Final Cards.docx - SCFI

ahemhootΒιοτεχνολογία

5 Δεκ 2012 (πριν από 4 χρόνια και 10 μήνες)

363 εμφανίσεις

SCFI LD

Random AT

1

AT Borders K

................................
................................
................................
................................
..........

2

AT Objectivism

................................
................................
................................
................................
......

3

AT CEDAW CP

................................
................................
................................
................................
........

4

AT Disease Advantage

................................
................................
................................
...........................

5

AT Pharmaceutical DA

................................
................................
................................
...........................

7

AT Bioterror

................................
................................
................................
................................
.........

10

Competiveness key to Heg

................................
................................
................................
..................

11

Hegemony Bad

................................
................................
................................
................................
....

12

Hegemony Good

................................
................................
................................
................................
.

13

Single Payer Good
-
Competiveness

................................
................................
................................
.....

14

Ethic of Care Good

................................
................................
................................
..............................

15

SCFI LD

Random AT

2

AT Borders K

Respect for borders has prevented major wars.

Zacher, 01

(Mark,
International Organization
, Vol. 55, No. 2. (Spring, 2001), pp. 215+ Jstor).


The decline of successful wars of territorial aggrandizement during the last half century is palpable. In
fact, there has not been a case of successful territ
orial aggrandizement since 1976
. Furthermore there
have been important multilateral accords in support of the norm and frequent interventions by
international organizations to force states to withdraw from foreign countries.
Clearly, a central source
of th
e norm has been the industrialized world’s fear that territorial revisionism could ignite a major war
that would cause great human suffering.
Several scholars have observed that this revision against the
imposition of physical pain has been central to the
strengthening of a variety of security and human
rights regimes.
The experiences of the two world wars, a general understanding of territorial
revisionism’s encouragement of major wars, and a fear of nuclear weapons drove the development of
the territorial

integrity norm at key points in its multilateral legitimization.

The disintegration of borders causes hatred and terrorism

Jody
Glittenberg

Jan 1, 20
04
A Transdisciplinary, “Transcultural Model for Health Care”
http://tcn.sagepub.com/content/15/1/6.full.pdf+html

PG. 7, Access Date: 7/19/12

Compounding the many problems of development and


capacity building is the high rate of migration throughout the


world.
Currently,
mass communication a
nd transportation


permit a growing global economy where workers migrate
as


profusely across national boundaries
as they once did in the


19th century across the United States.
The boundaries
have


blurred throughout the world, and thus the discreteness o
f


separate ethnic identities has
blended into a number of


hyphenated categories of new populations
(e.g., Mexican
-


American
-
Japanese
-
Vietnamese
). These blended ethnicities


have occurred

not only among migrants into the United States


but also
in many

o
ther receiving
countries

such as Australia,


Canada, England, France, Germany, and the Netherlands.


The uprooting of many
lives through migration has created


pools of distrust and violence. Hatred and terrorism have


erupted throughout the world.

Where
before we saw walls


coming down between countries and
freedom being


embraced, now we see rigid and catastrophic reactions to


changing borders
and alliances.
These disruptions have


moved populations into new alignments and broken old


friendships. Masse
s of refugees now number far into the
millions


in many parts of the world. Growing democracies have


been matched with other regimes of control and loss of freedoms.


Tensions have risen; fear and distrust reign
. In the


United States as well as in other
developed countries
, the


impact o
f
waves
of refugees has created enormous cultural


diversity that challenges the very stability of
infrastructures.


SCFI LD

Random AT

3

AT Objectivism

Additionally, Objectivist ethics of rational egoism retrench existing hierarchies, destroy
ing
freedom

Barry and Stephens 98
,
* assistant professor in the organization studies area at the Owen Graduate School of Management at
Vanderbilt University * assistant professor in the Department of Management at Virginia Tech, (Bruce and Carol, “Objecti
ons to an Objectivist
approach to integrity,” The Academy of Management Review, Jan Vol. 23, Iss. 1; pg. 162, 8 pgs, Ebscohost)


The objectivist emphasis on rational egoism is pervasive
: the individual's need to cultivate self
-
interest and eschew altruism

underlies objectivist analyses of economics, business, employer
-
employee relations, the role of government, social welfare, and more.
Becker
, extending this perspective to workplace integrity,
observes that acting with integrity means acting rationally.

B
ut, as Becker notes, not everyone does so;
in objectivist terms one must first possess rational convictions, which
requires a sense of purpose and long
-
range objectives.

Missing from Becker's analysis

(and from Rand's)
is a
coherent treatment of the role
of personal and institutional power as a structural determinant of the
ability of individuals to act rationally in an objectivist sense.

This omission is more than simply a
theoretical shortcoming; it exposes a threat that objectivism in action

as a guide
to workplace behavior
may
undermine the very principles of liberty and social mobility its advocates purport to cherish.

Rand paints a stark contrast between intellectual and physical labor as the basis for defining productive
capacity and social
contribution
: "The man who does no more than physical labor, consumes the material value
-
equivalent of his
own contribution to the process of production, and leaves no further value neither for himself or others" (1957: 988). She ar
gues, in essence,
that t
hose who contribute intellectually are humanity's benefactors, but those whose efforts and contributions take other forms are

society's
dependents, adding less value than what they receive. Presumably, few (especially in academe) would disagree that intell
ectual contributions
to society and culture are important and valuable. There is cause for alarm, however, when the self
-
styled makers of such contributions
assume for themselves the right to identify the appropriate ends and means of others. Rand writes:

You . . . call it unfair that we, who had dragged you out of your hovels and provided you with modern apartments, with radios
, movies and
cars, should own our palaces and yachts
-
you decided that you had a right to your wages, but we had no right to our pr
ofits, that you did not
want us to deal with your mind, but to deal instead, with your gun. Our answer to that was: "May you be damned!" Our answer c
ame true.
You are. (1957: 989)

Although such passages as this can be dressed up as a defense of economic l
ibertarianism over the instability of class struggle, the missing
variable of power puts it in a different light.
Objectivists claim for all members of society the right to think and
contribute and be left alone to pursue happiness but, at the same time, r
eserve for those who control
intellectual capital the power to decide economic and social structure and to manage the institutions
through which culture is created and disseminated
.
The objectivist tells relatively powerless members of
society that they ar
e free to think and act and grow and prosper yet preaches, at the same time, a radical
laissez
-
faire interpretation of political economy

(see Machan, 1984) that
is more likely to solidify existing
imbalances of power and preserve elite privilege than to cr
eate conditions for social

transformation and
upward mobility
.

Objectivism fails in practice and implementation


its oversimplification destroys agency

Branden 84

objectivist scholar,
author of many books, including The Psychology of Self
-
Esteem; Judgme
nt Day:
My Years with Ayn Rand; (Nathaniel, “The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand: A Personal
Statement,” Journal of Humanistic Psychology, adapted from a speech at UC San Diego,
http://rous.redbarn.org/objectivism/Writing/NathanielBranden/BenefitsAndHazards.html
)

I have already mentioned that there is one great missing element in the objectivist system, namely, a theory of psychology, o
r,

more
precisely, an understanding of psychology.
Rand held the view that human beings can be understood exclusively in
terms of their premises
, that is,
in terms of their basic philosophical beliefs, along with their free will
choices.

This view is grossly

inadequate to the complexity of the actual facts. It

is, further, a view that
flies
totally in the face of so much that we know today about how the mind operates.

Many factors contribute to who we become as human beings: our genes, our maturation, our un
ique
biological potentials and limitations, our life experiences and the conclusions we draw from them, the
knowledge and information available to us, and, of course, our premises or philosophical beliefs, and the
thinking we choose to do or not to do
. And

even this list is an oversimplification
. The truth, is we are far from
understanding everything that goes into shaping the persons we become, and it is arrogant and stupid to
imagine that we do.


Among the many unfortunate consequences of believing that w
e are the product only of our premises and that our premises are chiefly the
product of the thinking we have done or failed to do is a powerful inclination, on the one hand, to regard as immoral anyone
who arrives at
conclusions different from our own, and
, on the other hand, an inclination to believe that people who voice the same beliefs as we do are
people with whom we naturally have a lot in common. I remember, at Nathaniel Branden Institute, seeing people marry on the gr
ounds of
SCFI LD

Random AT

4

believing that a shared

enthusiasm for objectivism was enough to make them compatible; I also remember the unhappiness that followed.
Professing the same philosophical convictions is hardly enough to guarantee the success of a marriage and not even enough to
guarantee the
succes
s of a friendship: Many other psychological factors are necessary.

Our souls are more than our philosophies
--

and certainly more than our conscious philosophies.
Just as we need to know more
than a human being's philosophical beliefs in order to understa
nd that human being; so, we need to know
more than a society's or culture's philosophical beliefs to understand the events of a given historical
period.

Of course, the philosophical ideas of a society or a culture play a powerful role in determining the fl
ow of events.
Other
factors
, however
, are always involved, which one would never guess from reading Ayn Rand
. One factor that
many thinkers beside Ayn Rand tend to ignore in their studies of history are the psychologies or personalities of the politic
al an
d military
leaders. Different people, with different psychologies or personalities, at the same moment in history might act differently
--

with profoundly
different historical consequences. There is no time here to explore this theme in detail, beyond sayi
ng that
the objectivist method of
historical interpretation is guilty of the same gross oversimplification that is manifest at the level of
explaining individual behavior.

One of the unfortunate consequences of this over simplification is that most
students

of

objectivism

are

pathetically

helpless

when

faced

with

the

task

of

carrying

their

ideas

into

the

real

world

and

seeking

to

implement

them
. They do not know what to do, most of the time. Objectivism has not prepared them.
There is too much about
the real world, about social and political institutions, and about human psychology, of which they have no
knowledge.


AT CEDAW CP

Signing CEDAW would be an empty act and would end meaningful discussion
regarding discrimination against woman

Ann

Piccard

S
tetson University College of Law October 6,
2009

U
.S. Ratification of CEDAW: From Bad
to Worse

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1483768

Access date: 7/23/12


In 19
79, President Jimmy Carter signed the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. Thirty year
s later, the
U.S. has yet to ratify the Convention, let alone pass any of the necessary implementing legislation. Many scholars hav
e propounded reasons
why the United States should ratify this treaty, yet the question remains whether ratification would, in fact, accomplish any
thing at this late
date. Some scholars propose that the U.S. should ratify the treaty for symbolic reasons, to

help women everywhere. However
,
research
shows that countries’ human rights records do not always coincide with their membership in human
rights treaties
.
This article proposes the possibility that
ratification of CEDAW could, in addition to not helping
w
omen in the U.S. or elsewhere, create problems in advancing women’s rights
. Symbolic

ratification of
CEDAW, without full commitment to the treaty’s objects and purposes, could

bring to an

end any
meaningful conversation about ongoing discrimination against

women in the United States.

Unless and

until the U.S. internalizes the norms that are articulated in CEDAW, perhaps it is better if this country
does not move forward with a hollow ratification that could prove to be worse than meaningless.



SCFI LD

Random AT

5

AT Disease
Advantage

Hosp
itals are Crawling with Disease, more people going means more people
getting sick and spreading the disease

John

Esterbrook
CBS NEWS 2/11/
09
Why Aren't Hospitals Cleaner?
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100
-
500398_162
-
3055393.html Access
Date
-

7/23/11


Restaurants and cruise ships are inspected for cleanliness. Food processing plants are tested for
bacterial content on cutting boards and equipment. But hosp
itals, even operating rooms, are exempt.

The Joint Commission, which inspects and accredits U.S. hospitals, doesn't measure cleanliness. Neither do most state health
departments, nor
the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. No wonder

hospita
ls are dirty
.
New data

presented in April at the annual
meeting of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America
documented the lack of hygiene in hospitals and its
relationship to deadly infections.

Boston University researchers who examined 49 opera
ting rooms
found that more than half of the objects that should have been disinfected were overlooked. A study
of

patient rooms in

20
hospitals

in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Washington, D.C
.,

found that more than half the
surfaces that should have bee
n cleaned for new patients were left dirty
.
Germ
-
coated
.
Sad to say,

cleanliness is not a priority for hospital administrators or most medical professionals
.

A
new University of
Maryland

study shows that 65 percent of physicians and other medical
professionals admitted they
hadn't washed their lab coat in at least a week, even though they knew it was dirty. Nearly 16 percent
said they hadn't put on a clean lab coat in at least a month
.
Lab coats become covered in bacteria when doctors lean
over the

bedsides of patients who carry the organisms.

Days later the bacteria are still alive, repeatedly
contaminating doctors' hands and being carried to other patient
s.
The CDC and other organizations urge caregivers
to clean their hands between patients, and

even advise patients to speak up and request that caregivers have clean hands. That's a start, but
it's not enough. As long as hospitals are inadequately cleaned, doctors' and nurses' hands will be recontaminated seconds aft
er they are
washed


when they
touch a keyboard, open a supply closet, pull open a privacy curtain, or contact other bacteria
-
laden surfaces. In a recent
Johns Hopkins Hospital study
,

26 percent of supply cabinets were contaminated with a dangerous bacterium,

methicillin
-
resistant
Staph
ylococcus aureus

(MRSA) and 21 percent with another stubborn germ, vancomycin
-
resistant
Enterococcus

(VRE).
Keyboards are such reservoirs of deadly bacteria that a few hospitals are installing washable keyboards, including one that s
ounds an alarm if it
is
n't disinfected periodically.
Hand to mouth
. Stethoscopes, blood pressure cuffs, and EKG wires are used on
successive patients without being cleaned
.
Studies published as long ago as 1978 warn that blood pressure cuffs frequently
carry live bacteria, inclu
ding MRSA, and are a source of infection. In a newly released British report, one third of blood pressure cuffs were
found to be contaminated with
Clostridium difficile
, a germ that can cause lethal diarrhea if it enters via the mouth. It's a short trip fr
om a cuff
to a patient's bare arm, then to the fingertips and into the mouth. At a hospital in Galveston, Texas, where a burn patient b
ecame infected with
VRE, molecular typing traced the bacteria to an unclean EKG wire. The VRE on the wire had been left b
ehind by a patient discharged 38 days
earlier.

Herd Immunity Doesn’t Exist

Vaccination Risk Awareness Networks
2012

http://vran.org/about
-
vaccines/general
-
issues/herd
-
immunity/herd
-
immunity
-
the
-
misplaced
-
driver
-
of
-
universal
-
vaccination/

Access Date
-

7/23/12

Vaccine ‘herd immunity’ is hit
-
and
-
miss; outbreaks of disease sometimes erupt in those who follow
recommended va
ccine schedules.

If they do actually “immunize”, vaccines provide only short
-
term
immunity so, in an attempt to maintain ‘herd immunity’, health authorities hold ‘cattle drives’ to
round up older members of the ‘herd’ for administration of booster shots
. A
nd on it goes, to the point that, now,
it’s recommended we accept cradle
-
to
-
grave shots of vaccine against pertussis, a disease which still persists after more than sixty years of
widespread use of the vaccine. Russell Blaylock, MD remarks, “One of the gra
nd lies of the vaccine program is the concept of “herd immunity”.
In fact,
vaccines for most Americans declined to non
-
protective levels within 5 to 10 years of the
vaccines
. This means that for the vast majority of Americans, as well as others in the deve
loped world,
herd immunity doesn’t
exist and hasn’t for over 60 years.
” In the pre
-
vaccine era, newborns could receive antibodies against infectious diseases from
their mothers who had themselves been infected as children and re
-
exposed to the diseases lat
er in life. Today’s babies born to mothers who
were vaccinated and never exposed to these diseases do not receive these antibodies. In direct contrast to fear mongering dis
ease “facts” and
‘herd immunity’ theories related by Public Health, most of today’s
babies are more vulnerable than babies of the pre
-
vaccine era.

SCFI LD

Random AT

6

Vaccines and Antibiotics Lead to Immune SUPER DISEASE

Dave
Mosher
10/ 30/
07
Science Journalist Live Science
-

The Truth about Deadly “Super Bugs”
http://www.livescience.com/4699
-
truth
-
deadly
-
superbugs.html Access Date
-

7/23/12


Armies of invisible creatures are spreading across the planet
, infesting local communities and claiming the lives of
innocent children in their wake. And
the attackers are immune to some of the world's best weaponry. It sounds
more like a sci
-
fi movie plot than reality, but "superbugs"

deadly microbes that can resis
t drugs
designed to wipe them out

are far from imaginary
. Schoolchildren in several states recently have died from infections
caused by MRSA bacteria, otherwise known as methicillin
-
resistant
Staphylococcus aureus
, and medical recordkeeping shows such case
s are
increasing annually. MSRA spreads via surface
-
to
-
surface contact, developing into a staph infection if conditions are right. The first symptoms
can include pimple
-
like sores on the skin where the bacteria launch their attack, while rarer but more adv
anced infections can enter the
bloodstream, attack organs and lead to death.But need the masses live in fear of stubborn yet
deadly microbes

such as MRSA as their numbers
rise

worldwide, or are we overreacting? Most
medical experts think superbug diseases are here to stay

but offer a major
caveat: Only a fraction of the population need worry a little, if at all.An estimated
18,650 Americans died in 2005 from MRSA,
a microbe who
se defenses have benefited from decades of assault by antibiotics
. "The spread of MRSA isn't a
flash in the pan. It's been around for about 50 years now," said Dr. Cyrus Hopkins, an infectious diseases specialist at Mass
achusetts General
Hospital. Healthy
people are hardly its favorite customers and rarely meet the microbe.About 77 percent of deaths from MRSA in 2005
occurred in people 65 or older, according to a recent study in the
Journal of the American Medical Association
, an age bracket known for
weake
ned immune systems. For people younger than 65, the chances of dying from a lightning strike (about 1 in 600,000) are greater
. "I think
people should understand that the chance of being exposed to a superbug is very small," Hopkins said. "Even if they are
exposed, the chance
they'll get sick from it is very small. And if they do get sick, most healthy people survive."The chances are low, Hopkins ex
plained, because the
body's immune system can fight dangerous invasions; in addition, populations of "friendly"

microbes living inside of our bodies easily out
-
compete invaders. Twenty
-
five to 30 percent of people, in fact, carry harmless
S. aureus

bacteria inside their nose as "natural flora." The
principle of natural flora explains how most
Escherichia coli

strai
ns live peacefully within our intestines. Eat some spoiled or improperly cooked
food, however, and a bigger dose of those or other more foreign bacteria can lead to diarrhea or infection if the microbial v
isitors to your gut
are virulent, as were
E. coli

strains contaminating spinach

earlier this year. But where do the harmful, drug
-
resistant nemeses come from?
Experts think the answer lies in how we combat diseases with ant
ibiotics. Antibiotics shut down unruly bacteria directly, police them until the
immune system can rid of them or both. And each new antibiotic on the market works well

at least for a few years, said Dr. Martin Blaser, a
professor at New York University's S
chool of Medicine and former president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA).
Medical
experts such as Blaser think the
forces of evolution

start working

as soon as patients carrying a
dangerous microbe receive antibiotics
. "Anyone who doesn't believe in evolution just has to look at MRSA," Blaser said of the
microbe's growing arsenal of drug resistance. Kill off millions or billions of harmful bacteria wi
th an antibiotic, and some stragglers with a life
-
saving genetic change carry on their heritage.
If a similar drug is used again, it's much less effective than before;

repeat the cycle, and eventually microbes like MRSA make news headlines. Making matters
worse, Blaser said, is that drug companies have
little incentive to create new antibiotics

they are expensive to test, and the customer turnaround is quick and unprofitable. "Until we develop
new antibiotics and change our usage

we use antibiotics like wat
er

these problems will persist," said Blaser, who is lobbying congress with
other IDSA members to offer monetary incentives to develop new antibiotics. But recent victims of virulent S. aureus strains
that killed
schoolchildren have many medical experts on

edge, as most victims were healthy. Blaser said the responsible MSRA strains probably did not
come out of hospitals, which are well
-
known breeding grounds for drug
-
resistant diseases. "It's not just affecting previously ill people," Blaser
said. "It's foo
tball players, wrestlers and just plain healthy kids." Blaser thinks the microbial attackers somehow evolved to be more invas
ive
than their more bashful in
-
laws. The
growing world population

may be the force whacking the evolutionary beehive for virulence, a measure of
a microbe's ability to infect something.
People used to live in small, spread
-
out communities, so when super
-
aggressive diseases did appear
, Blase
r said they couldn't get very far. "
Every time a virulent disease popped up, it
was 'end of story.' They had nowhere else to go
," he said. But today, populations are immense, tightly connected around
the globe and contain growing elderly populations as wel
l as carriers of immune
-
weakening diseases such as HIV. Blaser said the combination is
a recipe for disaster, and his group's new model of that recipe was detailed the Oct. 18 issue of the journal
Nature
. "We did not make the laws
of nature," Blaser said.
Even though we may not like them, we need to understand them to better control infectious diseases." Trying to
understand infectious diseases is what engineer Clive Beggs has built his career around

quite literally. The medical technology professor at the
University of Bradford in England has helped build one of only a few chambers in the world that can precisely study the hospi
tal environments
in which microbes tend to infect people. "If you look at a common laboratory, you'll find microbes in Petri dishes

or in a broth, but that tells you
little about how they really behave in realistic environments," Beggs said. The 2,825
-
cubic
-
foot (80
-
cubic
-
meter) climate
-
controlled room goes
online in November and contains a mock
-
up of a hospital ward.





SCFI LD

Random AT

7

AT Pharmace
utical DA

Non unique
-
Pharmacutical companies are slowing now.

QFinance, April
2012
,
Staff analyst for an economist article, April 2012,
http://www.qfinance.com/sector
-
profiles/healthcare
-
and
-
pharmaceuticals

DW)

The pharmaceutical industry regularly tops surveys of the most profitable corporate sectors
. Certainly,
many of the companies involved in the industry are highly profitable. Ageing
populations and scientific advances that are creating new drugs
(and new demand) are propelling revenues, and profits. However,
according to the Association of the British
Pharmaceutical Industry

(ABPI), prescription medicines “
are the subject of governmen
t controls and intensive
competition.” The ABPI adds that pharmaceutical prices have grown at a slower rate than consumer
prices as a whole and, in real terms, are 21% lower than they were 10 years ago. Similar trends can be
seen in other parts of the worl
d, where governments cap price rises for drugs.

In Japan, for example, healthcare
providers
, are currently reimbursed using a points system, determined by a government
-
sponsored committee. Points are given for every type
of medical procedure or service. Ye
t year
-
by
-
year, the authorities have reduced the number of points awarded in the case of every procedure,
as medical costs have risen along with the ageing population.
So while a healthcare provider in the United States would
reimburse a patient requiring
an MRI examination at a rate of around US$4,000, a provider of the
same service in Japan would receive the equivalent of just US$500.

Link
Turn, Governmental regulation actually boosts innovation.

Grabowski 2006

(Henry Grabowski, degree in economics at Du
ke U, 2006 ,Project Bioshield: ‘Push’ And ‘Pull’ Incentives,
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/24/3/697.full

Vaccines and drugs to address bioterrorism threats is another case i
n which existing markets are
unable to sustain long
-
term R&D efforts
. The
U.S. Congress recently approved the Project Bioshield Act
of 2004
. It contains both push and pull incentives to deal with bioterrorism threats such as anthrax, ebola, and smallpox. T
he legislation
authorizes a $5.6 billion government fund over a ten
-
year period to purchase vaccines and drugs that
will be stored in a strategic national stockpile
. A key pull mechanism in Project Bioshield is that the government can enter
into contracts
up to eight years before expected FDA licensing.
19

At this point, however, there are several concerns that affect its long
-
term
credibility to innovators: how prices will be

determined, how the specifications of the final product will be defined to earn Bioshield’s
contractual payments, and concerns about liability, patents, and opportunity
-
cost issues.
20

Previous

Section
Next

Section

As Pauly’s paper
emphasize s, any
proposal designed to improve R&D incentives for new vaccines must receive support
from important shareholder groups. This will likely require a creative blend of push and pull
strategies. It is ironi
c that R&D incentives for rare diseases receive large subsidies and priority
treatment in the United States,

whereas those for vaccines with broad
-
based social benefits are
suboptimal
. The Orphan Drug Act could be a useful model for vaccines, particularly
from the perspective of political and economic
feasibility. R&D tax credits as well as FDA counseling and priority treatment have been its key components. They could
also be key
elements of a new public program to stimulate R&D investment in vaccines. This

could be combined
with federal mandates and vouchers on the demand side to insure higher utilization levels. Under this
approach, the government would continue to be a major purchaser of vaccines alongside the private
sector
. Negotiated prices for new vac
cines would presumably reflect both R&D subsidies and expected social benefits.
Guaranteed
purchase funds and other pull mechanisms could be available as supplementary measures for special
circumstances such as diseases of poverty and for bioterrorism thre
ats where markets are limited or
nonexistent.

SCFI LD

Random AT

8

The pharmaceutical companies don’t help the populus

Rath foundaition 2009,
Nonoprofit organization focused on disease prev.,

“The Pharmacutical Cancer?”
http://www4.dr
-
rath
-
foundation.org/PHARMACEUTICAL_BUSINESS/pharmaceutical_industry.htm
, DW)

How is it that millions of people are still willing to pay bill
ions of dollars to the pharma
-
cartel for
medicine that does not cure and frequently harms? The answer to this question is that over the past
century the pharma
-
cartel and their army of lobbyists have built an intricate maze of control,
infiltration, econom
ic incentives, bribes, manipulation, and deception
.
Millions of people and patients
were systematically deceived by this maze of Manipulation of research so that synthetic drugs rather
than natural therapies appear as “medicine”, Prescription of this “medi
cine” by doctors who have had
no education in nutritional medicine and who receive financial benefits for prescribing
pharmaceuticals but not natural therapies, Deception by multi
-
million dollar advertising campaigns
for pharmaceutical drugs that deliberat
ely deceive the public about the effects and risks of drugs and
about the unethical nature of the pharma
-
business, Regulation brought about by regulatory agencies
and legislation under the pressure of a pharma
-
lobby, disallowing established health claims f
or
vitamins and other natural remedies
.
In the future no nation can afford to burden its economy with a
pharmaceutical industry that grows like a cancer at the expense of the people, of corporations and of
the public sector, all of which suffocate from exp
loding health care costs for a medicine that does not
cure.

Universal healthcare policies will dramatically increase pharmaceutical research.

Wyman (Oliver NO DATE, Oliver Wyman is an

international management consulting firm that combines
deep industry kno
wledge with

specialized expertise in strategy, operations, risk management,
organizational transformation,

and leadership development., “Reform and Pharma: It Goes Way Beyond
the Bill” DW)

The idea of measuring the economic impact of drugs has been around
for years but until recently has gained little traction in the United
States.
Reform

may provide a tipping point: The
law imposes economic constraints on health plans that leave
them little choice but to aggressively attack medical costs
, and it
contains
provisions to advance
outcomes research and evidence
-
based medicine. As plans restructure to save administrative costs,
there will be an impetus to build organizations that can look at costs holistically
. Manufacturers that have
been trying to make an econ
omic argument for their products may finally find a willing audience.
Inevitably healthcare will
shift toward a more integrated, value
-
driven model. But the transition will take place unevenly. Our
research shows that if plans focus their care delivery imp
rovements on the 10
-
15 percent of members
with complex conditions

whose care is expensive partly because it is badly coordinated

they can
lower medical inflation by five percentage points over the next five years, while holding quality steady
or even impro
ving it. A key goal for pharmaceutical companies now is to understand where they could
help achieve savings of that scale.

In some cases, the answer is clear. In a recent study by Oliver Wyman, plans
overwhelmingly said that they need
pharma’s help to driv
e outcomes and compliance, and those contributions
were most needed in the most costly disease areas.


SCFI LD

Random AT

9

Universal healthcare will increase pharmaceutical companies’ ability to develop life
saving drugs.

Wyman (Oliver NO DATE, Oliver Wyman is an

international management consulting firm that combines
deep industry knowledge with

specialized expertise in strategy, operations, risk management,
organizational transformation,

and leadership development., “Reform and Pharma: It Goes Way Beyond
the Bill”

DW)

In the past five to seven years, t
he pharma industry has had a hard time developing truly innovative drugs.

Payers
understand that not every product that comes to market is significantly better than the products that came before. And both p
ayers and
r
egulatory a
gencies are getting smarter, demanding products that are truly innovative, and not rewarding
the industry for modest advances in dosing or convenience
. In this context,
greater focus on the economic
value of drugs will benefit pharma.

Companies
will need to build comparative economics into their
drug development model and widen their view from a narrow clinical focus to a broader sense of how
their products affect real
-
world outcomes and overall cost of care
. In the past, comparative effectivenes
s studies
have been a source of fear, with the risk of an unfavorable result outweighing any likely benefit. In today’s crowded markets
, however,
r
egulators
have begun to
question the wisdom of even reviewing products without comparative data.
Comparative
effectiveness studies may well become a required element of a drug dossier
. For companies
that can make the right bets on the right claims, there are plenty of opportunities to thrive. Focus on high
-
opportunity disease states. Some
clinical areas offer lit
tle opportunity to improve their cost of care. Cholesterol control, for instance, is thoroughly commoditized, with plenty of
relatively inexpensive drugs that work well, and the prospect of still lower prices once Pfizer’s Lipitor goes off patent. In

the p
rimary
-
care arena,
managed care organizations are focusing on conditions with unmet clinical need and expensive co
-
morbidities. Diabetes, obesity, pain, and
smoking cessation are all good examples. On the specialty side, cancer remains extraordinarily expe
nsive to treat, and there is great
opportunity in autoimmune diseases such as multiple sclerosis, Crohn’s, lupus, and rheumatoid arthritis. These diseases are d
ifficult to treat
and are so debilitating that even a marginal improvement in quality of life ca
n be significant.

Virulent diseases burn out before causing
the impact.

Shawn
Carlson
, PhD and works at think tank MacArthur,
06

The Citizen Scientist,

Dealing with Doctor Doom,” 2006
http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues_2006/2006
-
04
-
07/editorial
-
p/index.html
, dw

The data stand utterly against this idea. Plagues have run rampant through human popula
tions throughout time. Millions have died. Huge
fractions of some populations have been wiped out. But the net death rate has never come close to the fractions that Pianka e
nvisions.
Virulent
diseases that kill quickly tend to burn themselves out. Natural
selection creates less lethal
varieties because an organism can't spread if it kills its host before it can propagate
.

The flu pandemic of 1918
(the influenza virus is championed by Pianka) may have killed 50 million people, but that was only about 5 percent of those i
nfected. Moreover,
every year sees medical advancements

screening techniques improve, as do our methods o
f creating new vaccines and treating illness of all
kinds. Not only that, a desperate situation would be met by desperate measures, including the implementation of martial law,
the halting of all
air and ground traffic except for emergency vehicles and so
on, to stop contagion.



SCFI LD

Random AT

10

AT Bioterror

The Us already permits people to receive emergency health care
-

Bio terrorism prep in
non unique.

Shane K.

Green
,
PhD
,
2004

“Bioterrorism and Health Care Reform: No Preparedness Without Access”
http://virtualmentor.ama
-
assn.org/2004/05/pfor2
-
0405.html

DW

Granted,
US federal law permits all persons, including immigrants living here illegally, to receive
emergency health care, immunizations and
treatment of communicable diseases; those who are
unable to pay can receive these services through Medicaid
. Studies have shown, however, that immigrants are often
disinclined to apply for Medicaid for fear that doing so will compromise their residency sta
tus or citizenship applications [6]. Still others avoid
the health care system altogether due to mistrust or language barriers


And The vulnerable parts of the population avoid using services such as universal
healthcare for fear of deportation

this guts s
olvency.

Shane K.

Green
,
PhD
,
2004

“Bioterrorism and Health Care Reform: No Preparedness Without Access”
http://virtualmentor.ama
-
assn.org/2004/05/pfor2
-
0405.html

DW

Granted, US federal law permits all persons, including immigrants living here illegally, to receive emergency health care, im
munizations and
treatment of communicable diseases; those who are unable to pay can receive these services through Medicaid.
Studie
s have shown,
however, that immigrants are often disinclined to apply for Medicaid for fear that doing so will
compromise their residency status or citizenship applications [6]. Still others avoid the health care
system altogether due to mistrust or langua
ge barriers.


New Organization Solves bioterrorism risks in the US


USA Today
,
7/26
/
2006

( John Mueller, staff analyst, “FBI Unit to Study WMD Threats”
http://archive.newsmax.c
om/archives/ic/2006/7/26/151716.shtml

DW
)

The FBI has created a unit to study threats from weapons of mass destruction
, its director Robert Mueller
said Wednesday,
in a sign of lingering U.S fears of a chemical, biological or nuclear attack
. Mueller said the
creation of the unit was part of efforts to transform the agency that was widely criticized for
failing to prevent the Sept. 11 attacks
. "
This is a reflection of the necessity of focusing our efforts
on preventing a weapon of mass dest
ruction or weapons of mass destruction

(
from) being utilized

in the United States," he told reporters. "I think it is fair to say that anyone who is concerned about the safety of this c
ountry and the
future, their concern is weapons of mass destruction an
d particularly weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists," Mueller
said. U.S. security officials have long been concerned that terrorists might carry out an attack using a chemical, biologica
l or nuclear
weapon that results in mass casualties
. After the Sept. 11 attacks,
the FBI shifted its priority to preventing terrorist
attacks.

As part of its restructuring, it also sought to
improve its intelligence
-
gathering abilities,
adding analysts and upgrading its databases
, Mueller said. "We as an

organization ... have to change in response to the
threats that we see. We needed to change somewhat dramatically in the wake of Sept. 11," he said. FBI officials said
the WMD
Directorate will study the consequences of an attack, increase U.S. preparednes
s and coordinate
the government's response to any attack
. It will be led by Vahid Majidi, a scientist formerly at the Los Alamos National
Laboratory. Mueller said the FBI had also created a new post, the third highest
-
ranking official at the bureau, who
will function as its
chief operating officer, dealing with budget and personnel issues.


SCFI LD

Random AT

11

Competiveness

key to Heg

Competitiveness key to hegemony

Segal
-

senior Fellow in China Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations
-

4 (Adam, November 17, pg.
http://y
aleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=4893)

The United States' global primacy depends in large part on its ability to develop new
technologies and industries faster than anyone else
. For the last five decades,
U.S. scientific
innovation and technological e
ntrepreneurship have ensured the country's economic
prosperity and military power
.
It was Americans who invented and commercialized the semiconductor, the personal computer, and the Internet; other
countries merely followed the U.S. lead. Today, however,
this technological edge
-
so long taken for granted
-
may be slipping, and the most serious challenge is coming from Asia.
Through competitive tax policies, increased investment in research and development (R&D), and preferential policies for scien
ce and techn
ology (S&T) personnel, Asian governments
are improving the quality of their science and ensuring the exploitation of future innovations. The percentage of patents iss
ued to and science journal articles published by scientists in
China, Singapore, South Kor
ea, and Taiwan is rising. Indian companies are quickly becoming the second
-
largest producers of application services in the world, developing, supplying,
and managing database and other types of software for clients around the world. South Korea has rapidl
y eaten away at the U.S. advantage in the manufacture of computer chips and
telecommunications software. And even China has made impressive gains in advanced technologies such as lasers, biotechnology,

and advanced materials used in semiconductors,
aerospa
ce, and many other types of manufacturing. Although the United States' technical dominance remains solid, the globalization
of research and development is exerting
considerable pressures on the American system. Indeed, as the United States is learning, gl
obalization cuts both ways: it is both a potent catalyst of U.S. technological innovation and a
significant threat to it. The United States will never be able to prevent rivals from developing new technologies; it can rem
ain dominant only by continuing to
innovate faster than
everyone else. But this won't be easy
;

to keep its privileged position in the world, the United States must get
better at fostering technological entrepreneurship at home
.



Competitiveness Key Hegemony Competitiveness key to maintain
a military
that discourages any challengers

Barry Posen

(Political Science Professor at MIT) Summer
2003

“Command of the Commons", InternationalSecurity, 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 ineconomic 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 a
s either of the nexttwo most potent economic power
s
--

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 projectst
han 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 Francetogether budgeted for their entire military efforts.

n15
The military exploitation of
information technology, a field where the U.S.military excels, is a key e
lement. The systems needed to
command the commons require significant skills in systemsintegration 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 institutionalmemory of public and private military research
and development organizations.
n16 Finally, the military personnel needed to runthese systems are among the most h
ighly skilled and highly trained in the world. The barriers
to entry to a stateseeking the military capabilities to fight for the commons are very high.95





SCFI LD

Random AT

12

Hegemony Bad


U.S. Hegemony is the cause of proliferation


countries need WMDs
to stop interven
tion

Chomsky writes in 03

Noam Chomsky, Linguists Professor at MIT, “HEGEMONY OR SURVIVAL”, 2003,
http://books.google.com/books/about/Hegemony_Or_Survival.html?id=7idg2XjTVroC, DW

Several leading figures of the foreign policy elite have pointed out that the
potential
targets of America's imperial ambition
are not likely simply to await destruction.
They "know that
the United States can be held at bay only by
deterrence,"

Kenneth Wal
tz has written, and that
"weapons of mass destruction are the only means to
deter the United States."

Washington's policies are therefore leading to proliferation of WMD, Waltz concludes, tendencies
accelerated by its commitment to dismantle international
mechanisms to control the resort to violence.
These warnings were
reiterated as Bush prepared to attack Iraq:

one consequence, according to Steven Miller, is that
others
"are likely to draw the conclusion that weapons of mass destruction are necessary to d
eter American
intervention."

Another well
-
known specialist warned that
the "general strategy of preventive war" is
likely to provide others with "overwhelming incentives to wield weapons of terror and mass
destruction"

a
s a deterrent to "the unbridled use
of American power." Many have noted the likely impetus to Iranian nuclear weapons
programs. And "
there is no question that the lesson that the North Koreans have learned from Iraq is that it
needs a nuclear deterrent
," Selig Harrison commented."

Proliferation leads to extinction.

Utgoff writes in 2002

(Victor A

Utgoff
, Deputy Director of Strategy, Forces, and Resources Division of Institute for Defense
Analysis, “The threat of Proliferation


An Introduction”, Summer
2002
, DW)

In sum, widespread

proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot
-
out with nuclear weapons,
and
that
such shoot outs will have a substantial probability of escalating to the maximum destruction
possible

with the weapons at hand.
Unless

nuclear p
roliferation is
stopped, we are headed towards
a world that will mirror the American

Wild
West

of the late 1800s.
With most, if not all, nations
wearing nuclear “six shooters
” on their hips, the world may even be a more polite place than it is
today, but every once in a
w
hile we will all gather together on a hill to bury the bodies of dead cities
or even whole nations.



SCFI LD

Random AT

13

Hegemony Good

Leadership prevents global nuclear exchange


Khalilzad writes in 95
, (Zalmay Defense Analyst at RAND, "Losing the Moment? The United States
and the
World After the Cold War" The Washington Quarterly, DoP: 1995 Summer, DoA: 7
-
21
-
12 DW)


Under the third option,
the United States

would
seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a
global rival

or a return to multipolarity for th
e indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long
-
term
guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but
because a world in
which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages
.
First, the g
lobal environment
would be more open and more receptive to American values
--

democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second,
such a world
would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear
proliferat
ion,

threats of
regional hegemony

by renegade states,
and low
-
level conflicts. Finally, U.S.
leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the

United States and
the
world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all t
he attendant dangers, including a global
nuclear exchange
. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power
system.



SCFI LD

Random AT

14

Single Payer Good
-
Competiveness


First
-

Single Payer healthcare
benefits spillover, increasing competitiveness
and decreasing the cost to make goods

Robinson No Date Given

Bruce Robinson, Wakeforest Law School Graduate and Lawyer, “Canada's
Single Payer Health Care System
-

It's Worth a Look”
http://bcn.boulder.co.us/h
ealth/healthwatch/canada.html[LO//AS]

The Canadian system is a publicly funded insurance program

where costs are controlled and both hospitals and doctors
are private.
Any Canadian can go to any doctor or hospital

in the country. Each province has its own
system and its own
unique way of funding it. In spite of this decentralized approach, there are agreements among all provinces that provide for
treatment of any
Canadian citizen regardless of where the need occurs. The great success of their system causes
almost all Canadian politicians, even
conservatives, to defend it vociferously
. It is called single payer because there is only one "payer
"; there is no alternative
program, such as private health insurance, to which Canadians can turn for basic health car
e. Since the wealthy as well as the middle income
people have no alternative, they make sure it is funded adequately. This together with cost controls insures that everyone in
cluding the poor,
who use the same system, receives the same high quality care.
Canada has a much higher percentage of general practitioners and fewer
specialists. Canadian doctors make about one third less that American doctors and yet their satisfaction level is high becaus
e they have more
time to practice medicine because paper wor
k is minimized. Since there is a "single payer", it is easier to set up and adhere to budgetary limits.
Effective planning eliminates duplication

of facilities and expensive technology.
In the U.S., competition has led
to great redundancies in expensive eq
uipment such as for CAT scan
s
; doctor groups buy high technology equipment
and then compete for selling these services.
The economic advantages of the Canadian system are multi
-
faceted.
Canadians are healthier and live longer than Americans.

Preventive ca
re to an entire population minimizes expensive
care associated with undetected, untreated health problems. There is very little litigation because there is no need for awar
ds to cover future
health care costs; they are already covered.
Further savings occu
r because there is no longer a need for a health
insurance component of automobile or home insurance.
There is less loss of productive labor

due to
absence and sickness and health care is much more practical and less expensive for companies to
provide to
employees. Estimates show that
Canadians produce American cars for $700 less than
Americans

do because of the difference in the costs of providing health care to employees.
The
benefits to competitiveness are obvious
.


Single payer healthcare decreases the

cost of employees, increasing business
competitiveness and stopping outsourcing

Lohman

No Date Given

(Jack Loman, retired business owner and member of the Business Coalition
for Single Payer Healthcare “Why should businesses support single
-
payer healthcare?”
http://www.businesscoalition.net/why_should_businesses.htm)

Businesses would no longer provide he
alth care
, though under the current proposal
they would pay an
additional 3.3% healthcare tax

on payroll. But
this would be more than offset by the 10
-
15% of wages
they'd no longer have to pay

for health benefits. Workers would also be taxed an additional
3.3%, but this would be offset by the
elimination of co
-
pays, deductibles, and the costs for prescription drugs, mental health, long
-
term care, vision and dental. And
it
would be
portable, so employees changing jobs would no longer suffer delays
and costs
for COBRA, which often is picked up
by the new employer.
We'd have a Cadillac system for the same 16% of GDP we are spending today, and
we'd make businesses more competitive with their foreign competitors and keep more jobs in the
United States. And we
'd improve the economy as families would have more money to spend on
products and services
. The bankruptcy attorneys might not like it because
over 50% of bankruptcies are due to health
care costs,

but they'll survive
.

More importantly, so will the 18,000
Americans who die prematurely because they have no health care at all.



SCFI LD

Random AT

15

Ethic of Care Good

Ethic of Care allows for the voices of minorities to be acknowledged.


Richard H. Corrigan
and Mary E. Farrell
,
Head of Personal, Social, and Health Education at
Malvern College,
2010,
Ethics: A University Guide, Tuning into the Voice of Care, pg. 80


The history of western philosophical thought is permeated with the belief that men and women not only think differently, but
that women are less rational and therefor
e less morally
developed than men. Key western thinkers such as Aristotle, Kant and Freud considered women morally and intellectually inferi
or to men. In the 1960’s and ‘70s the women’s movements
vehemently rejected the idea that there existed psychologica
l differences between women and men. It was argued that where differences occurred they were the result of conditioning by
male patriarchal structures and not the manifestation of mental or moral differences between the sexes. However
,
the feminist
thinking that gives rise to
ethics of care is one that acknowledges and provides empirical evidence for the view that women
think differently to men. The female moral approach is held to yield crucial moral insights overlooked
in male dominated approaches.

Ethics of Care bestows a multitude of advantages that many common criterion
choices lack.


Richard H. Corrigan
and Mary E. Farrell
,
Head of Personal, Social, and Health Education at
Malvern College,
2010,
Ethics: A University Guide, Tuning into the Voice
of Care, pg. 83


pg. 84


Gilligan rejects the suggestion that the female approach to moral reasoning reflected in Amy’s response is in any way less de
veloped. What emerges from her work is empirical support for the
existence of two distinct moral voices.
These two different kinds of moral voices, the voice of justice and the voice of care, represent two ways of approaching mora
l problems. The voice of
justice, represented in Kohlberg’s stages and throughout the male dominated tradition of western moral the
ory, speaks of impartiality, impersonality, justice, formal rationality, equality and
universal principles. Well
-
known ethical views such as utilitarianism and deontology came under this ‘justice view’ of morality, a conception of moralit
y which, according

to Gilligan, fails to
capture a distinctly female voice on moral matters. The women in Gilligan’s interviews act on a very different moral voice, o
ne which spoke of personal attachment and the importance of
sustaining personal relationships. In placing th
e focus on interpersonal relationships, rather than rights and universal principles, women tend to frame moral issues in term
s of a responsibility
to care. In their moral reasoning Gilligan’s female interviewees did not focus on a series of moral decisions

abstracted away from the details of each situation, but concentrated on narratives,
contexts, and relationships of care. These women tended to recognize a plurality of moral interests and attempted to accommod
ate these diverse interests in their own moral

reasoning. For
those listening to the voice of care Gilligan describes how moral problems arise from “conflicting responsibilities rather th
an from competing rights” (Gilligan, 1982, 19). In order to resolve
such problems what is required is “a mode of th
inking that is contextual and narrative rather than formal and abstract” (1982, 19). In emphasizing solidarity, community, an
d care within
relationships,
ethics of care leads to actions that seek to strengthen and protect attachments between
persons. Moral

development then is measured not upon one’s understanding of rights and rules but
one’s understanding of responsibility and relationships.

SCFI LD

Random AT

16

AT: ACA is not Universal Healthcare

The ACA will achieve near universal coverage.

Sara R. Collins, Ruth Robertson,
Tracy Garber, and Michelle M. Doty


Gaps in Health Insurance: Why So Many Americans Experience Breaks in Coverage and How the
Affordable Care Act Will Help


April 2012.
TRACKING TRENDS IN

HEALTH SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
.

Beginning in 2014, the law will provide n
ear
-

universal health insurance through a substantial expan
-

sion in Medicaid, subsidized private health insurance offered through new state insurance exchanges,
and new insurance market rules that will prevent health insurers from denying coverage or char
ging
higher premiums to people with preexisting health condi
-

tions. Together, these reforms mean that
people who lose their health benefits will be able to turn to a range of affordable insurance options that
will enable them to gain insurance immediately

rather than enduring months or years without coverage,
losing connections to their doctors, and indefinitely delaying preven
-

tive care that would help maintain
their health. The findings of the survey underscore the need for federal and state policymaker
s to press
ahead with their work implementing the law.


People in UHC might still have to pay out of the pocket, that doesn’t make it not
universal healthcare.

Ahoobim et al. 2012.

Oren Ahoobim, Dan Altman, Laurie Garrett, Vicky Hausman, and Yanzhong Huang
. April 2012,
The New
Global

Health Agenda
.
Universal Health Coverage
. Council on Foreign Relations


Clearly,
the presence of a health system aiming for UHC does not preclude large out
-
of
-
pocket spending.
Even in countries that have come very close to
universal coverage
, such as the Philippines,
half or more of all
spending on health is out of pocket
. This may be a direct result of user fees and other charges associated with using the UHC
system. In other cases, the persistence of high out
-
of
-
pocket cos
ts may be a result of the breadth, quality, or accessibility of services offered by
the government’s program.
Citizens may choose to purchase services in addition to the government’s
offerings. This occurs even in wealthy countries with established nationa
l health systems
, such as Canada.
Though
it does not necessarily signify the failure of the government to implement UHC
, it can signal inequality
in health care and potentially in health outcomes.