Single Payer Aff Neg Supplement - Georgetown 2023

Aff
Case Extensions---Pandemics
Impact---Pandemics
Absent the Aff, pandemics cause extinction.
Eleftherios P. Diamandis 22, Biochemist at Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8802343/
The recent SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, which is causing COVID-19 disease, has taught us unexpected lessons about the dangers of human suffering through highly contagious and lethal diseases. As the COVID-19 pandemic is now being partially controlled by various isolation measures, therapeutics, and vaccines, it became clear that our current lifestyle and societal functions may not be sustainable in the long term. We now have to start thinking and planning on how to face the next dangerous pandemic, not just overcoming the one that is upon us now. Is there any evidence that even worse pandemics could strike us in the near future and threaten the existence of the human race? The answer is unequivocally yes. It is not necessary to get infected by viruses found in bats, pangolins, and other exotic animals that live in remote forests to be in danger. Creditable scientific evidence indicates that the human gut microbiota harbor billions of viruses that are capable of affecting the function of vital human organs such as the immune system, lung, brain, liver, kidney, or heart. It is remotely possible that the development of pathogenic variants in the gut can lead to contagious viruses, which can cause pandemics, leading to the destruction of vital organs, causing death or various debilitating diseases such as blindness, respiratory, liver, heart, and kidney failures. These diseases could result in the complete shutdown of our civilization and probably the gradual extinction of the human race. This essay will comment on a few independent pieces of scientific facts, and then combine this information to come up with some (but certainly not all) hypothetical scenarios that could cause human race misery, even extinction, in the hope that these hypothetical scenarios will trigger preventative measures that could reverse or delay the projected adverse outcomes.
2AC Add-On---BioD
Disruptions caused by pandemics lead to biodiversity loss.
Lawler et al. 21, Biodiversity Strategy, at Department of Environment and Science, The COVID-19 pandemic is intricately linked to biodiversity loss and ecosystem health, The Lancet Planetary Health,
In a Wildlife and Countryside Link survey from March, 2020,62 estimated losses due to COVID-19 for 23 responding organisations were already greater than US$100 million, not inclusive of future losses from decreased grant opportunities. Reduced funding for conservation has been substantial in many locations,63 impeding effective global biodiversity conservation, including achieving UN Aichi biodiversity targets, and issues such as deforestation, wildlife poaching, and greenhouse gas emissions.64 The $343 billion global wildlife tourism industry65 has been substantially affected by the COVID-19 pandemic66 with income shock affecting households throughout a range of countries and regions with high biodiversity,66 and wildlife-related tourism activity entirely vanishing in some locations.63 For example, in Kenya, tourism to Tsavo National Park generates a mainstream revenue for the Kenya Wildlife Service, whose operations are crucial to wildlife protection, protected area establishment, and anti-poaching enforcement.67 Tsavo Trust reported a 50% reduction in their capacity to operate in March, 2020,67 which could substantially disrupt conservation work for years to come. Such disruptions can lead to increased illegal resource extraction and wildlife poaching that feeds into the illegal trade, both as a result of diminished capacity to patrol protected areas, and severe reductions in income that wildlife tourism provides to millions worldwide.57 Although data on the effects is still being collected for some of these cases, there have already been increased instances of poaching and illegal resource harvesting, although, these trends might not be universal.57
Lockdown effects Lockdowns and restrictions to human movement have had diverse effects, with consequences for biodiversity and ecosystems. On the one hand, they have reduced tourism pressure in many areas, but on the other hand, they have simultaneously disrupted important environmental conservation programmes.68 For example, the Australian Antarctic Division experienced COVID-19-related project delays, reduced capacity to train and deploy expedition teams,69 and scaled back their 2020–21 summer expedition, potentially undermining the realisation of research goals.70 These changes came as Antarctica's 2019–20 summer temperatures were substantially above average,71 concluding the Earth's hottest decade ever recorded.72, 73 This disruption and similar other interferences could compromise the accuracy and continuity of climate research that is required to both guide and measure progress on reducing greenhouse emissions, and impede mitigation of climate change's effects on disease emergence.47 Although economic shutdowns initially led to some significant reductions in air pollution and CO2 emissions around the world,74, 75 emissions declined less than expected by climate researchers and rose substantially again as 2020 progressed.76 A continued surge of activity aimed at economic recovery as social lockdowns and economic shutdowns are relaxed could probably negate the benefits of a short pause in human activity unless managed correctly.
Biodiversity loss = extinction
Watts 19 Guardian's global environment editor Stop biodiversity loss or we could face our own extinction, warns UN https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/03/stop-biodiversity-loss-or-we-could-face-our-own-extinction-warns-un
But overall, she says, the picture is worrying. The already high rates of biodiversity loss from habitat destruction, chemical pollution and invasive species will accelerate in the coming 30 years as a result of climate change and growing human populations. By 2050, Africa is expected to lose 50% of its birds and mammals, and Asian fisheries to completely collapse. The loss of plants and sea life will reduce the Earth’s ability to absorb carbon, creating a vicious cycle.
“The numbers are staggering,” says the former Romanian environment minister. “I hope we aren’t the first species to document our own extinction.”
AT: Corporate Capture Turn
2AC---Anti-Trust solves
Anti-trust laws prevent monopolization of healthcare
George Slover 15, Senior Policy Counsel, Consumers Union, April 2015, " A Primer: How Antitrust Law Affects Competition in the Healthcare Marketplace," Altarum Healthcare Value Hub, https://www.healthcarevaluehub.org/advocate-resources/publications/primer-how-antitrust-law-affects-competition-health-care-marketplace, AJ
The federal antitrust laws prohibit three categories of conduct that undermines competition:
agreements by two or more businesses not to compete, or to limit competition;
efforts by one or more companies to undercut competition by others in order to secure a monopoly; and
mergers (or acquisitions of business assets) that would significantly reduce competition.
Each of these categories has specific requirements and limitations as the law has been interpreted by the courts.
Agreements Not to Compete
The first category—agreements not to compete, or to limit competition—is prohibited by section 1 of the Sherman Act. Some of these agreements—specifically, agreements to coordinate pricing, or agreements to divide territories or groups of customers—are prohibited “per se;” they are always prohibited, if proven. Per se violations can even result in criminal fines and imprisonment.
Other kinds of agreements are evaluated under the “rule of reason,” and may or may not be prohibited, depending on how they actually affect competition. Proving a “rule of reason” case is generally more uncertain and expensive, as it requires a more detailed economic analysis of the effects. Many healthcare provider arrangements are evaluated under the rule of reason. For example, an agreement by a group of dentists to tell patients to withhold x-rays from insurance companies evaluating claims was ruled to be an unreasonable restraint of trade under the rule of reason.1
Undercutting Competition to Create or Keep Monopoly Power
The second category, referred to as monopolization or attempt to monopolize, is prohibited by section 2 of the Sherman Act. It does not require proving an agreement among competing businesses. One business can commit this kind of violation on its own. But it does require proving either that the business already has what amounts to a monopoly, or that the attempt to get a monopoly has “a dangerous probability of success.” And it is also not enough that the business has a monopoly; there must also be proof of conduct to unjustly secure or keep the monopoly by sabotaging the efforts of other companies to compete. In the healthcare arena, the U.S. Department of Justice brought a case against a hospital for using exclusive contracts with health insurers to exclude competing hospitals from being able to participate in the local area, thereby monopolizing hospital services in the area. The case was settled when the hospital agreed to stop entering into the exclusive contracts and to cancel the ones it had entered into.2
Mergers that Significantly Reduce Competition
The third category, merger that would harm competition, is prohibited by section 7 of the Clayton Act. Unlike the other two kinds of violations, anticompetitive mergers can be stopped before they take place, so before harm to competition and consumers results. The law requires proof that the merger would “substantially lessen competition,” so the fact that there will be one fewer business competing after the merger is not sufficient grounds to prohibit unless the competition being eliminated is significant enough. Sometimes the only solution to an anticompetitive merger is to block it entirely; but other times the aspect of the merger that harms competition can be separated out, and taken care of by selling off, or “divesting,” that part of the business to another independent business, so that the competition it has been providing can be preserved. A merger between an integrated healthcare system and the area’s largest primary care physician group, which resulted in the combined system having more than 75% of all primary care physicians in the area was ruled to violate section 7 of the Clayton Act because, among other problems, it gave the combined system too much power to force increased reimbursement rates on insurers, pushing up the cost of healthcare and health insurance.3
Anti-trust laws solve – a single-buyer isn’t possible
Janet D. Steiger 95, Member of the Federal Trade Commission, nominated by President Bush. Chairman of the Postal Rate Commission, by appointment of President Reagan. 11-9-1995, "Health Care Antitrust Enforcement Issues," Federal Trade Commission, https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/speeches/health-care-antitrust-enforcement-issues, AJ
Before I discuss the Statements of Enforcement Policy, some staff advisory opinions relating to the Statements, and proposed antitrust exemptions and loosening of antitrust standards under the proposed Medicare legislation, let me describe briefly some basic antitrust principles as they apply to health care. Antitrust law is based on the premise that competition generally benefits consumers by producing the best mix of quality, goods and services at the lowest prices. In assessing possible restraints on competition, the Commission examines the market from the point of view of the consumer. The Commission seeks to determine whether the actions in question will promote or hinder consumers' interest in being able to choose among a variety of quality and price options according to their own needs.
The FTC enforces the antitrust laws to ensure that competitive forces will be allowed to stimulate the development of health care delivery systems desired by consumers. Through sound antitrust enforcement, the FTC has eliminated anticompetitive restraints and thus has helped market forces create an environment in which innovative forms of health care delivery could emerge to compete on their merits.
Hospitals and physicians may act together to provide guidance for patients, innovative services and health care delivery plans, credentialling of physicians, advocacy of positions before Governmental bodies, and improvement of quality of health care services. The antitrust laws allow physicians who sufficiently integrate their practices by sharing financial risk to act jointly, in general, unless such activity monopolizes or is an attempted monopolization of a market.
When physicians do not integrate and share substantial financial risk, concerted activities such as price-fixing, allocating customers or markets, and other restraints on competition are per se illegal or condemned if no plausible efficiency justification exists under the antitrust laws. This means that no further analysis of the market is necessary because such activities almost always have the effect of raising prices or decreasing quality or service to the detriment of consumers.
AT: Heg Turn
2AC---Leadership Good
US Leadership solidifies international peace – Current policies prove retrenchment incentivizes great power wars
Bresler, 15 [ Robert J. Bresler, Penn State Harrisburg professor emeritus of public policy, 6-24-2015, Obama-led US withdrawal has destabilized the world, Lancaster Online, http://lancasteronline.com/opinion/columnists/obama-led-us-withdrawal-has-destabilized-the-world/article_1c73c828-19d4-11e5-ab00-d32898937e9a.html] Jeong
American leadership need not mean involvement in endless wars. Past history gives us examples. The Marshall Plan allowed worn-torn allied governments to provide their people with political stability and economic development. NATO was an effort to build Western European unity, end the quarrels that had produced two world wars, and deter Soviet aggression. The United Nations, disappointing in many ways, was a vehicle for broad international efforts against disease, illiteracy and regional wars. The International Monetary Fund, World Bank and the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs were designed to facilitate international trade, prevent currency wars and assist in economic development. These initiatives prevented another great power war, achieved a large degree of European reconciliation, and eased the transition for post-colonial countries in Africa and Asia. None would have happened without strong and persistent American leadership. The U.S. negotiated a series of defense treaties with more than 35 nations, designed to deter aggression, that also eased their burden of self-defense and allowed them to place more resources into the reconstruction of their economies. In the Middle East, the Arab States and Israel saw the U.S. as an honest broker, assisting in the negotiation of peace treaties between Israel and Egypt and Israel and Jordan. During the Obama administration there has been a steady American retreat from world leadership. NATO is far less effective. Allies such as Israel, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, the Baltic States and Iraq are no longer confident of American support. Hence, China, Russia and Iran are asserting hegemonic claims. The world is now torn by devolution and fractionalization. The forces of global and regional cooperation are in disrepair. The United Nations stands helpless against Russian aggression, civil war in Syria and Libya and atrocities by the Islamic State across the Middle East and North Africa; the European Union is facing possible revolts and threats of secession by the United Kingdom and Greece and waning allegiance in much of Europe; and NATO offers Ukraine no more than its good wishes as Russian President Vladimir Putin’s military swallows the country bit by bit. Our allies are far from steadfast. Their governments are weaker, and vivid world leaders are hard to find among them. Putin, the insane leaders of the Islamic State and the Iranian mullahs have put fear in the hearts of our allies. Why are these second- and third-rate powers able to intimidate their neighbors far more effectively than did the far more powerful Soviet Union? Our democratic allies in Europe, lacking a clear sense of direction, are ruled by unstable coalitions. Even Germany, perhaps the strongest of our European allies, refuses to confront Putin in his efforts to destabilize Ukraine. When the Obama administration made concession after concession to the Iranians over its nuclear program, our negotiating partners in Europe lost any interest in taking serious steps to keep Iran out of the nuclear club. In the Middle East tribalism and religious fanaticism have left Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen virtually ungovernable. Iraq, left to its won devices by Obama’s withdrawal after American troops sacrificed so much to establish a nascent democracy, is now falling apart. In Egypt, a military regime is trying to forcibly contain the boiling pot that is the Muslim Brotherhood. Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf States, feeling abandoned by Obama’s rush to a nuclear agreement with Iran, are sensing the quicksand beneath their feet. Warlordism and radical Islam plague the economically depressed countries of sub-Saharan Africa. A combination of devolution and chaos becomes normal state of affairs absent a strong centripetal leadership. In the last half of the 20th century, America provided that force with persuasion, assistance, assurance and trust. As the Obama administration allows the U.S. to slip into the shadows world politics, the danger of war increases.
2AC---Heg Good
Loss of US heg leads to global instability, revisionist war eminent.
Betz 21, HANS-GEORG BETZ, academic at the University of Zurich. He is the author of several books on right-wing populism including Radical Right-Wing Populism in Western Europe and The New Politics of the Right https://www.fairobserver.com/region/north_america/hans-georg-betz-international-order-great-powers-american-hegemony-china-news-12512/ Uncertain Times in a World Without American Hegemony
This might herald the emergence of a new system, no longer dominated by one power but multipolar, and certainly very different from the one established after World War II. For, as Princeton’s John Ikenberry has noted a few years ago, “there is no liberal internationalism without American and western hegemony — and that age is ending.” With the decline of the United States and the parallel rise of China, countries have the option to “seek alternative patrons rather than remain dependent on Western largess and support.”
The end result might very well be a bifurcated world order, on the heels of a period of instability and turmoil, or what Ian Bremmer and Nouriel Roubini have called a “G-Zero” world, one without clear leadership and global cooperation. Bifurcation means the coexistence of competing systems that follow fundamentally different rules. This can already be observed in the realm of economic governance.
Olga Petricevic and David Teece have recently warned of a “noticeable defiance of the principles of classical economic liberalism and the rule-of-law” by Russia and China. The Chinese “alternative model of governance,” they note, “is deploying coordinated protectionist trade and investment policies and government intervention aimed at accessing and acquiring foreign intellectual property, thereby influencing the global economic and innovation system.” Its success is likely to inspire imitation and attempts to jump on the bandwagon, resulting not only in bifurcation but in polarization reminiscent of the Cold War period.
Without a hegemon, there are multiple scenarios for power wars
Zhang et al., Carnegie Endowment researcher, 2011
(Yuhan

Preview shortened. Download the file for the full document.