Resolved: The government has a moral obligation to ensure access to mental health care services.

What follows are some fundamental philosophical arguments for and against federal intervention in the market for mental health care. These are not fully-developed Lincoln Douglas cases, but should provide debaters with an introduction to the topic and a foundation for building cases.

However, the affirmative team needs to have a consistent basis for the elements of its case. Consistency not only helps insulate the case from attacks, it also helps in responding - especially to unforeseen attacks.

In developing these arguments, we assume that the resolution can be interpreted broadly - to cover any federal intervention that expands access to or improves the quality of mental health care.

1. Natural Lottery Argument
2. Argument From Altruism
3. Argument From Incapacity
4. Argument From Market Failure
5. Argument From Government Failure: State Laws
6. Argument From Government Failure: Federal Law
7. Argument From Externalities