7/27/2019 Speech 1nc 6-29 7PM

1/15

I negate.

Ought is defined as a moral obligation

Thus I value morality.

The criterion is maximizing welfare. This is the best criterion for a few reasons.

First, maximizing welfare is the ideal way to achieve morality because good welfare isuniversally desired.

Second, The government acts according to utilitarian principles because they promote thegreatest good.West. 2006.(Henry. The Blackwell guide to Mill's Utilitarianism.)Interests conflict andpublic policy decisions always involve trade-offs, sacrificing some interests for thesake of others. According to the standard utilitarian view, such trade-offs are justified just in casethe aggregate utility or happiness of members of the community taken as a whole is maximized.Likewise, since he is a utilitarian, he must hold that the liberal political institutionshe favors are those thatproduce the mosthappiness, at any rate in sufficiently developed societies. Utilitarianism, however, is not only aconsequentialist theory. It is also a maximizing doctrine because it requires us always to act so as to bring about asmuch well-being as possible.Taken together, then, utilitarianism's consequentialism and its welfaristvalue theory lead it to affirm the following basic moral principle: An action is right if and only if itbrings about at least as much net happiness as any other action the agent could have performed;otherwise it is wrong.

Third, Further, Since the government has multiple obligations, in this round we must look towardthe wording of the resolution.Utilitarianism and maximizing good are directly linked to health care. Rhodes:

RosamondRhodes , M. Pabst Battin, Anita Silvers Medicine and Social Justice: Essays on the Distribution ofHealth Care Oxford University Press, Aug 29, 2002Utilitarianism in health-care provision is linked with the idea of calculating the benefits andcosts of alternative policies in terms of survival, health, life quality, and financial resources.This is a perfectly sound view, and supporters of this type of utilitarianism include some of the champions of the QALY model, mostnotably Alan Williams, and the proponents of the lifesaving policy advocated by John Harris. They believe that, first, it is the maintask of the public health authorities to promote the greatest medical good of the population,and, second, that the medical good of the population can be defined in a way that makesthis goal attainable by relatively simple maximizing policies.

Therefore, prefer utilitarian analysis because the government is obligated to perform actions that

produce the most efficient societal welfare.

I contend that universal health care is inefficient, therefore the US ought not guarantee it. Universalizinghealth care does not mean improving the quality of health care for more people, it simply means makinghealth care available to everyone but not more efficient. It will crush economy and cause extinction

Universal HC will tip economy over brink

Swonk(Mesirow Financial is a diversified financial services firm headquartered in Chicago. Celebrating its 75th anniversary this year, thefirm remains independent and employee-owned, with approximately 1,200 employees globally.)

7/27/2019 Speech 1nc 6-29 7PM

2/15

We could even see brighter days for the perpetually gloomy U.S. housing market. Our chief economist predicts, "Housing market activity is expected to pick up, albeit

in fits and starts. Persistently tighter mortgage market conditions, and a lack of capacity to process mortgage loans, are the

primary constraints." -- Among other constraints, although Europe is slowly coming to grips with the need for fiscal integration and a bigger cushion for banks"Greece is the fly in the ointment; the issue there is whether Europe can isolate it as a special case, which is possible if it builds a more cohesive firewall around the

rest of the region." -- And the biggest cliff-hanger of all, is whether Congress can be coaxed away from the "fiscal cliff," or

the end of the year when numerous tax cuts expire, deep budget cuts kick in automatically, and the question of

raising the debt ceiling brings the threat of another downgrade of U.S. debt.

Leading to economic collapse and downfall of society, impact is extinctionThis comes before affs impact cause happens when plan is passed

The attempt to make healthcare universal would dramatically increase healthcare spendingbecause it has to service the entire United States population .

Sub B: Universal Healthcare is ineffective six reasons

Fojo 09 (law expert) Single-Payer Health Care Does Not Workhttp://www.watchblog.com/republicans/archives/006657.html

Yet here are the specific reasons why single-payer health care does not and will not work: Problem 1: It inevitably mustration care. A single-payer system is a free-for-all system, where costs are driven up.Patients over-

consume health services because they dont have to pay for them, and, thus, providers must

oversupply those services. The only way a government can deal with overconsumption and oversupply is to ration those servicesthrough waiting lists. Canadas health care system, for example, illustrates this very point:everyone in Canadas public system must

wait for practically any procedure or diagnostic test or specialist consultation. Moreover, in the long term, access to care will decrease more

substantially because the prospect of lower compensation (see below) and lower lifetime earnings reduces the incentive for

talented people to choose careers in health care.Problem 2: It would not save money. When hasour government ever saved money? Social Security is essentiallybankrupt. Medicare will soon bebankrupt. So willMedicaid. These

programs dont save money and, instead, lose a lot of it because ofthe amount of fraud and, more importantly, the

overuse they incentivize. Overuse is the real cause of rising health care costs. After all, when somethingis free and you feel like you need it, would you ever stop asking for it? Moreover, as long as doctors are paid for providing you with that free

service, why would they stop providing it? The same scenario would exist with a single -payer health care system. Overuse of services (again,

because they are free) would limit any potential savings and eventually bankrupt the system. Moreover, any analysis of costs

savings by a government-run system is always misleading. Comparisons between private

sector costs and the costs of a single-payer system usually exclude many government

administrative expenses, such as the costs of collecting the taxes needed to fund the system

and the salaries of politicians and their staff members who set health care policy . By contrast, the

salary costs of executives and boards of directors who set insurance companies policies are

included in private sector costs. A government is somewhat immune to the free-market bottom lines that private sector

companies deal with annually. Government doesnt have to account for every penny, and, thus, a lot is lost through the cracks. Problem 3:

Compensation for physicians and health care providers would decrease. A single-payer system wouldsubstantially lower paymentsto physicians and health care providers compared to our current system. For those of you who embrace

class warfare and think this is a good idea, consider this: human beings are only so charitable. Many will draw a line somewhere. An individualspends almost an entire decade (and hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loans) studying to become a doctor, and that doesnt even

include college. These people expect to be (and should be) compensated adequately for their effort

and expertise. Whatever you think of what they should be paid, if they dont feel they are paid enough, they will find something else to

do. If doctors leave a profession that no longer pays well, the system will experience a

reduction in the supply of active physicians. That reduction, in turn, will impair access to

health care and the quality of health care for everyone. Problem 4: The quality of care would

decrease. Lower compensation for doctors will limit their ability to invest in advanced medical

http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/hl702.cfmhttp://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/hl702.cfmhttp://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/hl702.cfmhttp://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/hl702.cfmhttp://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/hl702.cfmhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB124451570546396929.htmlhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB124451570546396929.htmlhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB124451570546396929.htmlhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB124451570546396929.htmlhttp://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/wm2381.cfm#_ftnref3http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/wm2381.cfm#_ftnref3http://www.dollarish.com/699056305/social-security-bankrupt-in-2010/http://www.dollarish.com/699056305/social-security-bankrupt-in-2010/http://www.dollarish.com/699056305/social-security-bankrupt-in-2010/http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/14901/Medicare_Will_Be_Bankrupt_by_2019.htmlhttp://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/14901/Medicare_Will_Be_Bankrupt_by_2019.htmlhttp://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/14901/Medicare_Will_Be_Bankrupt_by_2019.htmlhttp://www.midwestfreepress.com/2009/05/14/bankruptcy-looms-for-medicare-social-security/http://www.midwestfreepress.com/2009/05/14/bankruptcy-looms-for-medicare-social-security/http://www.midwestfreepress.com/2009/05/14/bankruptcy-looms-for-medicare-social-security/http://www.midwestfreepress.com/2009/05/14/bankruptcy-looms-for-medicare-social-security/http://freemarketcure.com/singlepayermyths.phphttp://freemarketcure.com/singlepayermyths.phphttp://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/wm2381.cfm#_ftnref3http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/wm2381.cfm#_ftnref3http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/wm2381.cfm#_ftnref3http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/wm2381.cfm#_ftnref3http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/wm2381.cfm#_ftnref3http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/wm2381.cfm#_ftnref3http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/wm2381.cfm#_ftnref3http://freemarketcure.com/singlepayermyths.phphttp://freemarketcure.com/singlepayermyths.phphttp://www.midwestfreepress.com/2009/05/14/bankruptcy-looms-for-medicare-social-security/http://www.midwestfreepress.com/2009/05/14/bankruptcy-looms-for-medicare-social-security/http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/14901/Medicare_Will_Be_Bankrupt_by_2019.htmlhttp://www.dollarish.com/699056305/social-security-bankrupt-in-2010/http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/wm2381.cfm#_ftnref3http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124451570546396929.htmlhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB124451570546396929.htmlhttp://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/hl702.cfm

7/27/2019 Speech 1nc 6-29 7PM

3/15

equipment and new technology, as well as the time they need to stay up to date with medical developments. These limitations,

too, will impact the quality of health care for everyone. Problem 5: It would take medical decisions away from

doctors and patients. A single-payer system will insert the government into private decision-

making. Many provisions within the health care bill will slowly chip away an individuals ability to make choices about everything from hisor her private health insuranceto actualdecisions about medical care. Now, who wants Uncle Sam telling you what insurance you

should have or what treatment you should receive? These are private decisions made by an individual and, often, with the private advice of a

physician. The government has no role or expertise in this area and should stay out. Problem 6: It would hamper medical

research. A single-payer system would also reduce the rate of medical progress. Recall (from above)that, because doctors will be compensated less, fewer talented people will pursue careers in medicine. Fewer people receiving medical training

decreases the supply of talented medical researchers and, thus, impairs medical research and progress.

Health care reform leads to new controls that limit drug innovation.

Gottlieb, 10/28/2008 (Scott, practicing physician and a resident fellow at the AmericanEnterprise Institution, How Obama Would Stifle Drug Innovation,

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122428260748146061.html)

The shift is driven in part by theindustrys critics in Washington, who have long maligned drug

companies for targeting too many routine medical problems with drugs that were merely tweaks onexisting medicines. Now these same detractors, led by House Democrats, are proposing controls on

access to and eventually pricing of the specialty drugs as well. Under a Barack Obama presidency, this

is one way theyll pay for the candidates plan to create a Medicare-like program for the under-65

crowd. These new controls based on a view of medical care as a commodity to be purchased at the

lowest price, with little allowance for innovation could push drug development over a tipping

point.

Drug innovation key to check against bioterror, turns case.

Bandow, 3/27/2005 (Doug, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former special assistant toPresident Reagan, A strong pharmaceutical industry is the best defense against pandemics)

Yet at a time when the world may have narrowly escaped a potential viral epidemic in the form of

SARS and faces the prospect of biological terrorism the drugmakers are under siege in America.Rhetorically, they have been lumped with the tobacco companies by demagogic politicians, as if firms which make products that heal are the

same as those which make products that kill. The explosion of liability lawsuits is another problem. Henry Miller of the Hoover Institution points

out that the number of vaccine makers has fallen by three quarters al e notes, is that "compared to therapeutic

drugs, vaccines traditionally offer low return on investment but high exposure to legal liability." This is themajor reason we were left so vulnerable to the failure of Chiron, the British firm that was producing flu vaccine. Underlying the widespread

political assault is a panoply of distorted and even false claims. The industry is not uniquely profitable and its returns are broadly

commensurate with the cost of raising capital. Complaints about rising drug expenditures are common, even though people routinely spend

more for a dinner out than on a typical prescription. Moreover, the primary reasons total drug outlays are rising is not because of price hikes on

existing medicines, but because Americans are buying new products and using more old ones. Other myths abound. The drugmakers actually

spend more on R&D than marketing. They devote far more money to finding drugs than does the National Institutes of Health. What makes the

concerted assault against pharmaceutical concerns so perverse is that Washington claims it understands the importance of pharmaceutical

research. Dianne Murphy, director of the FDA's Office of Counterterrorism & Pediatric Drug Development, said of drugmakers working onbioterrorism: "we want them to come in and talk to us when the drug is barely a glimmer in a scientist's eye." Yet Washington's threat to void

the patent for Cipro in the midst of the 2001 anthrax scare was a warning to firms that no good deed is likely to go unpunished. Indeed, the

better the deed (more effectively dealing with a deadlier disease), the greater the likely punishment (losing the hard-won return on the

underlying research). The United States is essentially the last pharmaceutical free market among leading industrialized states. Price and use

controls pervade Europe and other industrialized states, including Canada and Japan. In Europe, observed Wall Street Journal reporter Stephen

D. Moore, "Innovative cancer drugs have gotten bogged down even earlier in the system." He adds: "Many European countries also attempt to

restrict demand after new medicines reach pharmacy shelves. Drugs can be saddled with tight prescribing rules to limit consumption. Patients

across Europe are fighting for improved access to older drugs such as Taxol, the world's top-selling anticancer drug." Thus, the vast

majority of drug innovation derives from the American market. That will end, however, if government

http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCAre/wm2515.cfmhttp://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCAre/wm2515.cfmhttp://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCAre/wm2515.cfmhttp://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCAre/wm2515.cfmhttp://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCAre/wm2515.cfmhttp://headinthegame.newsvine.com/_news/2009/08/01/3103423-healthcare-bill-shared-decision-making-with-patient-aids-about-trade-offs-and-follow-up-counselinghttp://headinthegame.newsvine.com/_news/2009/08/01/3103423-healthcare-bill-shared-decision-making-with-patient-aids-about-trade-offs-and-follow-up-counselinghttp://headinthegame.newsvine.com/_news/2009/08/01/3103423-healthcare-bill-shared-decision-making-with-patient-aids-about-trade-offs-and-follow-up-counselinghttp://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/wm2381.cfm#_ftnref3http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/wm2381.cfm#_ftnref3http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/wm2381.cfm#_ftnref3http://headinthegame.newsvine.com/_news/2009/08/01/3103423-healthcare-bill-shared-decision-making-with-patient-aids-about-trade-offs-and-follow-up-counselinghttp://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCAre/wm2515.cfmhttp://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCAre/wm2515.cfmhttp://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCAre/wm2515.cfm

7/27/2019 Speech 1nc 6-29 7PM

4/15

arbitrarily seizes directly, through domestic restrictions, or indirectly, through "reimportation" of

American drugs from countries with price controls the fruit of industry R&D, thereby cutting

industry prices and profits. Investment will fall. Which will mean less research and development. And

fewer life-saving products. Life is uncertain and arbitrary; SARS demonstrated that flying on the wrong plane and sitting

next to the wrong person could become a death sentence. And potentially many more people will die if new, even

deadlier infectious diseases emerge, whether avian flu or something else.Yet the resources are available to

prevent or ameliorate any such outbreak. Writes Dr. Joseph DiMasi of Tufts University: "a rapid expansion of scientific discoveries

and technologic advances has given the pharmaceutical industry unprecedented opportunities to

innovate. Combinatorial chemistry, high-throughput screening and genomics have provided a

technologic platform that is highly conducive to growth in innovation. However, given typical lengths

for the drug discovery and development processes, most of the fruits of these efforts will likely not be

realized for years to come." Reaping those long-term benefits to protect people worldwide will

require the aid of America's much-vilified pharmaceutical industry. If critics succeed in disabling the

drugmakers, we will all be at risk. It's time those who benefit from industry research stopped treating

drugmakers as the enemy.most three-fourths since 1967. The basic problem, h

The plan isolates sectors of poverty by targeting them in its intention through a

subject/object binary, creating problem/ non-problem governmental dichotomies-This demonstrates a bankrupt epistemologyYapa, associate professor of geography at Penn State, 96, (Lakshman, What Causes Poverty?: A Postmodern View, Annals of the

Association of American Geographers, Vol. 86, No. 4 Dec., 1996, p712-713, JSTOR)

Poverty Sector. In the poverty/development discourse the subject/object binary appears in the form of a

statistical construction of a "poverty sector"-usually a set of households that fall below a given

income criterion (Figure 3). This is the most popular approach to poverty used by the World Bank, the U.S.

Census, United Nations' agencies, and national governments. Certainly, identifying households with low incomes helps administersocial welfare where such programs exist. Such statistical description may also help in the targeting of households with specific nutritional or

other special needs. The official approach to alleviating poverty consists of three steps: first, data are

collected on the extent and the geographical location of poverty; second, information is gathered on

"causative" variables such as race, gender, and employment that may be correlated with poverty;third, information on the incidence of poverty and correlated variables is used in models to help

formulate appropriate policy and action.6 The notion of the "poverty sector" nicely illustrates the

subject/object binary in social science: authors of poverty studies are subjects and poor people in the

poverty sector are objects (Figure 3). Upon closer examination, however, this seemingly reasonable exercise

of identifying the poor in the poverty sector appears not so reasonable after all. The subject/object

binary in the definition of poverty sector goes to the heart of epistemology. According to official

approaches, the poverty sector is where poor people are located, and, therefore, the locus of the

"poverty problem." By viewing the poor (the object) as problem, the nonpoor (the subject) are

automatically situated in the realm of the nonproblem. The nonpoor subject thus becomes the source

of intellect, analysis, policy, resources, and solution. Using the concept of the nexus of relations, I will argue that the

origin of deprivation experienced by the poor lies outside the so called poverty sector. According to the

"dividing practices" of the official methodology on poverty, the subject emerges as a rational, compassionate, moral

agent-the embodiment of self that possesses the intellectual and the material resources to solve the

poverty problem. The poor emerge as the needy other-the object of study and compassion-in need of

development. The status of the discourse, with its statistical profiles of poverty along with data on

correlated variables, is nonproblematic. Postmodernists argue that matters are far more complex: discourse is

not a neutral medium through which the subject obtains knowledge of the object; in fact, subject,

object, and discourse are all mutually constituted. The form of each is simultaneously determined by the forms of the othertwo (Figure 2).-JC

7/27/2019 Speech 1nc 6-29 7PM

5/15

These dichotomies shape the policy outcome turning case, and ensures endless

scapegoating, dehumanization, and destroys value to life. These representations in

policymaking have empirically had direct profound effects on policy.

Lister, Professor of Social Policy at Loughborough University, 2004, (Ruth, Poverty, Ch: Discourses of Poverty: From Othering to Respect,p. 100-103, Pub: Polity Press, TH)

The notion of the poor as Other is used here to signify the many ways in which the poor are treated as different fromthe rest of society.The capital O denotes its symbolic weight. The notion ofOthering conveys how this is not an

inherent state but an ongoing process animated by the non-poor. It is a dualistic process of

differentiation and demarcation, by which the line is drawn between us and them between the more and the less

powerful and through which social distance is established and maintained (Beresford and Croft, 1995;

Riggins, 1997). It is not a neutral line, for it is imbued with negative value judgements that construct the

poor variously as a source of moral contamination, a threat, an undeserving economic burden, an object of

pity or even as an exotic species. It is a process that takes place at different levels and in different fora: from everyday social

relations through interaction with welfare officials and professionals to research, the media the legal system and policy-

making (Schram, 1997). Valerie Polakow, for example, describes how, in the US, schools, teacher training institutions and researchinstitutes are all implicated in the framing of poor children as other, and in institutionalizing the legitimacy of their othernessstatus (1993:150, emphasis in original). Othering is closely associated with, and reinforced by, a number of related social processes such as stereotyping,

stigmatization and the more neutral categorization. Stereotyping is a discriminatory form of labeling, which attains a taken-for-granted

quality and serves to portray particular social groups as homogenous. It is a discursive strategy that magnifies and

distorts difference (Riggins, 1997). Michael Pickering writes that stereotypes operate as socially exorcistic rituals in maintainingthe boundaries of normality and legitimacy (2001: 45). He suggests that normally stereotyping attempts to translate cultural difference into

Otherness, in the interests of order, power and control (2001: 204). In contrast, in the case of the poor. Stereotyping

functions to create cultural difference and thereby the Other. At the same time, as we saw in chapter 3,those groups who are more likely to be poor women, racialized minorities and disabled people are themselves groups that are frequently

Othered. Processes of classification and categorization effected by governmental and legal institutions, the media and social scientists,

although analytically distinct from stereotyping, can draw on stereotypes and thereby reinforce them. These processes can

have implications for how the poor are treated by fellow citizens as well as by powerful

classificatory institutions (Edelman, 1977). As we shall see, the bifurcation of the poor into deserving and undeserving, eachwith their associated stereotypes, has had a profound impact on their treatment by the welfare state and its antecedents. The label of

undeserving poor has been negatively charged by the process of stigmatization, which, historically and today, has had implications for how

society sees the poor, how they see themselves and how they are treated by welfare institutions. Erving Goffmans classic text referred to

stigma as an attribute that is deeply discrediting and to the belief that the person with stigma is not quite human

(1968: 13, 15). In this way, stigma contributes to the dehumanization involved in Othering (Oliver, 2001).Othering and associated processes such as stigmatization have various effects on us and them and the relations between the two. With

regard to us, Othering helps to define the self and to affirm identity (Sibley, 1995). In contrast, it divests them of their

social and cultural identities by diminishing them to their stereotyped characteristics and

by casting them as silent objects (Pickering, 2001: 73; Oliver, 2001). In doing so, it denies them their complex

humanity and subjectivity. Othering operates as a strategy of symbolic exclusion, which

makes it easier for people to blame the Other for their own and societys problems (Pickering,2001: 48). The Othering of the poor also acts as a warning to others; poverty thereby represents a spectre a socially constituted object of

wholesome horror (Deanwith Melrose, 1999: 48). As regards the relationship between us and them, Othering legitimates our privilege

rooted in superiorityand their exploitation and oppression rooted in inferiority together with the socio-economic inequalities that

underlie poverty (Riggins, 1997; Young, 1999). This underlines the ways in which power relationships are inscribed in the process of

Othering. It suggests that Othering may be most marked where inequality is sharpest. An additional effect ofOthering is that it

denies the Other the 'right to name and define themselves' (Pickering, 2001: 73). The power 'to

name one's Self' has been described as 'a fundamental human right' (Riggins, 1997: 8) and as a key

'political resource' (Silver, 1996: 135). Naming 'the poor' is an exercise in power, for 'we' invariably name

'them', even when sympathetically (Polakow, 1993). Naming or labelling of the Other has symbolic, cultural, psychological and material

effects. 'How we name things affects how we behave towards them. The name, or label,

carries with it expectations' (Clarke and Cochrane, 1998: 26). Likewise 'we' create images of 'them - the

7/27/2019 Speech 1nc 6-29 7PM

6/15

poor', which have a similarlypowerful effect on attitudes and actions. 'The politics ofrepresentation'

is therefore a crucial element in the politics of poverty (hooks, 1994: 169). As we shall see, it has taken ongreater salience today as some groups of people in poverty, following the disabled people's movement, are resisting the ways they are

represented by the wider society, in recognition of the power of language and images. It is through language and images that the discourses

that frame how we perceive and act in the social world are articulated. Othering can thus be understood as a

discursive practice, which shapes how the 'non-poor' think and talk about and act towards

'the poor' at both an interpersonal and an institutional level. Although it does not represent the onlyavailable poverty discourse, its impact on policy and the practice of officials and professionals has

been profound in some countries, notably the UK and US. Moreover, welfare policy and administration can

themselves be understood as a discursive and symbolic practice, which constructs 'the poor' and

the nature of the problem ofpoverty in various ways (Schram, 1995; Saraceno, 2002). A focus on discourse thus helps toilluminate the relationship between the material and relational/symbolic dimensions of poverty and the ways in which the fibres of power

are interwoven through them

The impact is mass genocide the scapegoated party becomes symbolic of all evil and

must be destroyedColman, 95(Arthur D. Colman, M.D., faculty member at the G.C. Jung Institute of San Francisco, professor ofPsychiatry at the University of California, San Francisco. Up from Scapegoating. p. 7-11)Unity is the important concept in all scapegoating activity; the scapegoat represents the group's push toward its own wholeness by excluding its

disparate elements. Thusscapegoating can be detected anywhere there is a transfer of negative

attribution from one part of the system to another, or from one part of the system to an object outside the system,in order to fulfill what is perceived to be a unifying survival function for the system as a whole. The creation of a scapegoat requires a process

akin to the psychological mechanisms of projection and projective identification in that it uses an other to contain aspects of oneself. The

scapegoat is created by "projecting" the darker side of group life, the darker side being the

reality of evil and sin in society. For the individual, the shadow contains those elements of

the psyche that are not accepted as his or her own.As individuals we attempt to project that shadow onto others.Likewise, the group finds common negative ground in the scapegoat. But the scapegoat is not identical to the shadow; the scapegoat is a

collective creation, a symbolic compromise for many individuals' negative projections. One can say that the scapegoat is humanity's societal

vessel for the shadow - a vessel which is, by definition, innocent of the burden it assumes. The scapegoat is a very ancient archetype and

scapegoating an ancient activity, so ancient that there are few societies where evidence of the practice has not been found. We have records of

animals used as scapegoats that go back to ancient Hittite and Sanskrit texts. The works of modern authors who have used the scapegoat as amajor theme (Dostoyevsky, Jackson, Lessing, for example) all hearken back to ancient days and a collective symbol that incorporates the worst

of our projections in a strange, inanimate object. It is an image that taps our most primitive parts even today. An early biblical story, the basis of

Yom Kippur and one that underlies the crucifixion of Jesus captures the fundamental Western image of the scapegoat. The story begins with

the Israelites fleeing Egypt. Aaron and God soon find that the law and monotheism are not sufficient to colltain the Israelites who, after years

ofenf

7/27/2019 Speech 1nc 6-29 7PM

7/15

sophisticated rationalizations based on what Eric Erickson (1972) has called pseudospeciation to describe how a ruling or dominant group can

justify locating the scapegoat function in its slaves or any other group cast as different and lower than itself. We have many

examples from modern timesArmenians, Amerindians, South African Blacks, European

Jews, Palestinians all used as scapegoats in order to serve the hoped-for but specious unity of nationhood, much as individuals useshadow projections to serve the hoped-for but conscious individuation of the person. And here we see a critical connection between the

growth processes in individuals and in groups, for scapegoats not only deter group development but also hamper integration of shadow

projections, a necessary step in the individuation process. As long as there are scapegoats unintegrated shadow figures for the group

integration of the shadow within the individual is an illusion. One might even say that, for the individual, the process of individuation will always

be held hostage to the presence of the scapegoat in the larger community. Perhaps this feels like too heavy a burden

for the individual to accept-to take on the responsibility for the scapegoats of the world as

part and parcel of one's own attempts to integrate the personal shadow. Religious traditions haveencountered this dilemma in the personage of Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition, for example, and in the modern-day "neutrality" of the

Pope and other religious leaders during the Holocaust. As we have seen, Jung's definition of individuation does not emphasize this connection

between individual shadow and group scapegoat. His model, including the way it has been interpreted, tends to deemphasize the need to

burden ourselves with the suffering of others as part of our own growth processes. To imagine the individuation process this way, however, is

to accept that man is an island, that the suffering in the world is someone else's responsibility and does not grow from us or affect us. I for one

reject this possibility. Individuation is an awesome burden precisely because it requires a

connected, integrated outlook. Individuation demands that our bonds with other humans

be included in the equation of our own development. We are all part of the scapegoating

process. We are all a part of others' suffering. By our silence, we give it passive support andsupply our shadows with more energy, defeating each of our attempts at integrating the

archetype. We must not only accept our responsibility for the scapegoat, we must do

something about it. Individuation under any other terms can be just narcissistic play.

We should reject the current method for evaluating poverty and critically reevaluate

the assumptions surrounding poverty before implementing the plan, renaming does

not work as it simply masks the problem.

Sanford F. Schram, associate professor of political sciences at Macalester College, 1995 [Words of

welfare: The poverty of social science and the social science of poverty, pg. 34-37]

The politics ofrenaming highlights the relationships of discourse to structure and ideology to power.87

Thelimits of euphemisms suggest that these renamings often reinforce a broader, institutionalized, and structural context

that is supported through the daily actions of aligned groupings exercising power to effect outcomes

consistent with their interests. Yet the power plays reinforcing prevailing structures also operate to

encourage selected interpretations of a wide variety of acts of signification . These structures help create

a "social logic" that constrains interpretation of even the most imaginative of renamings. Whereas the

structural conditions that constrain policy discourse are themselves discursively constituted, they in

turn produce material constraints that limit notions of what is feasible and practical under the existing

arrangements. Therefore, displacing the self-sufficiency of the "breadwinner" will not on its own make "dependents" more worthy. Even if "bread" itselfis shown in good part, if not the whole loaf, to be symbolic, that will not by itself lead people to eat some other symbol. Gaining leverage for political

change involves appreciating not just how material structures can be denaturalized. Political change comes with also appreciating

how material practices serve to constrain seriously the extent to which discursive moves 'will have any

tractability in public settings.Only when the power plays supporting such structural conditions are

resisted can alternative discursive moves gain political salience." Action to improve the lives of poor

people involves instituting changes in institutional practices so that people will be motivated to think

more inclusively or be willing to entertain the idea that it is rational for them as well-meaning, if

not self-interested, individuals to promote the well-being of marginal groups. The existing institutional infrastructure

currently works against such thinking. The United States today is organized by power blocs of aligned groupings

around a postindustrial culture that has materialistic consequences." This culture does much to engender privatization,that is, the idea that most issues are best handled privately, through market exchanges. A central feature of this culture is the idea of exclusiveconsumption, by each on his or her own. Even self-worth comes to be designated by what one consumes. Postindustrial consumerism is also associated withthe deterritorialization of the political economy in an increasingly integrated global system of exchange. National loyalties, citizenship, and the civic bond in

7/27/2019 Speech 1nc 6-29 7PM

8/15

general are obliterated in this global political economy. The state-centered discourse of reciprocal rights and obligations

evaporates in the face of pressures for everyone to extract value on his or her own from an economic

system that moves beyond the boundaries of the nation-state.The Third World exists within the First World, the homelesswith the symbolic analysts, and in this brave new world (dis)order, the latter need not assume responsibility for the former. Deterritorialization of the

political economy reduces the institutionalized pressure to think about how the state can ensure the allocation of value to all members of the polity.

Welfare recipients and others disadvantageously situated to participate in the global economy are

increasingly left to fend for themselves. A rising influx of poor immigrants only intensifies theconfusion between the impoverished among the citizenry and the noncitizens among the impoverished."

In a global political economy where state affiliation matters less than it did before, the poor citizenry and

illegal immigrants are both disenfranchised." A politics dedicated to the transformation of welfare ought

to recognize that changing the "keywords" of poverty discourse, although important, is in and of itself

insufficient to make political change happen."Renamings get interpreted within prevailing structural contexts, such as the suburbanconsumer corporate culture of the late-modern United States.Although multiple interpretations remain possible, the

powerful can use categories in a variety of ways to reinforce prevailing contexts and thereby discourage

many possible alternative interpretations.94If such moves are to be effective, discursive politics must be

part of displacing the power plays that reinforce prevailing structures. Discursive revision will be most

effective when it is framed in the context of the specific needs of ongoing social movements dedicated toachieving institutional change. This means that specific renamings will best serve political action to the extent that they can mobilize people and

build coalitions that work toward revising dominant structural contexts that impart meanings, allocate value, and fix identities. As discursive moves in service of

coalitional politics, renamings must necessarily be open, porous, and transitory, allowing for different interpretations from various constituencies and deployedwith humility about their implications for change." Renamings that are connected to a coalitional politics dedicated to structural change also recognize that a

politics of transformation may start with but involve more than renamings. John Fiske writes: The point is that politics is social, not textual, and if a text is madepolitical, its politicization is effected at its point of entry into the social. This does not mean that all texts are equally political (even potentially), or that all politicizedmeanings are equally available in any one of them. Politics is always a process of struggle between opposing forces, always a matter of forging alliances and ofdefining and redefining the opposition. If the political potential of a text is to be mobilized, the text must reproduce among the discourses that comprise it a struggleequivalent to that experienced socially by its readers. And just as power is not distributed equally in society, so potential meanings are not distributed equally in

texts....We must recognize, too, that any progressive meanings that are made are never experienced freely, but

always in conflicting relationships with the forces of the power-bloc that oppose them." Interrogation of

ascendant categories is an important initial step in any politics seeking to displace how powerful actors

deploy prevailing structures and create possibilities for making social relations more inclusive, equitable,

and just. Yet isolated acts of renaming disconnected from attempts to contest those prevailing structures

will prove insufficient. Inserting new names in old stories will not make a difference politically.

Euphemisms that seek to affirm what they describe in terms of those prevailing structures will prove

even more questionable.

The state governments constitutionally have control over public welfare policies.

David Marion, 2009 (Professor of Government at Hampden-Sydney College, Washington Times,

January 2, 2009. Online. Lexis/Nexis. Accessed, May 1, 2009).

No similar constitutional argument can be made for federal assumption of obligations that

historically have fallen under the states' police powers: law enforcement, public health/welfare,

recreation, and education. Not only does the Constitution provide little support for much of the aid now

sought by governors and local officials from New England to California, but such assistance threatens

to weaken a fundamental structural feature of Madison's "partly national, partly federal" system.

His "compound republic" was carefully designed to nurture and protect fundamental liberties while

supporting competent government.

7/27/2019 Speech 1nc 6-29 7PM

9/15

Courts support federalism

Russell 6/29 (Law coorespondent)Wasden: High courts reasoning a significant win for states rightson future Commerce Clause questions

The court then went on to say that the federal government could not coerce the state government to

comply and expand its Medicaid program, that there was an agreement between the state and the federal

government with regard to the current program. So there is significant vindication in the argumentsthat we presented to the court.

Universal healthcare is enacted by the federal government, taking away power from

the states, since welfare policies have been in state jurisdiction, undermining

federalism

(maybe read) Federal action on healthcare risks pre-emption, 40 states show signs

Laura Green(Business expert) States in health-reform lawsuit accuse federal government ofcoercion)

The Affordable Care Act steps into that debate by requiring virtually every American to buy health insurance, a power that some states arguedoes not belong to the federal government.In addition to the 26 states opposing the health law, a dozen have

joined legal briefs offering their support. The engagement of that many states is significant but not unprecedented. Paul Larkin,a former solicitor general who has argued 27 times before the Supreme Court, said criminal cases often attract a large number of states

because any decision the court makes will affect them. In a non-criminal case he argued, Morales v. TWA, more than 40 states

submitted or signed on to briefs, Larkin said, because they wanted to preserve their ability to fight fraud under their consumer

protection laws. The Affordable Care Act case is tailor-made for state involvement . "This is a case where there was a question

about whether this particular policy judgment could be made by the federal government at all," Larkin

said. It also meets another bar, Larkin said: "It is very common to see a large number of states oppose the federal

government when the federal government is telling states they have to do something."

.

B. US federalism is modeled worldwide

Steven Calabresi, Associate Professor at the Northwestern School of Law, Michigan Law Review, December1995, 94 Mich. L. Rev. 752

We have seen that a desire for both international and devolutionary federalism has swept across the world inrecent years. To a significant extent, this is due to global fascination with and emulation of our ownAmerican federalism success story. The global trend toward federalism is an enormously positivedevelopment that greatly increases the likelihood of future peace, free trade, economic growth,respect for social and cultural diversity, and protection of individual human rights. It depends forits success on the willingness of sovereign nations to strike federalism deals in the belief thatthose deals will be kept. n233 The U.S. Supreme Court can do its part to encourage the futurestriking of such deals by enforcing vigorously our own American federalism deal. Lopez could be a

first step in that process, if only the Justices and the legal academy would wake up to the importance of what is atstake.

C. Centralization is wrecking Russias stability/economy federalism key to solveTPMCafe, 7-8-2006And, as the mainstream press sheds more light on the corruption of Russian and American businesslife, the continuing centralization of Russian power and unfair taxation goes unabated , it

7/27/2019 Speech 1nc 6-29 7PM

10/15

seems. I am told by friends that Moscow is a shining, advanced, tax-dollar flush city, but that the rest of thecountry lacks significant infrastructure spending.Unless federalism gets traction in Russia, it's "oblasts" or regions will remain too weak todevelop. If that happens while Moscow sucks up all of the wealth, we are seeing the seeds ofanother revolution? There are many democracies, however, few seriously carry the name without

a healthy federalism not only in the air, but on the ground.

D. That causes nuclear warDavid, Professor of Political Science at Johns Hopkins, 99(Steven, Saving America From the Coming CivilWars, Foreign Affairs, January / February, Volume 78, Number 1)

If internal war does strike Russia, economic deterioration will be a prime cause. From 1989 to the present,the GDP has fallen by 50 percent. In a society where, ten years ago, unemployment scarcely existed, it reached 9.5 percent in 1997 with manyeconomists declaring the true figure to be much higher. Twenty-two percent of Russians live below the official poverty line (earning less than$70 a month). Modern Russia can neither collect taxes (it gathers only half the revenue it is due) nor significantly cut spending. Reformers tout

privatization as the country's cure-all, but in a land without well-defined property rights or contract law and where subsidies remain a way of life,the prospects for transition to an American-style capitalist economy look remote at best. As the massive devaluation of the ruble and the current

political crisis show, Russia's condition is even worse than most analysts feared. If conditions get worse, even the stoic Russian people will soon

run out of patience.A future conflict would quickly draw in Russia's military. In the Soviet days civilian rule keptthe powerful armed forces in check. But with the Communist Party out of office, what little civilian control remains relies on an exceedinglyfragile foundation -- personal friendships between government leaders and military commanders. Meanwhile, the morale of Russian soldiers hasfallen to a dangerous low. Drastic cuts in spending mean inadequate pay, housing, and medical care. A new emphasis on domestic missions hascreated an ideological split between the old and new guard in the military leadership, increasing the risk that disgruntled generals may enter the

political fray and feeding the resentment of soldiers who dislike being used as a national police force. Newly enhanced ties between military unitsand local authorities pose another danger. Soldiers grow ever more dependent on local governments for housing, food, and wages. Draftees servecloser to home, and new laws have increased local control over the armed forces. Were a conflict to emerge between a regional power andMoscow, it is not at all clear which side the military would support. Divining the military's allegiance is crucial, however, since the structure ofthe Russian Federation makes it virtually certain that regional conflicts will continue to erupt. Russia's 89 republics, krais, and oblasts grow evermore independent in a system that does little to keep them together. As the central government finds itself unable to force its will beyondMoscow (if even that far), power devolves to the periphery. With the economy collapsing, republics feel less and less incentive to pay taxes toMoscow when they receive so little in return. Three-quarters of them already have their own constitutions, nearly all of which make some claimto sovereignty. Strong ethnic bonds promoted by shortsighted Soviet policies may motivate non-Russians to secede from the Federation.Chechnya's successful revolt against Russian control inspired similar movements for autonomy and independence throughout the country. If these

rebellions spread and Moscow responds with force, civil war is likely. Should Russia succumb to internal war, theconsequences for the United States and Europe will be severe . A major power like Russia -- eventhough in decline -- does not suffer civil war quietly or alone. An embattled Russian Federation mightprovoke opportunistic attacks from enemiessuch as China. Massive flows of refugees would pour into central and westernEurope. Armed struggles in Russia could easily spill into its neighbors. Damage from the fighting, particularly attacks on nuclear plants, would

poison the environment of much of Europe and Asia. Within Russia, the consequences would be even worse. Just as the sheer brutality of the last

Russian civil war laid the basis for the privations of Soviet communism, a second civil war might produce another horrific regime . Mostalarming is the real possibility that the violent disintegration of Russia could lead to loss ofcontrol over its nuclear arsenal. No nuclear state has ever fallen victim to civil war, but even without a clear precedent the grimconsequences can be foreseen. Russia retains some 20,000 nuclear weapons and the raw material for tens of thousands more, in scores of sitesscattered throughout the country. So far, the government has managed to prevent the loss of any weapons or much materiel. If war erupts,however, Moscow's already weak grip on nuclear sites will slacken, making weapons and supplies available to a wide range of anti-American

groups and states.Such dispersal of nuclear weapons represents the greatest physical threat Americanow faces.And it is hard to think of anything that would increase this threat more than the chaos that would follow a Russian civil warwould increase this threat more than the chaos that would follow a Russian civil war.

A strict system of federalism is necessary to preserve freedom and solve warfare

around the globe.

Patrick M. Garry, 2007 (Associate Professor, University of South Dakota School of Law, Brandeis LawJournal, Spring, 2007. Online. Lexis. Accessed, April 28, 2008).

7/27/2019 Speech 1nc 6-29 7PM

11/15

In creating a system of dual sovereignty between the state and federal government, "the Framers split the atom of sovereignty" by

designating two different political entities (federal and state), "each protected from incursion by the other." This federalism schemenot only lets the two different levels of government specialize in their respective functions, it provides astructure in which a multitude of heterogeneous communities can co-exist under a single national government.For instance, one of the benefits of federalism is that people of different views can gather in different states with different policies and

priorities. Hence, federalism supports and accommodates the wide diversity of American society. As Professor Steven Calabresiexplains, federalism has served as a vital ingredient of America's constitutional democracy: It preventsreligious warfare, it prevents secessionist warfare, and it prevents racial warfare. It is part of thereason why democratic majoritarianism in the United States has not produced violence or secession for130 years, unlike the situation for example, in England, France, Germany, Russia, Czechoslovakia,Yugoslavia, Cyprus, or Spain. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitutionthat is more important or thathas done more to promote peace, prosperity, and freedom than the federal structure of that greatdocument.

7/27/2019 Speech 1nc 6-29 7PM

12/15

The United States universal health care plan is inefficient and has many negativeimpacts. The United States cannot guarantee healthcare to all of its citizens becauseone plan cannot adequately apply to each individuals circumstance. Universal healthcare will increase the deficit, provide the least effective care, all while lowering health

standards. Further impacts include bioterrorism and extinction. The United States isobligated to refrain from any action that would result in inefficiency, thus the United

States cannot guarantee universal health care for all its citizens.

7/27/2019 Speech 1nc 6-29 7PM

13/15

US has high motivations for innovation, competition

William,Morris5/1(Healthcare Innovation expert and doctor)The success of companies specializing in healthcare delivery, systems, and technology will be largely dependant on the companies'ability to provide a cheaper and more efficient healthcare experience for doctors and patients, according to the Decade Ahead

chapter "Healthcare: From Healing to Fixing." Reducing costs and improving the quality of care provide much of

the motivation for healthcare innovation," said Jerry Brimeyer, an analyst with UBS Wealth Management Research."We expect considerable technological innovation this decade to better coordinate our fragmented healthcare system and apply our

knowledge of the human genome to personalize medicine. A healthcare-themed chapter of the Decade Ahead report outlines

the factors contributing to the reshaping of the U.S. healthcare system, including behavioral changes

that could lead to less discretionary healthcare consumption and enhanced price shopping.Suchbehavioral shifts, the report says, could reduce the number of unnecessary tests and procedures that often increase health costs.To meet the demands for greater efficiency in healthcare, managed care organizations will be tapped in the coming years toimplement new payment schemes and vertically integrate healthcare delivery paradigms, presenting investors with newopportunities in companies that provide such services. Technological innovation will also play a large role in the future of healthcare,

The next decade is also expected to feature new opportunities in companies specializing in genetic research, which

could enable doctors to provide more targeted and effective treatments to patients for many

conditions, including cancer, Alzheimer's, and heart disease by 2020. There are several ways to incorporate

healthcare investments into your portfolio. For example, one method involves investing in equity funds that are

concentrated in healthcare stocks. Given that many of the companies and medical sub-sectors that

stand to benefit from the healthcare system overhaul are not yet well-established, a professional

portfolio manager could be helpful in providing recommendations on such niche markets.

Universal Health care is ineffective, kills innovation lack of competition and over

regulation

John C. Goodman 05 John C. Goodman is president of the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas, Texas. This paper is adaptedfrom his book Lives at Risk: Single-Payer National Health Insurance around the World (Rowman & Littlefield, 2004), coauthored by Gerald L.

Musgrave and Devon M. Herrick (Health Care in a Free Society Rebutting the Myths of National Health Insurance, Policy Analysis volume 523Damaging units require replacement. Whereas the Canadian Society of Surgical Oncology recommends that cancer

treatment, including surgery, begin within two weeks after preoperative tests, one study found that the

median waiting time for surgery varied from almost a month (29.0 days) for colorectal cancer to more

than two months (64.0 days) for urologic cancers. 31 The annual rate of cancer deaths is 70 percent

higher in the United Kingdom than in the United States275 deaths per 100,000 and 194 deaths per 100,000,

respectively. 32 According to Karol Sikora, former head of the World Health Organizations cancer program, 25,000 people die

unnecessarily in Britain each year because they are denied the highest quality cancer care. Much of thereason appears to be rationing of cancer specialists and treatments. 33 For instance, Poland has more radiotherapists per capita than Britain. In

fact, Britain has fewer oncologists than any country in Western Europe. 34 Forty percent of British cancer patientsnever see an oncology specialist. 35 There are only a few British hospitals that specialize in tumors. In addition, use of chemotherapy in Britain

is significantly lower than in neighboring countries. Many health authorities ration cancer drugs, and some are

unwilling to fund certain drugs. Such practice leads to similar patients being treated differentlydepending on where they reside, resulting in a wide variation in clinical outcomes.

7/27/2019 Speech 1nc 6-29 7PM

14/15

Leads decline and breakdown of healthcare system

Drug innovation key to check against bioterror, turns case.

Bandow, 3/27/2005 (Doug, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former special assistant toPresident Reagan, A strong pharmaceutical industry is the best defense against pandemics)

Yet at a time when the world may have narrowly escaped a potential viral epidemic in the form of

SARS and faces the prospect of biological terrorism the drugmakers are under siege in America.Rhetorically, they have been lumped with the tobacco companies by demagogic politicians, as if firms which make products that heal are the

same as those which make products that kill. The explosion of liability lawsuits is another problem. Henry Miller of the Hoover Institution points

out that the number of vaccine makers has fallen by three quarters al e notes, is that "compared to therapeutic

drugs, vaccines traditionally offer low return on investment but high exposure to legal liability." This is themajor reason we were left so vulnerable to the failure of Chiron, the British firm that was producing flu vaccine. Underlying the widespread

political assault is a panoply of distorted and even false claims. The industry is not uniquely profitable and its returns are broadly

commensurate with the cost of raising capital. Complaints about rising drug expenditures are common, even though people routinely spend

more for a dinner out than on a typical prescription. Moreover, the primary reasons total drug outlays are rising is not because of price hikes on

existing medicines, but because Americans are buying new products and using more old ones. Other myths abound. The drugmakers actually

spend more on R&D than marketing. They devote far more money to finding drugs than does the National Institutes of Health. What makes the

concerted assault against pharmaceutical concerns so perverse is that Washington claims it understands the importance of pharmaceutical

research. Dianne Murphy, director of the FDA's Office of Counterterrorism & Pediatric Drug Development, said of drugmakers working onbioterrorism: "we want them to come in and talk to us when the drug is barely a glimmer in a scientist's eye." Yet Washington's threat to void

the patent for Cipro in the midst of the 2001 anthrax scare was a warning to firms that no good deed is likely to go unpunished. Indeed, the

better the deed (more effectively dealing with a deadlier disease), the greater the likely punishment (losing the hard-won return on the

underlying research). The United States is essentially the last pharmaceutical free market among leading industrialized states. Price and use

controls pervade Europe and other industrialized states, including Canada and Japan. In Europe, observed Wall Street Journal reporter Stephen

D. Moore, "Innovative cancer drugs have gotten bogged down even earlier in the system." He adds: "Many European countries also attempt to

restrict demand after new medicines reach pharmacy shelves. Drugs can be saddled with tight prescribing rules to limit consumption. Patients

across Europe are fighting for improved access to older drugs such as Taxol, the world's top-selling anticancer drug." Thus, the vast

majority of drug innovation derives from the American market. That will end, however, if government

arbitrarily seizes directly, through domestic restrictions, or indirectly, through "reimportation" of

American drugs from countries with price controls the fruit of industry R&D, thereby cutting

industry prices and profits. Investment will fall. Which will mean less research and development. And

fewer life-saving products. Life is uncertain and arbitrary; SARS demonstrated that flying on the wrong plane and sittingnext to the wrong person could become a death sentence. And potentially many more people will die if new, even

deadlier infectious diseases emerge, whether avian flu or something else.Yet the resources are available to

prevent or ameliorate any such outbreak. Writes Dr. Joseph DiMasi of Tufts University: "a rapid expansion of scientific discoveries

and technologic advances has given the pharmaceutical industry unprecedented opportunities to

innovate. Combinatorial chemistry, high-throughput screening and genomics have provided a

technologic platform that is highly conducive to growth in innovation. However, given typical lengths

for the drug discovery and development processes, most of the fruits of these efforts will likely not be

realized for years to come." Reaping those long-term benefits to protect people worldwide will

require the aid of America's much-vilified pharmaceutical industry. If critics succeed in disabling the

drugmakers, we will all be at risk. It's time those who benefit from industry research stopped treating

drugmakers as the enemy.most three-fourths since 1967. The basic problem, h

Innovations Key to improving healthcare and quality of life

Ryo Kubota (Ryo Kubota is chairman, president and CEO of Seattle-based Acucela. )Universal Healthcare Can Save Money, ButInnovation Is KeyWith health care reform pending in Washington, D.C., I think it will be critical that we strike the right balance of providing an institutional

structure that provides baseline coverage for everyone in the country while not sacrificing our high quality care. It is also essential to

address how any shift in the focus of our current health care system could affect the research, drive

7/27/2019 Speech 1nc 6-29 7PM

15/15

and innovation that leads to medical breakthroughs. These innovations are the cornerstone of our industrys

entrepreneurial culture and have the potential to greatly improve the nations health and quality of

life. We must keep innovation at the forefront of our minds and our strategies through any health care

reform process. To be sure, access to quality health care is critical and a top priority for our country, but we must also remember that

our unique American spirit of exploration and entrepreneurship feeds the global need for medical

breakthroughs and creates a wealth of effective treatments for all the citizens of the world. We mustexamine closely solutions that could dampen that spirit or institutionalize innovation they are assets.