Instigator / Pro

Access to and the distribution of health-related services ought to be handled by the free-market.


The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics

After 6 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

Publication date
Last updated date
Number of rounds
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
Voting period
One week
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Contender / Con

Round 1: Opening Arguments
Round 2: Rebuttals
Round 3: Rejoinders
Round 4: (Double) Rejoinders
Round 5: Closing Arguments.
1. This debate will not be restricted to juxtapositions of private and public health insurance. Arguments for health insurance, however, may be submitted.
2. Since the proposition over which we argue is normative, moral arguments may be submitted.
3. This debate will primarily focus on the economics of the issue.

Round 1
Opening Argument

The premise on which I argue that "access to and distribution of health-related services ought to be handled by the free market" is the vast and complex set of subjective values which inform a transaction. These subjective values are best expressed through free-flowing prices, which is fundamental to a free-market. The absence of price controls allows buyers and sellers to meet and conduct transactions on their own terms, and serve the benefit of each party involved. Health-related services as with any good or service has a cost. These costs, rather than being addressed in terms of economics, are often politicized and reduced to referendums on who has which right, legal or moral. There are a couple of issues which would arise in the attempt to sustain a "right to health care":

  1. Physicians and nurses have no authority over the labor, services, or goods they provide and would be coerced into submitting the aforementioned in order to satisfy the claim that is one's "right."
  2. By "right," claimants mean "free of costs," or "free at the point of use" when consuming health-related services. The former makes little sense if we don't indulge the enslavement of physicians and nurses, and the latter is a euphemism for debt deferment. If the government is going to subsidize the consumption of these services, then the costs of said services will be addressed through taxation--the forceful seizure of property where in the absence of compliance, death can be a result.
These costs can be addressed in a manner that wouldn't involve the prospect of crippling debt, satisfying nonsensical claims, or worst case scenarios: enslavement or death. I propose, as the subject of this debate suggests, freeing up the market. First, we must discern the regulations and/or restrictions imposed, and how each play a role in the exorbitant costs of health-related services. I will be using the access and distribution of health-related services in the United Stated as an exemplar.

  • The American Medical Association
       The American Medical Association is a government subsidized organization which functions as a cartel for physician labor. The AMA is able to restrict the amount of physician labor through the LCME (Liason Committee on Medical Education,) which is responsible for accreditation, and the ACGME (Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education,) which is responsible for internships, residencies, and fellowships. The American Medical Association which has been partnered with the Association of American Medical Colleges since 1942 sponsors the LCME, and is in part responsible for the creation of the ACGME for which it has four seats on its board of directors. In 1910, the American Medical Association lobbied the Republican administration under William Taft to close or merge half of American Medical Schools. The pretext was to prevent substandard medical training; however, the report (The Flexner Report) on this substandard medical training was authored by a person, Abraham Flexner, who not only had no expertise at all in allopathic, homeopathic, or even osteopathic medicine, but also was a critic of the American College System. In some of his inspections of medical schools, he was accompanied by N.P. Colwell (page 9,) the secretary of the American Medical Association's Council on Medical Education. Not to mention, Flexner was hosted in Chicago by the American Medical Association when finishing his report.

         By artificially restricting the supply of physician labor, the American Medical Association is essentially creating creating a shortage (page 15 and onward,) especially in the advent of increased demand borne from government subsidized consumption, which consequently produces inflated physician salaries. These physician salaries in part are extended to the final product contributing to the inflated costs of health related services. By removing the government preference for the American Medical Association, as well as removing the government subsidy, we can reduce costs of health related services as well as spare billions in federal spending on health care.

Drug Patents

In 1925, the United States under the the Coolidge administration allowed for government-licensed drug monopolies through the patent system. This allows select drug companies exclusive preference in the drug industry. By removing the patent system, the entry of cheaper generics will enter the market.The consequential reduction in the inflated prices will, Once again, Be extended to the final products: health goods and services.


This is more of an extension of the previous arguments. Much like the American Medical Association, The FDA is very much an inhibitor to the availability of promising drugs (as opposed to physician labor with the former. ) The FDA determining which drugs are approved, Creates a shortage of available drugs. The costs of getting approval by the FDA is just south of $3 billion dollars. We must ask ourselves whether we need the FDA in order to prevent the dissemination of toxic or death-inducing drugs. We also must consider that no drug is free from the prospect of toxicity or inducing death. There are several scenarios that would happen if we freed up the market and allowed more boards to over see the dissemination of drugs:

1. Drug companies produce drugs that are ineffective and have adverse side effects,

2. Drug companies produce drugs that are effective but have adverse side effects.

3. Drug companies produce drugs that are ineffective which lack adverse side effects.

4. Drug companies produce drugs that are effective which lack adverse side effects.

A solution which doesn't require taxation or large amounts of federal subsidy is the use of social media. With the expansion of social media, information about adverse effects of chemical drugs would not only reach larger audiences, but also information would be disseminated much quicker. I'd remiss if I didn't inform you that the FDA hasn't always lived up to the standard it allegedly upholds especially when 35 prescription drugs had to be recalled. Not to mention that 1 in 3 drugs were concluded to have safety concerns in a 16 year span.

It is my argument that addressing these restrictions and regulations would see dramatic decreases in costs in health related services; also, consequently, it is my argument that this is a better solution to the costs of health-related services as opposed to meeting these costs through debt deferment, nonsensical claims, enslavement or death. As we continue our debate, I will expand on these points, and even add supplementary points wherever necessary.

Round 2
My opponent has forfeited round one. I will not presume the circumstances which disallowed my opponent from posting. If my opponent is willing, I'm willing to disregard the first round forfeit and continue with round two. If my opponent is unwilling, then I'll just continue until the time allotted is expired.
Due to family issues, I am unable to form a satisfactory argument for this debate.

I concede, I apologize for wasting your time - I am aware debate opponents deserve more respect than this, but circumstance has disallowed me from providing long enough arguments in my currently available timeframe. It is therefore more respectful to just concede this debate to you.

Good luck in the future.
Round 3
I accept your concession. And no worries. There really is no need to explain yourself. Things happen. I wish you good fortune with your family issues. And if time allows, perhaps we can revisit this argument again. Until then.
Round 4
Interesting. I could've sworn that stating one's concession was enough to end the debate. I must have been mistaken. Thank you for promptly submitting your post. On to the next round I suppose.
Round 5
This is the end.