotechnology and assemblers firm enough
that they should be taken seriously? It seems so, because the heart of the case rests on two well-
established facts of science and engineering. These are (1) that existing molecular machines serve a
range of basic functions, and (2) that parts serving these basic functions can be combined to build
complex machines. Since chemical reactions can bond atoms together in diverse ways, and since molecular
machines can direct chemical reactions according to programmed instructions, assemblers definitely
are feasible.
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 9
Fellows Health Care Impacts
NanoTechWire ‘5 [“Nanotechnology breakthrough by Imperial College will help the war against terrorism,”
8/26/05, http://nanotechwire.com/news.asp?nid=2254]
Ingenia Technology Limited today launches an exciting breakthrough proprietary technology, developed by
Imperial College London and Durham University - the Laser Surface Authentication system (LSA). The
LSA system recognises the inherent 'fingerprint' within all materials such as paper, plastic, metal and
ceramics. 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, ID cards and other
documents such as birth certificates. This technological breakthrough has been masterminded by
Professor Russell Cowburn, Professor of Nanotechnology in the Department of Physics at Imperial
College London. Every paper, plastic, metal and ceramic surface is microscopically different and has
its own 'fingerprint'. Professor Cowburn's LSA system uses a laser to read this naturally occurring
'fingerprint'. The accuracy of measurement is often greater than that of DNA with a reliability of at
least one million trillion. The inherent 'fingerprint' is impossible to replicate and can be easily read using a
low-cost portable laser scanner. This applies to almost all paper and plastic documents, including passports,
credit cards and product packaging. As well as the security implications, the technology can be applied to
commercial applications, particularly packaging. For example, in the case of pharmaceuticals, up to 10% of
all pharmaceuticals are counterfeits either containing little or no active ingredients. They can be easily
identified with this new technology. Inspection agencies and customs controls could use the technology
to confirm the identity of imported goods and prevent counterfeit. This could potentially save millions
through the avoidance of fraud and reduce the flow of funds to would-be terrorists. The nearest
comparisons to this technology are: barcodes, holograms and watermarks. The main difference is that
these products are overt, and therefore more liable to abuse, whereas Professor Cowburn's is covert
(invisible to the naked eye). Also Professor Cowburn's technology is resistant to damage and cannot be
copied. The LSA system has been brought to market by Ingenia Technology Limited, a London-based
company which deploys nanoscience to create secure systems. "Our findings open the way to a new
and much simpler approach to authentication and tracking. 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. "This system can be a powerful weapon
against fraud, terrorism and identity theft," said Professor Cowburn.
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 11
Fellows Health Care Impacts
Mark Avrum Gubrud. Superconductivity Researcher at U of MD. 1997. “Nanotechnology and International
Security.” Foresight 5th Conference Paper. http://www.csr.umd.edu/~mgubrud/nanosec1.html [Bapodra]
If nuclear weapons remain limited in number, advanced nanotechnology could eventually undermine
their potency as deterrents. No material structure can survive the fireball of a nuclear blast, and
nanosystems, especially early generations of them, are likely to be especially sensitive to ionizing radiation.
Advanced nanotechnology, could, however, provide relatively effective means of mass civil defense
against limited nuclear threats. Shelters would probably be located underground, in deep tunnels dug
by assembler-built machinery, perhaps with the aid of nanodevices that pre-cut neat fissures in the
rock to minimize energy consumption. Active devices could assist in the absorption of shock-wave
energy, and closed-cycle life support systems could permit isolation of the shelters from surface
contamination. The result would be a great reduction in the radius of lethality of nuclear explosives,
and a great improvement in the likelihood of surviving a limited nuclear exchange. Moreover, the use
of self-replicating systems as a manufacturing base implies that such protection could be afforded to
ordinary citizens, potentially to the entire population. The system of shelters could be sufficiently
dispersed that it would present no obvious targets for concentrated attack. A transportation infrastructure
adequate to evacuate urban populations in a crisis (perhaps in as little as a few hours) could also be
provided.
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 12
Fellows Health Care Impacts
Boston Globe 9 (Michael Kranish, “A Warning for Obama on Deficits,” February 23,
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2009/02/23/a_warning_for_obama_on_deficits/, 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. In the last four years, about three-quarters of US
debt was purchased by foreign interests, most prominently by China. If other nations lose confidence that
the United States will pay its debts, however, some economists fear an international financial crisis could
escalate and turn into a worldwide depression. In any case, it is widely expected that debt purchasers will
soon demand higher interest rates, which would translate into higher costs for US taxpayers. 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. Yet some analysts are offering Obama conflicting
advice, warning him not to repeat what they regard as the mistake of President Franklin Roosevelt, who
launched the New Deal but eventually heeded calls to curtail deficit spending, only to see a new recession
batter his presidency. A key player in the summit will be Senator Judd Gregg, the New Hampshire
Republican who backed out of his commitment to be Obama's commerce secretary and then voted against the
stimulus bill. Despite the embarrassment caused by Gregg's about-face, the White House believes that he
could be one of its most important allies in the overhaul of Social Security, Medicare, and tax policy. That is
because Gregg is the co-sponsor of the measure that would create a bipartisan commission to put together
far-reaching recommendations for an up-or-down vote by Congress. In an interview, Gregg said that under
such a procedure, 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. "We need an up-or-down vote on
a package that will be unquestionably bipartisan and fair," Gregg said, a reference to criticism that Obama's
stimulus bill was too partisan. Asked about his hopes for the summit, he said, "It can either be very nice
public relations or move the ball down the road on what is an impending fiscal tsunami." Some budget
specialists are skeptical. Robert Reischauer, former head of the Congressional Budget Office, said Obama
should have seized the opportunity to pair the stimulus bill with the overhaul of Social Security, Medicare,
and the tax code. "When you are shoveling out the goodies, you have a greater probability of getting people
to sign on to some fiscal diet," said Reischauer, who has been invited to the summit. He said he is worried
that nothing will happen on the most difficult issues until political leaders "have a gun at our heads. The
system tends to respond only in the face of unavoidable crisis." Analysts across the political spectrum agree
that the current path is unsustainable. Unless there is a major budgetary change, federal spending will go
from being about 20 percent of the nation's economy to 42 percent in 2050, according to the Concord
Coalition. The major reason is that entitlement programs for older Americans are running short of funds.
Social Security is slated to pay out more money than it receives by 2017. 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. 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. Medicare, the government-run healthcare program for older Americans, is already
running a deficit, which is expected to increase quickly as baby boomers retire. That is why many analysts
are urging Obama to link changes in Medicare with an overhaul of the health system.
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 13
Fellows Health Care Impacts
McDermott 9 (Jim, Mclatchy-Tribune, “Comprehensive health care reform will restore prosperity and help
Americans,” January 25,
http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/01/comprehensive_healthcare_refor.html, AD: 7-31-09)
Some say we cannot afford health-care reform during this time of economic upheaval. But I say that we
cannot afford to delay any longer and that this is precisely the time to act. If we hope for true economic
recovery, we have to address the crisis in our health-care system. This is not just about covering the
uninsured. This is about providing real health-care security for all Americans. Whether we like it or not, our
health-care financing structure is directly tied to our employment structure. To truly understand why
health-care reform must be part of an economic recovery plan, one only needs to look at the reasons our
economy is in free fall. First it was the housing crisis. As more and more homeowners went into
foreclosure, the value of our housing stock plummeted, which negatively affected all homeowners. The
trickle-down effect of the housing crisis is well documented; first housing, then banks and here we are. But
health-care costs have had a direct impact on foreclosures. A recent survey estimates that 25 percent of
people entering foreclosure said that their housing problems resulted from medical debt. Health care is
an expense that you cannot postpone or shop around for when you need it. If you have a heart attack, you go
to the nearest emergency room. If your child has a fever, you go to the doctor. An estimated 1.5 million
families lose their homes to foreclosure every year because of unaffordable medical costs, and many of
these families are insured as well. Today, being insured does not mean access to affordable health care.
Another contributing factor to our economic recession has been the growing inability of our large and
small businesses to afford health care. General Motors cannot compete with foreign car companies that
do not have the health-care costs burden facing GM. 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. Workers are now paying $1,600
more in premiums annually for family coverage than they did in 1999. Health insurance premiums have risen
nearly 6 percent a year over the last several years, yet wages have not kept pace.
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 14
Fellows Health Care Impacts
Cutler et al 8 (David, [J. Bradford Delong and Ann Marie Marciarille] professor of economics at Harvard
professor of economics at University of California, Berkeley, , adjunct law professor at McGeorge School of Law, 9
“Why Obama's Health Plan Is Better,” The Wall Street Journal, September 16,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122152292213639569.html, AD: 7-31-09)
The big threat to growth in the next decade is not oil or food prices, but the rising cost of health care.
The doubling of health insurance premiums since 2000 makes employers choose between cutting benefits
and hiring fewer workers.
Rising health costs push total employment costs up and wages and benefits down. The result is lost
profits and lost wages, in addition to pointless risk, insecurity and a flood of personal bankruptcies.
Sustained growth thus requires successful health-care reform. Barack Obama and John McCain propose
to lead us in opposite directions -- and the Obama direction is far superior.
Sen. Obama's proposal will modernize our current system of employer- and government-provided
health care, keeping what works well, and making the investments now that will lead to a more efficient medical system. He does
this in five ways:
- Learning. One-third of medical costs go for services at best ineffective and at worst harmful. Fifty billion dollars will jump-start the
long-overdue information revolution in health care to identify the best providers, treatments and patient management strategies.
- Rewarding. Doctors and hospitals today are paid for performing procedures, not for helping patients. Insurers make money by dumping
sick patients, not by keeping people healthy. Mr. Obama proposes to base Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements to hospitals and
doctors on patient outcomes (lower cholesterol readings, made and kept follow-up appointments) in a coordinated effort to focus the
entire payment system around better health, not just more care.
- Pooling. The Obama plan would give individuals and small firms the option of joining large insurance pools. With large patient pools,
a few people incurring high medical costs will not topple the entire system, so insurers would no longer need to waste time, money and
resources weeding out the healthy from the sick, and businesses and individuals would no longer have to subject themselves to that
costly and stressful process.
- Preventing. In today's health-care market, less than one dollar in 25 goes for prevention, even though preventive services -- regular
screenings and healthy lifestyle information -- are among the most cost-effective medical services around. Guaranteeing access to
preventive services will improve health and in many cases save money.
- Covering. Controlling long-run health-care costs requires removing the hidden expenses of the uninsured. The reforms described above
will lower premiums by $2,500 for the typical family, allowing millions previously priced out of the market to afford insurance.
In addition, tax credits for those still unable to afford private coverage, and the option to buy in to the federal government's benefits
system, will ensure that all individuals have access to an affordable, portable alternative at a price they can afford.
Given the current inefficiencies in our system, the impact of the Obama plan will be profound. Besides
the $2,500 savings in medical costs for the typical family, according to our research annual business-sector
costs will fall by about $140 billion. 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.
We know these savings are attainable: other countries have them today. We spend 40% more than other
countries such as Canada and Switzeraland on health care -- nearly $1 trillion -- but our health outcomes are
no better.
The lower cost of benefits will allow employers to hire some 90,000 low-wage workers currently
without jobs because they are currently priced out of the market. It also would pull one and a half million
more workers out of low-wage low-benefit and into high-wage high-benefit jobs. Workers currently
locked into jobs because they fear losing their health benefits would be able to move to entrepreneurial jobs,
or simply work part time.
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 15
Fellows Health Care Impacts
Scherer 9 (Michael, “Can Obama Actually Achieve Entitlement Reform?” Time Magazine, February 23,
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1881223,00.html, AD: 7-31-09)
As daunting as the obstacles to reform are, Obama is banking on a number of recent developments to allow
him to succeed where Bush and Clinton failed. For one, there is significant appetite in the Democrat-
controlled Congress for providing more health care to the growing ranks of the uninsured. It's a campaign
promise that Obama made, 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. "We would not do an expansion of health
care without a lot of savings," one high-level White House official told TIME last week. In practice, this
will mean giving uninsured Americans good news, while at the same time telling patients and health
providers that bad medicine is on the horizon. "Someone is going to have to tell people you are not going to
get the care you want," says Howard Gleckman, a research associate at the Urban Institute. "Covering the
uninsured is easy compared to that." 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. One
industry front group, called the Partnership to Improve Patient Care, 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, a widely recognized first step in controlling costs. The provision passed, but not before its
language was changed to decouple the effort from evaluating the costs of competing treatments. In the
meantime, other provisions of the stimulus bill, like money for new health-information technologies and
preventative disease spending, have effectively jump-started the move to a more cost-contained health-care
system. Early last week, Obama made no secret of his pride in these measures, declaring at the bill signing in
Denver, "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, which is generally seen as a less complex problem, is likely
to take a backseat over the coming months to health-care efforts. This is partly because of resistance by many
House liberals to the idea of reducing Social Security benefits. This group includes House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi, who was able to take over the reins in Congress in part because of the resentment caused by Bush's
failed reform effort. Although Administration officials don't like discussing the problem on the record, 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, an approach supported by many
experts as the best way to break the political deadlock. Tennessee Representative Jim Cooper, a centrist
Democrat, recently discussed his proposal for such a commission during a White House meeting with Obama
and other moderate, so-called Blue Dog Democrats. "We have to approach the topic very gingerly," Cooper
said in an interview, noting the concerns of certain congressional leaders that they will lose jurisdiction with
an independent commission. "The key is going to be a required congressional vote, so we can't duck the
problem any longer." Perhaps the biggest advantage that Obama has as he prepares to tackle entitlement is
the financial crisis, which has forced everyone in Washington to focus on the nation's long-term fiscal
problems. The recent explosion of government spending to handle the banking collapse and housing crisis
has concerned nations like China, which buy government debt. A drop in international interest in U.S.
debt could lead to a spike in interest rates, which would have a damaging impact on the U.S. economy.
On Sunday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urged Chinese leaders to continue their investments in U.S.
debt. "We are truly going to rise and fall together," she warned
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 16
Fellows Health Care Impacts
Business Week 8 (“Want Real Stimulus? Try Universal Health Care,” December 8, p. lexis, 7-31-09)
The economy is in a tailspin. The latest salvo of grim tidings came courtesy of the Labor Dept.'s Dec. 5
employment report: U.S. employers slashed 533,000 jobs in November [BusinessWeek.com, 12/05/08], the
largest monthly decline in more than three decades. The unemployment rate now stands at 6.7% and the
ranks of the jobless have increased by 2.7 million since December. The broadest measure of unemployment
[a figure that includes the unemployed, employees laboring part-time, and others barely working] stands at a
dismaying 12.5%, or 19.3 million workers, up from 8.4% a year ago, or 12.9 million workers.
Considering all the actions being taken by the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve to shore up the economy,
the risk that a disinflationary recession deepens into a deflationary depression remains remote. But it
isn't inconceivable.
The New Stimulus Package
To stave off an unwelcome reprise of the 1930s, the incoming Obama Administration and Congress are
preparing a large fiscal stimulus package for the New Year. Economists guesstimate the size of the ultimate
package at somewhere between $300 billion and $500 billion. [That's more than double or about triple the tax
rebate program from earlier this year.]
The list of legislative initiatives is long. A big boost in public infrastructure spending, support for struggling
homeowners, money to shore up the financial system, some form of a bailout for the Detroit auto industry,
and various tax relief measures are all going into the legislative sausage-making apparatus for 2009.
Yet major health-care reform -- specifically, universal health care -- should top the list. Forget any
suggestion that reform is too expensive or that it would take too long to have an impact. Wrong, on
both counts. A bold embrace of universal health care offers policymakers the chance at a fiscal triple-
play: Universal coverage would stimulate the economy, it would boost the financial security of ordinary
Americans, 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), what's good for health-care reform
is good for the economy. [It would certainly be good for General Motors, too.]
The case for long-term reform is compelling. The problems associated with America's badly frayed health-
care system are well known. The country spends a world-beating 16% of gross domestic product on
health, yet in international comparisons it lags behind a number of key measures. For instance, the U.S.
ranks 29th in infant mortality and 48th in life expectancy. The number of people without health insurance
was 38 million in 2007, and that number is guaranteed to have risen in the meantime with the recession that
began a year ago. With universal health care, everyone under age 65 would be covered by a qualified health
insurance company or through a government-sponsored program. [Those over 65 already have a version of
universal coverage through Medicare.]
Universal coverage would boost the economy in the short term. The reason is that the financial side of
the health-care equation is deteriorating rapidly for the average American family. Some 41% of
working-age adults -- 72 million people -- had trouble paying their medical bills or were paying off accrued
medical debt from the past year. [That's up from 34%, or 58 million people, in 2005.] Taken altogether, in
2007 an estimated 116 million people, or two-thirds of working-age adults, were either uninsured for a
time, faced steep out-of-pocket medical costs relative to their incomes, had difficulties paying their
medical bills, or didn't get the care they needed because of cost, according to the Commonwealth Fund
Biennial Health Insurance Survey.
Targeting fiscal stimulus toward universal coverage would help ordinary workers rather than Wall
Street tycoons. It would also relieve a major source of economic insecurity for anyone handed a pink
slip during the recession.
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 17
Fellows Health Care Impacts
Kvaal 8 (James, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, 12-9, 2008, “The Economic Imperative for
Health Reform,” online: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/12/health_imperative.html, AD: 7-31-09)
America’s economy is buckling under a broken health care system. Year after year, health care costs
grow faster than the rest of the economy, straining families, businesses, and government budgets. There
are 46 million Americans without health insurance. Some patients receive excellent care, but we waste as
much as $700 billion a year on tests and treatments that cannot be shown to improve health.
Overhauling this health care system to cover everyone and reduce waste is an economic imperative for
three reasons. First, high health care costs put many American businesses at a disadvantage to their
foreign competitors and lead to lower wages and fewer jobs. A 20 percent increase in health insurance
premiums would cost 3.5 million jobs and cut incomes by $1,700, according to one study.
Second, ever-rising health care costs are threatening to drive an unsustainable explosion in the national
debt. 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. If health reform slows growth in health care
costs, it could be the most fiscally responsible course, even at the cost of higher deficits in the short
term.
Finally, our system is a threat to families’ health and financial security. Accidents and illnesses can drive
the families who lack adequate health coverage deep into debt and devastate their financial security.
Uninsured individuals who lacked access to quality health care in 2006 cost the economy as much as $200
billion. 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.
Some have suggested that we cannot afford to address these problems in the midst of a recession. But
postponing health reform would be penny-wise and pound-foolish. Addressing health care can stimulate
the economy and create jobs now, while laying the foundation for stronger and shared economic
growth in the coming years.
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 18
Fellows Health Care Impacts
The New Republic 8 (“Dynamic Duo,” December 24, lexis, AD: 7-31-09)
It's a superficially logical argument--one that people like Reischauer, a well-respected budget expert, surely
come by sincerely. Fully implemented, universal health insurance will require an infusion of somewhere
between $50 billion and $130 billion per year. With the annual budget deficit likely to hit $1 trillion this
year, where would the money come from? And, while it's important to maximize the number of people
with health insurance, surely it's more important to maximize the number of people with jobs and
steady incomes. But neither argument holds up that well under scrutiny. On the contrary, the economic
downturn actually makes the case for universal health insurance even stronger than it was before.
Start with the present economic crisis. By now, even the most hard-core fiscal conservatives are discovering
their inner Keynesians, calling for new government spending to stimulate the economy. But spending on
what exactly? Infrastructure is the most obvious target, because infrastructure spending creates jobs. But
recent reports suggest that the number of projects that are ready to go--that is, those that could start up
as soon as money is available--would account for only tens of billions in new spending, which is just a
fraction of the stimulus many economists say we need in the very near future. There's also the possibility
of tax rebates. But recent experience suggests that all but the poorest tend to save the money rather than
spend it--which basically defeats the purpose.
On the other hand, most proposals for universal coverage start with a federally financed expansion of
Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. That means more poor people would get
health insurance right away. And, as economist Jonathan Gruber argued recently in The New York Times,
expanding those programs provides a superb economic stimulus. When poor people get health
insurance, they purchase medical goods and services. More important, they start spending money on
other things, since they no longer have to put aside money to pay for medical emergencies. That
funnels cash back into the economy, promoting growth. "Health care reform," Gruber concluded, "is
good for our economy."
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 19
Fellows Health Care Impacts
Kvaal 8 (James, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, 12-9, 2008, “The Economic Imperative for
Health Reform,” online: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/12/health_imperative.html, AD: 7-31-09)
Our health care system also distorts the labor market. Employers have incentives to hire part-time
workers who are ineligible for health benefits. They may hire fewer workers eligible for insurance and
work them longer hours. Rising costs exacerbate these problems. At the same time, many workers do
not want to leave their jobs because they fear losing or changing health insurance. As a result, the
fragmented system of health insurance creates “job lock” that impairs the flexible labor markets that
strengthen the economy.
Reform increases labor market efficiency and encourages innovation in other sectors
The New Republic 8 (“Dynamic Duo,” December 24, lexis, AD: 7-31-09)
Universal health care can also bolster the economy's long-term health in other ways. Sometimes people
stay in jobs they'd prefer to leave just because they fear losing their insurance; this phenomenon, known
as "job lock," distorts the labor market and makes the economy less efficient than it would be
otherwise. Making health insurance universally available would change that. And, just like investments
in infrastructure, investments in health care--properly targeted--can improve productivity, whether by
encouraging investments in information technology (something most reform plans would do, in order to
streamline record-keeping) or simply by creating a healthier workforce. Don't forget, too, that universal
health care should ultimately make life easier for businesses struggling with the cost of employee coverage.
If that need doesn't sound pressing to you, check out the auto companies' latest stock prices.
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 20
Fellows Health Care Impacts
Nyquist, 5 [J.R. renowned expert in geopolitics and international relations, WorldNetDaily contributing editor,
“The Political Consequences of a Financial Crash,” February 4, www.financialsense.com/stormw...2005/0204.html]
Should the United States experience a severe economic contraction during the second term of
President Bush, 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. In Congress today, Sen. Edward Kennedy supports nearly all the economic dogmas listed above. It
is easy to see, therefore, that the coming economic contraction, due in part to a policy of massive credit
expansion, will have serious political consequences for the Republican Party (to the benefit of the
Democrats). Furthermore, an economic contraction will encourage the formation of anti-capitalist
majorities and a turning away from the free market system. The danger here is not merely economic. The
political left openly favors the collapse of America’s strategic position abroad. The withdrawal of the
United States from the Middle East, 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. Should anti-capitalist dogmas overwhelm the global market and trading system that evolved under
American leadership, the planet’s economy would contract and untold millions would die of starvation.
Nationalistic totalitarianism, fueled by a politics of blame, would once again bring war to Asia and
Europe. 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. Furthermore, if the anti-capitalist party gains
power in Washington, we can expect to see policies of appeasement and unilateral disarmament enacted.
American appeasement and disarmament, in this context, would be an admission of guilt before the court of
world opinion. Russia and China, above all, would exploit this admission to justify aggressive wars,
invasions and mass destruction attacks. A future financial crash, therefore, must be prevented at all
costs. But we cannot do this. As one observer recently lamented, “We drank the poison and now we must
die.”
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 21
Fellows Health Care Impacts
Teslik 8 (Lee Hudson, Associate Editor for the Council on Foreign Relations, “Healthcare Costs and U.S.
Competitiveness,” March 18, online: http://www.cfr.org/publication/13325/, AD: 7-31-09)
Factoring in costs borne by government, the private sector, and individuals, the United States spends over
$1.9 trillion annually on healthcare expenses, more than any other industrialized country. Researchers
at Johns Hopkins Medical School estimate the United States spends 44 percent more per capita than
Switzerland, the country with the second highest expenditures, and 134 percent more than the median for
member states of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). These costs
prompt fears that an increasing number of U.S. businesses will outsource jobs overseas or offshore
business operations completely. U.S. Representative John P. Sarbanes (D-MD), a member of the House
Education and Labor Committee, told CFR.org that in light of these concerns a “consensus is emerging” on
Capitol Hill to do something to ease pressures on U.S. employers. Many experts recommend some form of
increased public-private partnership, though the specifics of competing plans vary wildly. With the 2008
presidential campaign in full swing, Democratic and Republican candidates disagree sharply on which way
reform should go. Democrats embrace expanding public-private partnerships while Republicans generally
favor less government control.
Competitive Disadvantage
Employer-funded coverage is the structural mainstay of the U.S. health insurance system. According to
2005 data from the U.S. Census Bureau, the most recent official data available, employer-provided health
benefits cover 175 million Americans, or about 60 percent of the population. Those numbers have fallen
since 2001, when 65 percent of the country had some form of employer coverage, based on data from the
Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit focused on healthcare issues. Premiums have skyrocketed, rising 87
percent since 2000. In 2004, health coverage became the most expensive benefit paid by U.S. employers,
according to a report by the Employment Policy Foundation.
These ballooning dollar figures place a heavy burden on companies doing business in the United States
and can put them at a substantial competitive disadvantage in the international marketplace. For large
multinational corporations like General Motors, which covers more than 1.1 million employees and former
employees, footing healthcare costs presents an enormous expense—the company says it spent roughly $5.6
billion on healthcare expenses in 2006. GM says healthcare costs alone add $1,500 to the sticker price of
every automobile it makes, and estimates that by 2008 that number could reach $2,000.
It is difficult to quantify the precise effect high healthcare costs have had so far on the U.S. job market.
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. Moreover, economists
disagree on the number of U.S. jobs that have been lost to offshoring—the transfer of business operations
across national boundaries to friendlier operating environments. The Princeton economist Alan S. Blinder, in
a 2006 Foreign Affairs article, says that judging by data compiled from “fragmentary studies,” it is apparent
that “under a million service-sector jobs in the United States have been lost to offshoring to date.” Blinder
goes on to predict that somewhere between 28 million and 42 million U.S. jobs are “susceptible” to
offshoring in a future where technology allows the more efficient transfer of jobs. Many other economists,
however, have shied away from making such estimates, and some have criticized Blinder’s approach.
It is clear, however, that healthcare expenses affect every level of U.S. industry. For large corporations
they mean the massive “legacy costs” associated with insuring retired employees. For small business
owners they can be even more devastating. “In many places, you have small businesses that simply cannot
afford to offer coverage,” Sarbanes says. Often, he says, healthcare expenses make it impossible for small
business owners to hire candidates they would otherwise desire.
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 22
Fellows Health Care Impacts
Kvaal 8 (James, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, 12-9, 2008, “The Economic Imperative for
Health Reform,” online: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/12/health_imperative.html, AD: 7-31-09)
Rising health care costs put a particular burden on U.S. businesses, which have been the primary source
of health coverage for nearly 75 years. Today, the majority of Americans—158 million people—receive
health coverage from their job or a family member’s job.
Higher health insurance premiums translate directly into higher labor costs, forcing employers to cut
back their workforces. A 20 percent increase in health insurance premiums would cost 3.5 million
workers their jobs, lead a similar number of workers to move from full-time to part-time work, and cut
average annual income by $1,700, according to research by Katherine Baicker and Amitabh Chandra.
Premiums are expected to increase by 20 percent in less than four years.
Economists believe that over time higher premiums primarily translate into lower wages, particularly
for the workers most likely to incur higher health care costs. Rising health care costs will drive up taxes
and premiums, eating up 95 percent of the growth in per capita gross domestic product between 2005 and
2050.
Older industries are particularly burdened by the cost of health coverage for their workers and
retirees. 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 the New America Foundation.
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 23
Fellows Health Care Impacts
Barry Posen (Political Science Professor at MIT) Summer 2003 “Command of the Commons", International
Security, Vol. 28, Issue 1, Pg. 5
What are the sources of U.S. command of the commons? One obvious source is the general U.S.
superiority in economic resources. According to the Central Intelligence Agency, the United States produces 23 percent
of gross world product (GWP); 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 -- Japan with 7 percent of GWP and China with 10
percent. n14 With 3.5 percent of U.S. gross domestic product devoted to defense (nearly 1 percent of GWP), the
U.S. military can undertake larger projects than any other military in the world. The specific weapons
and platforms needed to secure and exploit command of the commons are expensive. They depend on a
huge scientific and industrial base for their design and production. In 2001 the U.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. nThe military exploitation of information technology, a field where the U.S. military excels, is a
key
element. The systems needed to command the commons require significant skills in systems integration
and the management of large-scale industrial projects, where the U.S. defense industry excels. 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.1Finally, the military personnel
needed to run these systems are among the most highly skilled and highly trained in the world. The
barriers to entry to a state seeking the military capabilities to fight for the commons are very high.
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 24
Fellows Health Care Impacts
A world without United States leadership would create a power vacuum, this is the biggest
impact – nuclear war, economic collapse, disease
Niall Ferguson, July/August 2004. professor of history at Harvard University, senior fellow at the Hoover
Institution at Stanford University. “A World Without Power” Foreign Policy
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/afp/vac.htm
So what is left? Waning empires. Religious revivals. Incipient anarchy. A coming retreat into fortified
cities. These are the Dark Age experiences that a world without a hyperpower might quickly find itself
reliving.The trouble is, of course, that this Dark Age would be an altogether more dangerous one than the Dark Age of the ninth
century. 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. Technology has transformed production; now human societies depend not merely on freshwater and the harvest but
also on supplies of fossil fuels that are known to be finite. Technology has upgraded destruction, too, so it is now possible not
just to sack a city but to obliterate it.For more than two decades, globalization—the integration of world markets for
commodities, labor, and capital—has raised living standards throughout the world, except where countries have shut themselves off
from the process through tyranny or civil war. The reversal of globalization—which a new Dark Age would produce—would certainly
lead to economic stagnation and even depression. As the United States sought to protect itself after a second September 11 devastates,
say, Houston or Chicago, it would inevitably become a less open society, less hospitable for foreigners seeking to work, visit, or do
business. Meanwhile, as Europe's Muslim enclaves grew, Islamist extremists' infiltration of the EU would become irreversible,
increasing trans-Atlantic tensions over the Middle East to the breaking point. An economic meltdown in China would plunge the
Communist system into crisis, unleashing the centrifugal forces that undermined previous Chinese empires. Western investors would
lose out and conclude that lower returns at home are preferable to the risks of default abroad.The worst effects of the new
Dark Age would be felt on the edges of the waning great powers.The wealthiest ports of the global economy—from
New York to Rotterdam to Shanghai—would become the targets of plunderers and pirates. With ease, terrorists could disrupt the
freedom of the seas, targeting oil tankers, aircraft carriers, and cruise liners, while Western nations frantically concentrated on making
their airports secure. Meanwhile,limited nuclear wars could devastate numerous regions, beginning in the Korean
peninsula and Kashmir, perhaps ending catastrophically in the Middle East. In Latin America, wretchedly poor citizens would seek
solace in Evangelical Christianity imported by U.S. religious orders. In Africa, the great plagues of AIDS and malaria would continue
their deadly work. The few remaining solvent airlines would simply suspend services to many cities in these continents; who would wish
to leave their privately guarded safe havens to go there?For all these reasons, the prospect of an apolar world should
frighten us today a great deal more than it frightened the heirs of Charlemagne. 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, or even a return to the good old balance of power. Be careful what you wish for.
The alternative to unipolarity would not be multipolarity at all. It would be apolarity—a global
vacuum of power. And far more dangerous forces than rival great powers would benefit from such a
not-so-new world disorder.
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 25
Fellows Health Care Impacts
Manzullo 5 (Donald, “The Erosion of the U.S. Defense Industrial Base,” ASM International, March 1)
In 2003, former secretary of state Henry Kissinger told a crowd of technology professionals that "if outsourcing continues to strip the
U.S. of its industrial base and the ability to develop its own technology, then we require careful thought on national policy." He went on
to say: "The question is whether America can remain a great or a dominant power if it becomes a service
economy. I doubt it very much. I think that a country has to have an industrial base in order to play a significant
role in the world." If the United States loses its manufacturing capability, the country will still survive, but will we
still be able to lead and, as Kissinger puts it, "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. national strength. What does it mean if America loses its edge in innovative
technologies, especially those in manufacturing? At-risk industries and technologies Manufacturing is, indeed, the core of
our nation's strength. With a strong manufacturing base comes engineering, R&D, and innovation. If we look only at the costs
and determine that another country can do all those things cheaper, then we limit our strength and the speed of our innovation cycles to
that of low-cost nations. 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.
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 26
Fellows Health Care Impacts
Norris 8 (Amanda, The Stamford Times, “Locals provide input for Obama’s transition team,” December 28,
http://thestamfordtimes.com/story/462337, AD: 7-31-09)
One group debated whether health care should be universally provided by the government the same way that public
education is, and, if so, at what cost and to whom. Two business owners appeared to square off over whether universal health care was
desirable or even possible. 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, "catastrophic" plans with limited coverage for more minor procedures and services. Roy
Kamen, owner of Kamen Entertainment, a company that makes health and fitness DVDs, said he is certain that the nation could
not handle a major pandemic or biological-based terrorist attack. Kamen was hopeful that president-
elect Obama's administration would provide a solution. "I don't think the insurance companies are
going to solve this," Kamen said. "I was an Obama supporter, and I think they virtually have to solve this.
This is really a new time. There is a new mindset. The greed of the past is gone."
Health care reform is key to prevent diseases from becoming pandemics. It solves
mutation and transmission
Vanessa Mason, BA from Yale, August 16, 2008, http://vanessamason.wordpress.com/2008/08/16/universal-
health-care-series-the-national-security-argument/
Fences and security checkpoints versus pathogens. David versus Goliath. While it seems that one side has the
brute strength and power to counter the other, we all know how the second conflict ends. The flu epidemic
of 1918 killed one-fifth of the world’s population in about two years, resulting in more deaths from the
epidemic than World War I. Our interconnected society makes epidemics more likely to occur with the
ease of mobility within countries and in between them. A recent epidemic scare happened in 2007 when
Andrew Speaker, after receiving a diagnosis of drug-resistant tuberculosis, proceeded to travel overseas and
back on commercial flights for his wedding and honeymoon. Speaker was already out of the country when
before authorities realized that he was infected with multi-drug resistant tuberculosis, which is the most
difficult strain to treat. Fortunately, no one was infected; also fortunately, Speaker was diagnosed and
authorities were informed that he was infected. Imagine what could have happened if Speaker could not have
seen a doctor. MRSA and other “superbugs” are becoming increasingly frequent. Avian flu and
pandemic flu are also looming biological dangers. Imagine a situation where a patient has a bacterial
infection but never goes to see a doctor because they can not afford the visit. The patient would
continue to pass through the general population, infecting others. Public health officials would have
greater difficulty finding the source of the infection because there would be so many more cases. Imagine a
situation where a patient actually sees a doctor, but in a crowded emergency room. The doctor, overwhelmed
with cases, quickly diagnoses the bacterial infection and prescribes penicillin. The patient takes the
medication, but the bacteria becomes resistant to penicillin. His condition worsens and he can spread a drug-
resistant strain to others. Imagine a situation caused that as a byproduct of his socioeconomic status, the
patient lives in conditions that are ripe for the spread of infections: close quarters and poor ventilation.
Poverty also compromises the strength of one’s immune system, leaving the body open to infections and
once infected, the body can not fight infections well. 1) Universal health care provides a greater
likelihood of early detection to curb infections before they grow too quickly. Early detection is a key
advantage in controlling epidemics and preventing deaths. Earlier detection also helps to reduce the
likelihood that drug-resistant strains develop in the general population. 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. 3) Universal health care enables consistent access to proper treatment. Treating infections
with the wrong medication or with an insufficient dosage can cause the pathogen to mutate, creating
drug-resistant strains. 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.
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 28
Fellows Health Care Impacts
Green 4 (Shane, Ph.D., Director of Outreach at the Ontario Genomics Institute, “Bioterrorism and Health Care
Reform: No Preparedness Without Access,” May Virtual Mentor, the AMA Journal of Ethics, Vol. 6, No. 5)
But with the US presently engaged in a “war on terror,” in which not only soldiers but also civilians
are targets, a healthy fighting force is no longer enough to ensure national security; the time has come
for this country to take up reforms that promote the health of all Americans.
Reassuringly, this is not a novel proposal. Reflecting upon statements made in 1944 by American medical
historian Henry E. Sigerist, MD, concerning the power of external security threats to stimulate reform, a
recent editorial in the American Journal of Public Health suggested that, “[t]his incendiary moment may be
just the time for rekindling reform" [2]. Similarly, emergency physician and medical ethicist C. Griffin
Trotter, MD, PhD, recently declared: “National security, I submit, is the new banner for health care reform"
[3].
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. Without significant reform to ensure access to health care for all Americans, the US
will be unable to fight such battles effectively.
Why Access?
Using infectious diseases as weapons, bioterrorism threatens to weaken the civilian workforce and,
hence, a nation's ability to go about its daily business. Moreover, in the case of diseases that are
transmissible person to person, each infected individual becomes a human weapon, infecting others, who
then infect others, and so on, tying up medical responders and overwhelming medical resources.
A nation's greatest defense against bioterrorism, both in preparation for and in response to an attack, is a
population in which an introduced biological agent cannot get a foothold, ie, healthy people with easy
access to health care.
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 30
Fellows Health Care Impacts
Rosembaum 9 (Jason, Deputy Director of Online Campaigns, “Health Care for America Now,” 2-23-09,
http://healthcare.nationaljournal.com/2009/02/obamas-fiscal-responsibility-s.php, AD: 7-31-09)
As pointed out by others here and elsewhere, Medicare and Medicaid are in fact set to rise in cost
dramatically, and this is indeed a problem. And it's not just Medicare and Medicaid. Our entire health care
system is set to rise in cost, a cost that's projected to reach almost 20% of GDP by 2017 if current trends
continue. So it's not just the federal government that has a problem. With one out of every five dollars in
our economy writ large projected to be spent on health care, every person in this country has a
problem. The cost of health care must be brought under control to claim fiscal responsibility, and not
just the cost of Medicare and Medicaid but the cost of health care for everyone. So, how do we control
costs? We control costs first and foremost by getting everyone in America affordable coverage with
benefits that meet their needs. 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, filling in the gaps in private insurance so
everyone can have coverage. When people are covered by insurance, they get the care they need, not
just catastrophic care at the emergency room when their health problems become dire (which is much
more expensive). This prevention lowers cost and improves health outcomes. As this chart from the Center
for Economic and Policy Research shows, 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, our budget deficit will
stabilize. Fiscal responsibility therefore means controlling all health care costs, not just Medicare and
Medicaid. President Obama understands this problem, and though it may require an upfront federal
investment, in the long run it's the only way to use taxpayer money wisely.
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 33
Fellows Health Care Impacts
Kvaal 8 (James, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, 12-9, 2008, “The Economic Imperative for
Health Reform,” online: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/12/health_imperative.html, AD: 7-31-09)
Rising health care costs are the primary reason that our federal budget is on an unsustainable path.
The federal government is responsible for nearly half of America’s health care expenditures, including
Medicare, Medicaid, tax subsidies for private sector insurance, and health coverage for federal
employees, retirees, military personnel, and veterans. Public health care costs are rising at similar rates
and for similar reasons as private costs. Medicare has low administrative costs, but like most public spending
on health care, it finances care in the same settings and with the same providers as private insurance.
Federal spending on Medicare and Medicaid alone is projected to increase from 4 percent of the
economy today to 12 percent in 2050. As Brookings Institution scholar Henry Aaron has pointed out, their
rapid growth accounts for the entire long-run federal fiscal deficit under Congressional Budget Office
projections. Without a new direction, higher health care costs will force budget deficits to “levels that
will seriously jeopardize long-term economic growth,” according to Peter Orszag, recently designated to
head the Office of Management and Budget.
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. 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. As the nation’s largest
payer of health care services, Medicare will help lead these reforms and derive important financial
benefits from them.
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 34
Fellows Health Care Impacts
Layne 6 (Christopher, Associate Professor of International Affairs at the Bush School of Government and Public
Service at Texas A&M, “Impotent Power? Re-Examining the Nature of America’s Hegemonic Power,” The
National Interest, September/October)
The domestic economic picture is not so promising, either. The annual federal budget deficits are just the
tip of the iceberg. The real problems are the federal government's huge unfunded liabilities for
entitlement programs that will begin to come due about a decade hence. Moreover, defense spending and
entitlement expenditures are squeezing out discretionary spending on domestic programs. Just down the road,
the United States is facing stark "warfare" or "welfare" choices between, on the one hand, maintaining
the overwhelming military capabilities upon which its primacy rests, or, on the other hand,
discretionary spending on domestic needs, and funding Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Here, the
proponents of U.S. hegemony overlook a huge change in the U.S. fiscal picture. They assert that the United
States can afford to maintain its hegemony because defense spending now accounts only for about 4 percent
of U.S. GDP. This is true, but very misleading.
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 35
Fellows Health Care Impacts
Failure to fix entitlement costs kills funding for NASA, ending space exploration
Miller and Foust 8 (Charles, President of Space Consulting Inc, and Editor and Publisher of the Space Review,
April 14, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1106/1)
Obviously, these long-term trends in Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare are not sustainable, and
our national leaders will be forced to do something about it. This is our point. A near-term fiscal crisis is
emerging in the next decade, and solving it will be the responsibility of the next President of the United
States and the US Congress. Recent history provides a taste of what NASA may be facing in the very near
future. During the Bush Administration NASA has done reasonably well in terms of spending: its budget,
in constant 2008 dollars, has increased from $16.3 billion in fiscal year 2001 (the last Clinton Administration
budget) to $17.1 billion in fiscal year 2008. This 0.7% real increase per year, on average, is far short of the
increases that many space advocates have been seeking, but it is better than what some other agencies have
received during the same period. However, 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.S. Congress.
By comparison, during the Clinton Administration, when both the Democratic White House and
Republican Congress sought (and achieved) a balanced budget, NASA fared far worse: in constant 2008
dollars, its budget fell from $20 billion in fiscal year 1993 to $16.3 billion in 2001, a decline of nearly 20
percent. Considering the budgetary challenges created by the retirement of the baby boomers, 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. These fiscal pressures will force the next president—regardless of whoever is elected in
November—to make some hard decisions in the years to come about discretionary spending. It is
unrealistic to expect that NASA will somehow be immune to pressures to cut spending. 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. If that happens, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for the current exploration
architecture to continue in anything resembling its current form and schedule. It will be significantly
delayed, radically altered, or even cancelled.
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 36
Fellows Health Care Impacts
Kvaal 8 (James, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, 12-9, 2008, “The Economic Imperative for
Health Reform,” online: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/12/health_imperative.html, AD: 7-31-09)
America has far and away the most expensive health care system in the world. Health care costs have
grown faster than the overall economy for decades, consuming an increasing share of our nation’s resources.
Americans will spend $2.4 trillion on health care in 2008, which is equal to $7,900 a person. And health
care costs are expected to nearly double to $4.3 trillion within a decade and continue to consume a
larger and larger share of our economy in the years to come.
There is strong evidence that much of this spending does not contribute to better health. Americans spend
twice as much per person as the average among other industrialized countries, and yet our life expectancy
and infant mortality rates are below average. The United Kingdom has achieved universal health care while
spending less per person than U.S. federal and state governments.
Some costly, advanced medical technologies work miracles, but other expensive tests and treatments
contribute little or nothing to our health. Treatments such as spinal fusion, routine episiotomies, and
neonatal intensive care are helpful for some patients, but widely overused. At least one-third of medical
procedures have questionable benefits, according to the Rand Corporation. Based on a study of regional
variation, Dartmouth researchers concluded that Medicare spending could be reduced by 29 percent
without reducing effective care or affecting health outcomes. The finding suggests that the entire
American health care system spends roughly $700 billion a year that does not improve health
outcomes.
Our fragmented approach to financing health care also discourages investments that could both make
care more effective and bring down costs. Because Americans move from insurer to insurer, 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. Our health care system is focused on treating diseases, not preventing them.
Similarly, a greater use of information technology could make the system as a whole more efficient but
requires someone to make up-front investments.
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 37
Fellows Health Care Impacts
Kvaal 8 (James, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, 12-9, 2008, “The Economic Imperative for
Health Reform,” online: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/12/health_imperative.html, AD: 7-31-09)
Some have suggested that we cannot afford to reform health care in the midst of a recession and
financial crisis. But health reform can strengthen the economy and create jobs now. Expanding
coverage can create jobs in health services, help states avoid cuts to Medicaid and children’s health
insurance, and promote consumer spending. And an immediate investment in electronic medical
records would create jobs in the technology sector.
Conclusion
There is an urgent economic need to address the failures of the American health care system. Up-front
investments in expanding coverage and initiatives to reduce waste could stimulate the economy and
create jobs now. At the same time, they could lay the groundwork for a stronger health care system that
covers every American and imposes lower costs on families, businesses, families, and taxpayers
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 38
Fellows Health Care Impacts
The New Republic 8 (“Dynamic Duo,” December 24, lexis, AD: 7-31-09)
Some fiscal conservatives, upset that universal health care would require all sorts of new spending
upfront, aren't so sure. 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. If we can only avoid
overwhelming deficits and, by extension, a lackluster economy in the future by spending less money on these
health care programs over time, surely spending more money on them now makes no sense.
But, actually, it does. The reason Medicare and Medicaid are getting so expensive is that health care,
overall, is getting so expensive. (Relative to private health insurance, Medicare and Medicaid control costs a
little better.) But the only rational, not to mention humane, way to control health care costs is through
system-wide reforms--the kind that are a lot harder, if not impossible, to implement in the
disorganized and volatile insurance environment we have today. Making sure everybody has insurance
is the first step--or, depending on how you do it, the first few steps--toward creating one common system.
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 39
Fellows Health Care Impacts
Kvaal 8 (James, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, 12-9, 2008, “The Economic Imperative for
Health Reform,” online: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/12/health_imperative.html, AD: 7-31-09)
Small businesses also face unique challenges. They lack the negotiating clout needed to obtain
favorable rates from insurance companies, 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. Without economies of scale, small businesses also face larger administrative costs for each
worker covered. Small business owners and their employees account for an estimated 27 million of the 47
million Americans without health insurance
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 40
Fellows Health Care Impacts
Kvaal 8 (James, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, 12-9, 2008, “The Economic Imperative for
Health Reform,” online: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/12/health_imperative.html, 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. Such a reform may require an up-front investment, even in these times of
large budget deficits; it might cost the federal government between $100 billion and $150 billion annually,
not including any savings it generates by making the health care system more efficient. But it could also
generate very large economic and fiscal benefits.
The first step is universal coverage. 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 cross-
subsidies to care for some Americans. Universal coverage will also facilitate early prevention and detection
of disease and better management of chronic diseases, which can improve health and reduce costs.
Investments can improve the quality of care while reducing costs. Research into the comparative
effectiveness of treatments—funded partly by taxpayers—can identify treatments that provide the best
results, often at a lower cost than treatments widely used today. These steps can ensure that medical
advances continue and are used wisely. Greater use of electronic medical records and other health
information technology could reduce errors, diminish the need for duplicative tests, improve the quality of
care, and gather data on effective treatments.
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 41
Fellows Health Care Impacts
Health care reform helps drug companies – expanded demand overwhelms any hit they
would take
Timothy P. Carney, 2-25-09, http://www.dcexaminer.com/politics/Insurers-drug-makers-poised-to-profit-from-
Obama-health-plan_02_25-40257852.html
La Merie, a “business intelligence” publisher, wrote in a recent pharmaceutical industry report: “Obama’s
new universal health-care program will increase demand for drugs, both branded and generic, reduce
the need for free drug programs due to universal health-care coverage, and boost pediatric drug and
vaccine programs.” Sounds like a good deal for drug makers.
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 42
Fellows Health Care Impacts
Fried 8 (Eric, columnist for Fort Collins Now,“Fried: Looks Like the Health Reform Train is Finally Leaving the
Station,” December 10, online:
http://www.fortcollinsnow.com/article/20081210/NEWS/812109993/1026/NONE&title=Fried:%20Looks%20Like
%20the%20Health%20Reform%20Train%20is%20Finally%20Leaving%20the%20Station, AD: 7-31-09)
Comprehensive health reform is hard to do on a state level, and really requires a national solution.
People may flock from miserly states to generous ones, swamping the Good Samaritans, and the feds
have to cooperate in moving money around. In the recent past, cooperation from Washington, D.C., was a
dicey proposition, at best. But now states willing to innovate will find an eager partner in Uncle Sam,
and state reform efforts will provide both valuable laboratories and further impetus for national
action.
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 43
Fellows Health Care Impacts
Erosion, Technology and Concentration Group, 2002. (“No Small Matter! Nanotech Particles
Penetrate Living Cells and Accumulate in Animal Organs,” Issue 76. http://online.sfsu.edu/
%7Erone/Nanotech/nosmallmatter.html)
Again, what’s the big deal? The big deal is uncertainty, but scientists see two potential problems specific to these forms of carbon–one problem has to do with their shape and one,
apparently, has to do with their size. It turns out that Dr. Wiesner’s comparison of carbon nanotubes with asbestos is not merely rhetorical, highlighting the need to assess the dangers
of a material before it becomes ubiquitous. Carbon nanotubes resemble asbestos fibers in shape: they are long and needle-like. According to Dr. Wiesner, carbon nanotubes cannot
pose much of a threat at present because, in our environment, they tend to clump together rather than exist as single fibers (which have the potential to cause serious respiratory
problems as asbestos fibers have). However, an intensive area of research is to figure out a way to solubilize nanotubes–in effect, to de-clump them–so that they can be more easily
used as single, detached fibers.23. Two patents on methods of solubilizing nanotubes in organic solutions have issued in the last year to the University of Kentucky (USA).24. 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.25.
when a 1 micrometer-wide particle of pure carbon (in the
Immunologist Silvana Fiorito has discovered in preliminary research that
form of graphite) is introduced into a cell, 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.26. When a nano-sized particle of the same substance — pure carbon — is added to cells (in
the form of either nanotubes or fullerenes), the cells fail to produce an immune response–they welcome
the alien carbon like a long lost relative. The ability to slip past the immune system may be desirable
for drug delivery, but what happens when uninvited nanoparticles come calling? In other words, once
nanotechnologists have figured out how to distract the bouncer guarding the door, how can you be
sure you’re still keeping out the riff-raff?
Kaku 99 (Michio, “Visions: How Science will revolutionize the twenty-first century” pg 183, 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.S. Army Medical research Institute for
Infectious Diseases in Frederick, Maryland, is to control the outbreak of viruses, “the greater threat to the
survival of our species.” The outbreak of a “doomsday Virus,” such as an airborne AIDS or Ebola virus,
could threaten the very existence of human life. One of the greatest killers in human history has been
the virus for smallpox. This disease, which probably crossed over from animals to humans about 10,00
years ago, has been a deadly killer of humans ever since. It laid waste to Alexander the Great’s army in the
fourth century BC and killed Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius. 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.
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 45
Fellows Health Care Impacts
Davidson 05 (Keay, San Francisco Chronicle, 11/20/05, “Nanotechnology may hold risks, scientists war”,
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/10/20/MNGREFB1S71.DTL
The U.S. government should spend more money investigating potential health and environmental hazards of
nanotechnology, a leading environmental group says. New types of materials and chemicals that are
invisibly small -- i.e., with diameters measured in nanometers, or billionths of a meter -- have many
possible valuable uses in medicine, environmental cleanups, water treatment, energy production,
technology and other areas, representatives of the Washington-based group Environmental Defense
acknowledged at a news conference Wednesday. However, uncertainties linger over the possible harm of
nanomaterials and nanoparticles on human health and the environment, they cautioned. For example,
nanoparticles used as anti-tumor agents are so small that they might slip inside the human brain and
perhaps damage it. Likewise, if leaked from a factory, the particles might destroy river bacteria, which
lie at the base of much of the food chain. Because the toxic aspects of nanotechnology remain a frontier
subject of research, "our traditional ways of thinking about hazardous materials are going to have to broaden
a bit," said Dr. John Balbus, the organization's health program director. 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, a joint publication of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the University of Texas.
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 46
Fellows Health Care Impacts
ETC 03 (Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration Atomtech: Technologies Converging at the
Nano-scale January 2003) <http://www.etcgroup.org/documents/TheBigDown.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. Gray Goo
refers to the obliteration of life that could result from the accidental and uncontrollable spread of
selfreplicating assemblers. Drexler provides a vivid example of how quickly the damage could pile up
beginning with one rogue replicator. “If the first replicator could assemble a copy of itself in one
thousand seconds, the two replicators could then build two more in the next thousand seconds, the four
build another four, and the eight build another eight. At the end of ten hours, there are not thirty-six
new replicators, but over 68 billion. In less than a day, they would weigh a ton; in less than two days,
they would outweigh the Earth; in another four hours, they would exceed the mass of the Sun and all
the planets combined.”
Diner, 1994.
(Diner, David N. B.S. Recipient. Ohio State University. J.D. Recipient. College of Law. Ohio State University.
LL.M. The Judge Advocate General’s School. United States Army. Judge Advocate’s General’s Corps. United
States Army. “The Army and the Endangered Species Act: Who’s Endangering Whom?” Military Law Review. 143
Mil. L. Rev. 161. Winter, 1994. Lexis-Nexis.)
No species has ever dominated its fellow species as man has. In most cases, people have assumed the God-like power of life and death -- extinction or survival -- over the plants and
animals of the world. For most of history, mankind pursued this domination with a single minded determination to master the world, tame the wilderness, and exploit nature for the
maximum benefit of the human race. n67 In past mass extinction episodes, as many as ninety percent of the existing species perished, and yet the world moved forward, and new
At some
species replaced the old. So why should the world be concerned now?The prime reason is the world's survival. Like all animal life, humans live off of other species.
point, the number of species could decline to the point at which the ecosystem fails, and then humans
also would become extinct. No one knows how many [*171] species the world needs to support human
life, and to find out -- by allowing certain species to become extinct -- would not be sound policy. In addition
to food, species offer many direct and indirect benefits to mankind. n68 2. Ecological Value. -- Ecological value is the value that species have in maintaining the environment. Pest,
n69 erosion, and flood control are prime benefits certain species provide to man. Plants and animals also provide additional ecological services -- pollution control, n70 oxygen
production, sewage treatment, and biodegradation. n71 3. Scientific and Utilitarian Value. -- Scientific value is the use of species for research into the physical processes of the world.
n72 Without plants and animals, a large portion of basic scientific research would be impossible. Utilitarian value is the direct utility humans draw from plants and animals. n73 Only
a fraction of the [*172] earth's species have been examined, and mankind may someday desperately need the species that it is exterminating today. To accept that the snail darter,
harelip sucker, or Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew n74 could save mankind may be difficult for some. Many, if not most, species are useless to man in a direct utilitarian sense.
Nonetheless, they may be critical in an indirect role, because their extirpations could affect a directly useful species negatively. In a closely interconnected ecosystem, the loss of a
Moreover, as the number of species decline, the effect of each new
species affects other species dependent on it. n75
extinction on the remaining species increases dramatically. n76 4. Biological Diversity. -- The main
premise of species preservation is that diversity is better than simplicity. n77 As the current mass extinction has progressed,
the world's biological diversity generally has decreased. This trend occurs within ecosystems by reducing the number of species, and within species by reducing the number of
individuals. Both trends carry serious future implications. Biologically diverse ecosystems arec haracterized by a large number of specialist species, filling narrow ecological niches.
These ecosystems inherently are more stable than less diverse systems. "The more complex the ecosystem, the more successfully it can resist a stress. . . .like a net, in which each knot
is connected to others by several strands, such a fabric can resist collapse better than a simple, unbranched circle of threads -- which if cut anywhere breaks down as a whole." n79 By
. As biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of
causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems
ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the
United States are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically,
each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects, could cause total
ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a
mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings, humankind may be edging closer
to the abyss.
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 47
Fellows Health Care Impacts
Unregulated nanotech sparks massive arms races, collapsing deterrence and making all
scenarios for conflict more likely
Montgomery, 9 (James Montgomery, Bethesda MD and Editor for the Financial Times, 6/22/2009, “Healthcare
Will Remain A Threat to the US Economy”, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/32g8c42a-5ec5-11de-91ad-
00144feabc0.html)
Our current healthcare system threatens our economy. Unfortunately, the Obama administration is
not planning to do anything significant about this threat, 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.For
instance, Mr Orszag writes that unless we act, we will be spending 20 per cent of our
gross domestic product on healthcare by 2017. The CEA, however, 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.Mr Orszag points out that we spend over 50 per cent more per capita than the next most
expensive country. According to the CEA report, the Obama administration plans to leave that
disparity in place. And it has decided to do largely the same with the 30 per cent waste in
our expenditures the CEA describes. Finally, since the administration will not reduce
healthcare’s GDP share, there will be no money spun off to cover the now uninsured, contrary to Mr
Orszag’s implications. As he spells out, that money will have to come from budget cuts and
increased taxes. These moves will have little effect on the larger threat posed by the 18 per cent.To
sum up, even if we adopt all Mr Orszag’s measures, the threat to our economy won’t be the
same, the Obama administration could plunge our economy into much darker times.
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 49
Fellows Health Care Impacts
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 50
Fellows Health Care Impacts
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 51
Fellows Health Care Impacts
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.
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 52
Fellows Health Care Impacts
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 Labor. The Obama plan would impose a "pay-or-play" mandate on all employers; taxing those
who do not provide health insurance for their employees. Following Commonwealth, one can assume this
would be an additional tax of 7 percent on payrolls — up to $1.25 per hour per employee — imposed on
employers who fail to pay at least 75 percent of their employees' premiums for a minimum benefit package.
Were this provision enacted today, it would immediately affect the 40 percent of small employers who
do not offer coverage, the 30 million people in families who have at least one worker but no health
insurance, and millions of Medicaid enrollees who have some workforce connection - to say nothing of
all the employers who currently pay less than 75 percent and/or have plans that are insufficiently generous.
As the economics literature affirms, a payroll tax is almost completely borne by workers themselves.
During the Democratic Party primary, Sen. Obama criticized Sen. 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. Exactly the same criticism applies to Obama's
pay-or-play mandate.
A tax on labor (or mandated labor benefits) makes employment more expensive. It encourages
employers to hire fewer workers, adopt labor-saving technology, employ part-time workers, and
outsource labor to independent contractors and other entities.
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 53
Fellows Health Care Impacts
New York Times 8 (“Businesses Wary of Details in Obama Health Plan,” 10-27 p. lexis, AD: 7-31-09)
Several econometric models have assumed that Mr. Obama would have to set his penalty near 6 percent
of payroll (Mercer, a benefits consulting firm says that large employers typically pay 15 percent). Recent
play-or-pay proposals in California and Pennsylvania put the figure at 3 or 4 percent, and both failed in part
because of business opposition.
Hawaii is the only state that requires employers to provide health benefits, while Vermont, like
Massachusetts, gently fines those who do not. Several other states have enacted similar laws over the last two
decades, but they have been repealed, rejected by voters or challenged in court.
Economists believe the cost of health benefits is ultimately shifted to employees through lower wages.
When wages cannot be lowered, layoffs may result. Katherine Baicker of Harvard and Helen G. Levy of
the University of Michigan have projected that play-or-pay might push 224,000 workers into that
category.
When negotiating their health plan, Massachusetts lawmakers rejected a payroll tax and instead set a “fair
share contribution” that was low enough to appease businesses. The amount also was kept low to steer clear
of the 1974 federal law prohibiting states from regulating multistate group insurance plans. Companies with
10 or fewer full-time equivalent employees were exempted.
State officials hoped the penalty would generate a little revenue, but recognized it was not likely to prompt
employers to start offering coverage. It raised only $7.7 million in its first year, well under projections. So
when a substantial budget gap opened in the $869 million health plan this year, Gov. Deval Patrick asked
businesses to help fill the hole.
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. The state expects 1,100 businesses to be fined, up from 855, or
about 3 percent of eligible companies.
The deal left business leaders satisfied for the moment. They recognize that the $295 penalty is a fraction of
the $4,000 that Massachusetts employers spend to insure an individual worker.
But businesses worry the state will raise their obligation each year. They argue they have already absorbed
costs of insuring 159,000 workers with group coverage since the state began mandating insurance (a total of
439,000 have enrolled, giving the state the country’s highest insurance rate).
“You want the system to work,” said Jon Hurst, president of the Retailers Association of Massachusetts.
“You just want to make sure there isn’t more cost-shifting to businesses because they are paying their fair
share.”
State officials are gratified that — contrary to national trends — the share of employers offering health
benefits has increased slightly. One fear about play-or-pay is that if the penalty is too low employers will stop
offering coverage and pay the fines instead, shifting workers to government insurance programs.
But leaders here also are sensitive to the possibility that further increases in the penalty might stymie
wage and job growth.
“In this day and age,” said Dr. JudyAnn Bigby, the state secretary of health and human services, “it
wouldn’t take much of a change in policy to push some entities over the brink.”
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 54
Fellows Health Care Impacts
New York Times 8 (“Businesses Wary of Details in Obama Health Plan,” 10-27 p. lexis, AD: 7-31-09)
But the penalty in Massachusetts is picayune compared with what some health experts believe Senator
Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, might impose as part of his plan to provide
affordable coverage for the uninsured. Though Mr. Obama has not released details, economists believe he
might require large and medium companies to contribute as much as 6 percent of their payrolls.
That, Mr. Ratner said, would be catastrophic to a low-margin business like his, which has 90 employees,
29 of them full-time workers who are offered health benefits.
“To all of a sudden whack 6 to 7 percent of payroll costs, forget it,” he said. “If they do that, prices go up
and employment goes down because nobody can absorb that.”
Writ large, that is one of the significant concerns about Mr. Obama’s health plan, which like this state’s
landmark 2006 law would subsidize coverage for the uninsured by taxing employers who do not cover their
workers. And it is a primary reason that so-called play-or-pay proposals have had an unsteady history for
nearly two decades.
With Mr. Obama’s plan, business leaders say, the devil will be in the unknown details.
Mr. Obama would prohibit insurers from rejecting applicants because of medical conditions, require health
insurance for children and create a new federal health plan to provide comprehensive coverage to the
uninsured. Those beneath certain income levels would be granted tax credits to make premiums affordable,
and small businesses would be offered tax credits to provide benefits.
The tax credits are projected to cost at least $110 billion. Mr. Obama has said he would pay for it primarily
by raising income taxes on those making more than $250,000 and by reducing health spending. But when he
announced the plan in May 2007, he emphasized that employers would share in the cost.
“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,” he said.
Left undefined has been what size firms would be exempted, what constitutes a “meaningful contribution,”
and how much noncompliant businesses would be required to pay. Senator John McCain, the Republican
nominee, badgered Mr. Obama in two of their debates to define the penalty, but Mr. Obama did not rise to
the bait.
“We made a decision even before the plan was rolled out not to decide,” said David M. Cutler, a Harvard
economist who speaks for the campaign on health care. “It’s not that there’s a decision out there that we’re
not telling. It’s literally that we’ve decided not to decide.”
That may be smart politics. But it makes business groups nervous that Mr. Obama might impose an
unmanageable burden. They also worry that any time his health plan faces a shortfall, businesses will
be asked to up their ante, as has happened in Massachusetts.
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 55
Fellows Health Care Impacts
Teslik 09 - Lee Hudson Teslik, Assistant Editor of CFR.org at the Council on Foreign Relations, March 2009,
( Toni Johnson, Council on Foreign Relations , Teslik s articles have been published by writings have been
published by the Council on Foreign Relations, Newsweek, TIME Europe and others, ”Healthcare Costs and U.S.
Competitiveness” , Cpr. http://www.cfr.org/publication/13325/, AD: 7-31-09)
The United States spent 16 percent of its GDP in 2007 on health care, higher than any other developed
nation. 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.S.
health insurance system. According the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, about 71 percent of private
employees in the United States had access to employer-sponsored health plans in 2006. A November 2008
Kaiser Foundation report notes that access to employer-sponsored health insurance has been on the
decline (PDF) among low-income workers, and health premiums for workers have risen 114 percent in
the last decade. Small businesses are less likely than large employers to be able to provide health
insurance as a benefit. At 12 percent, health care is the most expensive benefit paid by U.S. employers,
according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.These ballooning dollar figures place a heavy burden on
companies doing business in the United States and can put them at a substantial competitive
disadvantage in the international marketplace. For large multinational corporations, footing
healthcare costs presents an enormous expense. General Motors, for instance, covers more than 1.1
million employees and former employees, and the company says it spent roughly $5.6 billion on
healthcare expenses in 2006. GM says healthcare costs add between $1,500 and $2,000 to the sticker
price of every automobile it makes. 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,
Chrysler.It is difficult to quantify the precise effect high healthcare costs have had so far on the overall U.S.
job market. Health care 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.
Moreover, economists disagree on the number of U.S. jobs that have been lost to offshoring--the
transfer of business operations across national boundaries to friendlier operating environments. The
Princeton economist Alan S. Blinder, in a 2006 Foreign Affairs article, says that judging by data compiled
from "fragmentary studies," it is apparent that "under a million service-sector jobs in the United States have
been lost to offshoring to date." Blinder goes on to predict that somewhere between 28 million and 42 million
U.S. jobs are "susceptible" to offshoring in a future where technology allows the more efficient transfer of
jobs. Many other economists, however, have shied away from making such estimates, and some have
criticized Blinder's approach.
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 57
Fellows Health Care Impacts
Niall Ferguson, Hoover senior fellow, is the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University, 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, no. 2,
http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3058266.html
It’s certainly tempting to assume that power is synonymous with gross domestic product: Big GDP equals
big power. Hence many analysts point to China’s huge economy and rapid growth as evidence that the
country will soon gain superpower rank, if it hasn’t already. Just project forward the average annual growth
rates of the past 30 years, and Chinese GDP will equal that of the United States and exceed that of the EU,
within just two decades (see figure 3). 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. 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.
America overtook Britain in terms of GDP in the 1870s, but it was not until the First World War that it
overtook Britain as a global power.
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 59
Fellows Health Care Impacts
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)
Creating Perverse Incentives for Health Plans . In the Exchange, health plans would be free to set their
own premiums, but they would be required to charge the same premium to all comers. This means the
plans would make a profit on healthy enrollees and suffer a loss on less healthy enrollees. Consequently,
the plans would have strong financial incentives to attract the healthy and avoid the sick. After
enrollment, 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). Already, in the federal employee system, health plan advertisements during open
enrollment period picture young, healthy families - never people with costly illnesses. And some plans
discriminate against sicker enrollees to keep costs down for healthier ones.
Encouraging a Two-Tier Health System . Obama would allow people to join a public plan (presumably
modeled after Medicare) as part of the Exchange. If it really looks like Medicare, it will not be very
attractive to consumers. Most Medicare enrollees pay three premiums to three plans (basic Medicare,
Medigap and prescription drug insurance) and still have less coverage (such as the drug-plan "doughnut
hole") than those who are privately insured.
In the Commonwealth plan, Medicare for the young is reconfigured to look like normal insurance, but it will
still pay Medicare rates. Many doctors today will not accept new Medicare patients and in some
specialties Medicare patients face much longer waits for treatment than younger patients. If a large
number of people are added to plans that pay well below private fees, there will be inexorable pressure for
providers to respond to a two-tier payment system with two-tiered quality of care.
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 60
Fellows Health Care Impacts
Owcharenko, Senior Policy Analyst in the Center for Health Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation,
2/4/2009, (Nina, “The Stimulus Bill: Why the Senate Must Fix the Health Care Provisions,” The Heritage
Foundation WebMemo #2267, http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm2267.cfm)
Liberals in Congress, under the guise of emergency economic stimulus legislation, are attempting to
push forward their radical health care agenda. These provisions would fuel fiscal irresponsibility in state Medicaid
programs, expand dependence on the already-unsound Medicaid entitlement program, distort health care choices for unemployed
workers, and set up a federal infrastructure that could be used as a tool for government rationing of medical treatments, procedures, and
services. If Members of Congress insist on these provisions, they should at the very least require a review of Medicaid spending by the
states, prioritize Medicaid spending on a state-by-state basis, empower families who want to secure alternative private coverage options,
and prevent government interference in the doctor-patient relationship. 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), which recently passed both chambers of Congress, would
guarantee greater government control over Americans' health care. House of Representatives Majority
Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) has stated as much.[1] Without broader debate, 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. Today, the government controls 46 percent of all health care
spending, and its share is expected to reach 49 percent by 2017.[2] The sundry health provisions in the
proposed economic stimulus, in combination with the expansion of SCHIP, will only move the country
faster toward more government control over the health benefits, medical treatments, and procedures
that Americans receive. 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. These provisions would also have a long-lasting impact on the
future of the American health care system. Bailing Out State Medicaid Programs. The House and Senate bills would
give every state a temporary, across-the-board increase in their federal match for the nation's largest health care welfare program,
Medicaid. Unfortunately, neither bill holds state officials accountable with regard to their past management of their Medicaid programs.
For example, 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. Health Care for the Unemployed. The House and Senate
bills would give subsidies for unemployed workers on COBRA coverage. Even with a subsidy, COBRA coverage is a
prohibitively costly option for the unemployed as well as taxpayers funding the subsidy. The House bill goes even further, opening the Medicaid program to
those unemployed workers without health care coverage. The proposed expansion of the Medicaid entitlement program to new categories, regardless of
income, further destabilizes the already troubled and poor-performing program. An Infrastructure for Rationing. The House and Senate bills would
establish a framework and funding for comparative effectiveness research and health information technology. While the Senate's language is broad and
vague, the House language provides further clarity. The House committee report states that "those [items] that are found to be less effective and in some
cases, more expensive, will no longer be prescribed."[3] This type of alarming language is similar to what exists today in the British National Health
Service.[4] In addition, 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
professionals.
direct government intervention in the clinical decisions by physicians and other health care providers.
Three Essential Changes Congress must make three changes to these controversial health care provisions in the so-called economic "stimulus" package.
1. Set criteria and demand accountability on Medicaid bailout funds.[5] Instead of bailing out all states, Congress should set up a priority list based on the
actions of the states, with the most fiscally responsible states receiving higher priority. Furthermore, Congress should require each state to outline how they
plan to reform Medicaid to reach long-term fiscal solvency. 2. Expand health care options for unemployed workers.[6] Instead of forcing unemployed
workers to choose between a plan they can not afford (COBRA) and an inferior welfare program for the poor, Congress should allow unemployed workers
to opt for any private coverage that works best for them and their families during these difficult economic times. 3. Remove funding for comparative
effectiveness and health information technology. Congress should strip these two provisions. 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, not stimulus. At the very least, Congress should thoroughly
debate these provisions and consider their likely impact on medical research, innovation, and the doctor-patient relationship. Congress should also ensure
that it provides an appeals process for doctors and patients affected by these decisions. 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. President Obama said, "In order for us to
Veiled under this
reform our health care system, we must first begin reforming how government communicates with the American people."[7]
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, mounting unfunded
entitlement liabilities, and less control of families over their personal health care decisions. If Congress
wants to enact such provisions, 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. Any other course would be a betrayal of the
President's promise of openness with American people.
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 61
Fellows Health Care Impacts
McCaughan 9 (Michael, “Obama’s Down Payment on Health Care Reform: How Far Down?” February 26,
http://invivoblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/obamas-down-payment-on-health-care.html, AD: 7-31-09)
Third, 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. All in all,
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. (See our
post here.) In particular, 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, policy-first reform. Therein lies
the danger for the biopharma industry: in the context of budgetary priorities, measures to restrain
pharmaceutical prices are tempting offsets with little political downside compared to say, slashing
physician payments or forcing hospitals to close. We've already noted some rhetorical parallels between
Obama's first remarks to Congress on health care and President Clinton's in 1993. That reform was supposed
to be budget neutral, to avoid undoing Clinton's first legislative victory, a tough fought balanced budget
(remember those days?). With that mandate, Clinton's working groups quickly moved into aggressive
proposals for restraining spending, especially on drugs and biologics before the whole initiative collapsed in
the face of opposition from across the spectrum of health care sectors. In 2009, there is no doubt that the
budget comes first, quite literally. Obama's next "down payment" on health care reform will be unveiled
Thursday; a bipartisan summit on health care reform kicks off on Monday. Just don't call it the Health Care
Reform Task Force .
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 62
Fellows Health Care Impacts
Maurer 7 - Stephen M. Maurer, J.D. Director of the Goldman School Project at the University of California,
Berkeley on Information Technology and Homeland Security Lifeboat Foundation BioShield
http://lifeboat.com/ex/bio.shield 2007
The new realities of terrorism and suicide bombers pull us one step further. How would we react to the
devastation caused by a virus or bacterium or other pathogen unleashed not by the forces of nature, but
intentionally by man? No intelligence agency, no matter how astute, and no military, no matter how powerful and dedicated, 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. With the rapid advancements in technology, we
are rapidly moving from having to worry about state-based biological programs to smaller terrorist-
based biological programs. It's possible today to synthesize virulent pathogens from scratch, or to
engineer and manufacture prions that, introduced undetectably over time into a nation's food supply,
would after a long delay afflict millions with a terrible and often fatal disease. It's a new world.
Though not as initially dramatic as a nuclear blast, 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. 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. 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 is time to
accelerate the development of antiviral and antibacterial technology for the human population. The
way to combat this serious and ever-growing threat is to develop broad tools to destroy viruses and
bacteria. We have tools such as those based on RNA interference that can block gene expression. We can now sequence the genes of a new
virus in a matter of days, 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, identify, and model any
emerging or newly identified infective agent, present or future, natural or otherwise — we need to
accelerate the expansion of our capacity to engineer vaccines for immunization, and explore the
feasibility of other medicinals to cure or circumvent infections, and to manufacture, distribute, 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. Time is running out.
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 64
Fellows Health Care Impacts
The Herald, 06 (Glasglow, December 14, “Blast off in battle for control of the final frontier”, Harry Reid, L/N,
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. The tiny satellite successfully orbited our planet, and the space age began. This was as much a propaganda coup as a scientific
breakthrough. The reactions in the UK and the US were very different. In the UK there was a generalised admiration for the Soviet
achievement. There was respect for the Russians, and a sense that they had pulled one over the Americans. Those on the far left, the
fellow travellers, regarded the Sputnik mission as proof that the communists were well ahead when it came to the technologies of the
future. In the US, and Washington in particular, the reaction was one of panic. The president, Dwight Eisenhower, was an indolent
military man who preferred golfing and quail shooting to the hard work of politics. He tried to react calmly to the Soviet triumph, but his
opponents ensured that was not an option. The frenzy increased when the Soviets had the gall to send up a second Sputnik a month later.
This was a much bigger satellite, weighing more than 1100lbs. But what seized the world's imagination was that inside it there was a
sentient being, a dog called Laika. The Democrat Lyndon Johnson, perhaps the most consummate politician the US has ever produced,
seized the moment. "How long, oh God, how long will it take us to catch up with the Russians' two satellites?" he asked with a well-
honed sense of melodrama. Early in 1958 Johnson told his fellow Democrats that a powerful US space programme was imperative.
"Control of space means control of the world, " he announced. These were ominous and prophetic words, as I shall try to
show. He further declared that the two Sputniks amounted to the greatest challenge to America's security in its entire history. Later that
year Johnson was able, with Republican help, to introduce legislation that paved the way for the creation of the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (Nasa). When John F Kennedy was elected president, Johnson was his vicepresident - and he was in charge of
space. He gave vast amounts of money to Nasa, and the Apollo programme was launched. But not before the Soviets once more trumped
the Americans, when in 1961 the cosmonaut Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin became the first man to travel in space, completing an orbit of
the Earth in the Vostok satellite. These Soviet triumphs were largely political stunts, designed to humiliate the Americans and present
them as scientific laggards. But the space race was to become increasingly militaristic. In this century, space,
the final frontier, will become the plaything of the world's military men. 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, a
vast untainted sanctuary that is pure and untrammelled by our more base instincts and aspirations.
Fat chance. Space will instead become the ultimate environment for warfare. To some extent it has
already been colonised by the military men. It is even now cluttered with surveillance and intelligence
gathering equipment, and various early-warning systems. Many US strategists are convinced that
fully-f ledged warfare in space is not just a possibility, but a likelihood. Satellites will be used to direct
and propel weapons of mass destruction. Worse, "suicide satellites" - that is, satellites that are
themselves weapons of mass destruction - will be developed. People called "orbitologists" will
increasingly have the ear of politicians, not just in the US, but in China, India and elsewhere.
"Enhancing space capability" is already a key aim of the Pentagon. The Americans worry that there is
at present unimpeded access to space, and they want to ensure that the US can control this access
before it loses its status as the world's only superpower. Indeed, such control might be the only way of
retaining that status. There are parallels with the development of air power in the first part of last century,
when it became clear that control of the air would become crucially important in the winning of wars.
Colossal amounts of money will be lavished on the development of space technologies and orbitology,
money that could obviously be better spent for the direct benefit of mankind in so many other areas.
But there is no world agency capable of preventing this gruesome colonisation of the final frontier. The
UN can hardly manage small-scale peacekeeping, let alone effective intervention in an area of humanitarian crisis such as Darfur. So
how on earth will it regulate the space race, which is increasingly bellicose? Or is that too bleak a conclusion? Could it just be that in
2045, when the UN - if it still exists - celebrates its centennial, it will be able to claim that, while it may not have saved the world, it has
saved space?
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 66
Fellows Health Care Impacts
Gottlieb 8 (Scott, M.D., Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, 2008, “How Obama Would Stifle
Drug Innovation,” November 3, online: http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.28881/pub_detail.asp, 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. They will lower expectations that
untreated diseases can continue to be repriced, even with very effective new drugs. I work with health
care investors and companies firsthand. They can reallocate capital in the face of protracted political
uncertainty. They can also forego traditional discovery altogether in favor of less socially useful but
lucrative areas such as lifestyle medications or prescription cosmetics. 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, the percentage of venture capital going into
biotech fell by almost half in a single year. A lot of that money shifted into Internet companies.
Of course, repricing diseases does not help people struggling to get basic health care or those burdened by
high co-pays. But there are policy options to address these troubling issues without preying on medical
innovation and its health contributions.
Specialty drugs typically appear on the "fourth tier" of health plans and have expensive co-pays. Drug
companies need to explore alternative pricing mechanisms, including approaches that tie their reimbursement
to evidence that an individual patient is benefiting. Health insurers need to provide new policy holders with
clear, up-front disclosures on co-pays and not stick patients with unbearable bills only after sickness strikes.
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.
Obama's policies on drug access and his party's plans to control pricing will distort the financial
incentives that inspire innovations. This will shortchange the contributions innovations provide.
Gottlieb 8 (Scott, M.D., Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, 2008, “How Obama Would Stifle
Drug Innovation,” November 3, online: http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.28881/pub_detail.asp, AD:
7-31-09)
Most new pharmaceuticals have a one-in-ten chance of receiving approval and reaching the market. So-called
specialty drugs for rare diseases have an even lower chance of approval, and the cost of development is high.
Senator Barack Obama's drug price and access control proposals will distort future investment decisions and
smother the financial incentives that inspire innovation.
Pfizer recently said it is exiting the development of drugs for common conditions like heart disease. This is
part of a shift underway in the pharmaceutical industry to give up on routine medical problems in favor of
discovering specialty drugs for rare diseases and unmet medical needs like cancer.
The shift is driven in part by the industry's critics in Washington, who have long maligned drug companies
for targeting too many routine medical problems with drugs that were "merely" tweaks on existing
medicines. Now these same detractors, led by House Democrats, are also proposing controls on access to and
eventually pricing of the specialty drugs. This is one way an Obama administration would pay for the
candidate's plan to create a Medicare-like program for the under-sixty-five cohort. These new controls--based
on a view of health care as a commodity to be purchased at the lowest price, with little allowance for
innovation--could push drug development over a tipping point.
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 68
Fellows Health Care Impacts
Bandow 5 (Doug, Senior Fellow at the CATO Institute, “A strong pharmaceutical industry is the best defense
against pandemics,” March 27, San Diego Union Tribune, online:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050327/news_lz1e27bandow.html
Bird, or avian, flu now worries many medical professionals. Outbreaks have been reported in Indonesia
and North Korea, and the disease has killed two score people in Thailand and Vietnam. Should the disease
mutate and infect humans, we could see a phenomenon like the flu pandemic that swept the world in
1918 and 1919, killing 40 million or 50 million people. Indeed, former Health and Human Services
Secretary Tommy Thompson called the avian flu "a really huge bomb" that could kill upward of 70 million
people.
Diseases like SARS and avian flu, which have proved resistant to drugs commonly used to fight influenza
viruses, demonstrate how we all benefit from profitable drugmakers and abundant pharmaceutical
research. Although governments have an important role to play in fighting any disease pandemic, necessary
for developing any effective treatment and putting into mass production any vaccine or other medicine
is private industry.
Indeed, the initial fight against SARS focused on finding an existing medicine that worked. Laboratories
screened some 2,000 federally approved and experimental drugs to see if they were useful in fighting SARS.
Gurinder Shahi, a doctor in Singapore, explained: "Given how little we know about SARS and the reality that
it is killing people, it is justified for us to be daring and innovative in coming up with solutions." Daring
innovation is most likely in a competitive, profit-driven market.
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 69
Fellows Health Care Impacts
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. If health care providers can prevent or delay conditions like
heart disease and diabetes, the logic goes, the nation won’t have to pay for so many expensive hospital
procedures. The problem, as lawmakers are discovering to their frustration, is that the logic is wrong.
Preventive care — at least the sort delivered by doctors — doesn’t save money, experts say. It costs
money. That’s old news to the analysts at the Congressional Budget Office, who have told senators on
the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee that it cannot score most preventive-care proposals
as saving money. “I think there’s a great desire to believe that everything that’s good saves money,” says
Paul N. Van De Water, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “Unfortunately, there
are a lot of things that are good that cost money.” The reason preventive care doesn’t save money is
simple. To prevent a single stroke, for example, doctors must treat thousands of people who have high
blood pressure and therefore are at risk of stroke. The same goes for use of cholesterol-lowering statin
drugs, which can prevent heart attacks. All of those prescription drugs and office visits add up to big
money. But many of the patients never would suffer a stroke or heart attack even without treatment.
And some will suffer such attacks despite it. In the end, 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.
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 70
Fellows Health Care Impacts
Whittet 08[John Whittet. Writer for NewsVine. April 8 2008. In a Capitalist Society, Universal Healthcare Won't
Make a Difference. http://basseq.newsvine.com/_news/2008/04/08/1419142-in-a-capitalist-society-universal-
healthcare-wont-make-a-difference]
Unless the government mandates that every medical doctor accept the government's plan1 — at the
government's prices, 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. In order to make this business plan work, the doctor in
question must be a good one. As such, the country ends up with doctors, typically good ones, who are
available only to those who can pay themselves. If you're a rich American, you find these doctors in
order to receive the best care. And lo and behold, the rich are receiving better care, even with the
existence of a universal healthcare plan. This will happen... because it's already happening. Some
doctors, fed up with insurance mandated prices and the general hassle of insurance claims, are now
refusing to process any insurance. You can make an appointment and pay in cash — at their prices — and
then submit an insurance claim on your own time, if you so desire. The government's emergence onto the
health scene will further complicate the already complex world of paperwork and administration, and
the good doctors will simply get out. Those not talented enough to hang their own shingle, so to speak,
will remain behind to service the blue collar masses who simply cannot afford any better. Do people, in
general, have a right to healthcare? The arguments are already in process across the 'vine. But the basic point
is moot, as the dollar will trump food stamps (or "health stamps" in this case). ----- 1. The government
could mandate that all doctors accept the government's health plan. However, I don't think it's
possible, and it may not be legal. If by some chance they do, it'll be a serious blow to the field of
medicine, as being good at your job will mean nothing.
Tanner 09 (Michael D, senior fellow with the Cato Institute and coauthor of Healthy Competition: What's
Holding Back Health Care and How to Free It (2007), 6/9. “Massachusetts Miracle or Massachusetts Miserable:
What the Failure of the "Massachusetts Model" Tells Us about Health Care Reform.” Briefing Paper no. 112.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10268)
When Massachusetts passed its pioneering health care reforms in 2006, critics warned that they would
result in a slow but steady spiral downward toward a government-run health care system. Three years
later, those predictions appear to be coming true:
* Although the state has reduced the number of residents without health insurance, 200,000
people remain uninsured. Moreover, the increase in the number of insured is primarily due to the
state's generous subsidies, not the celebrated individual mandate.
* Health care costs continue to rise much faster than the national average. Since 2006, total state
health care spending has increased by 28 percent. Insurance premiums have increased by 8–10 percent
per year, nearly double the national average.
* New regulations and bureaucracy are limiting consumer choice and adding to health care costs.
* Program costs have skyrocketed. Despite tax increases, the program faces huge deficits. The state is
considering caps on insurance premiums, cuts in reimbursements to providers, and even the possibility of a
"global budget" on health care spending—with its attendant rationing.
* A shortage of providers, combined with increased demand, is increasing waiting times
to see a physician.
With the "Massachusetts model" frequently cited as a blueprint for health care reform, it is important
to recognize that giving the government greater control over our health care system will have grave
consequences for taxpayers, providers, and health care consumers. That is the lesson of the
Massachusetts model.
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 71
Fellows Health Care Impacts
CBO 8 (Congressional Budget Office, “Key Issues in Analyzing Major Health Insurance Proposals”,
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9924/12-18-KeyIssues.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. However, such a cost reduction is unlikely to occur, except in the short run.
The equilibrium level of overall compensation in the economy is determined by the supply of and the
demand for labor. Fringe benefits (such as health insurance) are just part of that compensation.
Consequently, 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. Replacing employment-
based health care with a government-run system could reduce employers’ payments for their workers’
insurance, but the amount that they would have to pay in overall compensation would remain
essentially unchanged. Even though changes to the health care system could have various effects on the
supply of labor, 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, 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. Compensation could take some time to adjust
to its market-clearing level (the point at which supply and demand are equal). During that time, firms that
formerly provided health benefits—especially firms that employ workers under multiyear contracts—could
experience substantial reductions in labor costs, which would boost their profits temporarily.25 But
those firms would experience no permanent change in their competitive status.