The United States should have a national health care system

While I understand that my opponent's arguments encompass many of the views that are currently espoused by many Americans, my goal for this debate is highlight a number of misconceptions about government options and national health care systems. In order to better address my opponent's arguments I'd like to summarize them as follows: 1. Government Bureaucracy will lead to a complicated system which will lead to slower and less effective health care 2. A National Health Care system will lead to citizens being taxed more without a noticeable benefit to the system 3. Increased taxes will pay for those who are take advantage of the system ie: alcoholics and drug users. 4. Free Clinics already exist for those without economic means and offer poor healthcare because they do not receive payment from their patrons 5. A government option will lower doctor's wages and lead to fewer and less qualified doctors. 6. Doctor patient payment is legally regulated and is done with legal consent of the patient. ------------------------------- 1. Government process leads to a slower and less efficient system. My argument for a National Health Care system is based upon the implementation of a government option, not necessarily a government subsidized option, but simply a government alternative in order to provide competition in an unfair market. The implementation of a government option entails that legislation is passed requiring physicians to perform certain procedures, within a certain period of time, for a specific price. Ie: Chemotherapy treatment to commence within 2 months of diagnosis, for a price of X dollars. If a patient feels that they wish to bypass a 2 month waiting period, or if they feel as if they wish to pursue treatment which differs from a mandated approach, they may purchase such care from a physician. This approach in no way shape or form limits doctor's from negotiating with parents but provides and enforces the idea of competitive regulation in the field of medicine. This type of approach requires no government oversight or "Death panels" as people have labelled them and it needs no additional processes or paperwork to be effective. 2. A National Health Care system will lead to citizens being taxed more without a noticeable benefit to the system In addressing this argument I will assume that we are discussing a government subsidized health care system which will provide health care insurance to those who cannot afford it, or which creates Federally operated hospitals. If we consider that the current system allows doctors to charge excess rates for procedures based upon their privileged position while negotiating (A patient faces their decreasing physical health as added incentive to make an unsatisfactory deal) we can see that there are significant flaws in the system which, if repaired will create noticeable benefit in the system. The argument hinges upon the idea that a fair system is a superior system and that creating a fair system will provide mutual benefit for patients and physicians. Even if a health care system involved financing care for the less wealthy, the system would become more fair by allowing equal bargaining power to both rich and poor. If the system involved the creation of Federal Hospitals the lowered prices in these facilities would force private hospitals to lower their rates to be competitive. Furthermore, this system could include a government mandate stating that the hospitals are expected to make a profit which would negate a drag on the tax system. 3. People will take advantage of the system ie: alcoholics and drug users. I apologize for the following approach but due to the number of times I have heard this argument I've realized that the most effective way for defining the conversation is to pose the rebuttal in the form of this return question: Do you believe that a man would ever step in front of your car in order to damage your bumper? The argument that the system will be prone to looters in the form of the obese, alcoholic, or drug addicted depends upon the belief that people undertake this intentional action in order to leech the services. I feel I speak for a majority of people when I state that stealing a liver transplant is not my idea of a good time. Furthermore, the issues which you cite are indicative of further problems in American society which lead to drug addiction and alcohol abuse. Not to mention the FDA's massive failure to pass any significant regulation regarding the contents of processed foods leading to obesity. This issue is far too intertwined with other aspects of American life for it to be suggested that people with these problems are 'taking advantage' of the system. I believe that assisting these individuals and helping them create a better lifestyle would constitute improving the system. 4. Free Clinics already exist for those without economic means and offer poor healthcare because they do not receive payment from their patrons Free clinics are underfunded because they are forced to compete against unregulated business. Since we agree that physicians will always act in self interest, they have no incentive to work in free clinics. The institution of government regulation in the industry would negate the need for 'Free Clinics' at all. Furthermore, my opponent proved in his previous argument that current Free Clinics which exist are not adequate to meet human needs. 5. A government option will lower doctor's wages and lead to fewer and less qualified doctors. I understand that this argument is based upon the causal relationship between lowering wages and decreasing incentive into the field. While I agree with that I would also state that attraction to the medicine field is based upon earning potential in CONTRAST to other potential career choices. By examining the statistics published by the US labor board I have found that average wages in other fields range from approx $25,000/yr to +$100,000/yr (http://www.bls.gov...). Using your prior sources stating that doctors can earn up to 200-300 thousand dollars per year in comparison to $100,000 annually in Canada, it seems as if lowering doctor's wages would interfere very little with the earning potential of the field in comparison with other career options. Furthermore, I do not propose that the industry be entirely regulated, rather I contend that government regulation is needed in order to protect consumers. Under the idea of a government option doctors would still be able to negotiate treatment options with patients which were not deemed fundamental by the government. 6. Doctor patient payment is legally regulated and is done with legal consent of the patient. This again, is the crux of my argument: An individual who negotiates under the threat of physical harm is unable to give true 'consent'. A case in point would be a victim of a crime who is forced to act under gunpoint - This individual may at any point consent to the gunman's wishes however is not truly acting of free will. This situation exists in the health industry today because patients are not able to properly give consent when their alternative options will lead to their demise. The current law in the United States ensures that no person will be denied care in the case of an emergency. This entails that a patient with "stable vital signs" can be realized despite a doctor's knowledge that their disease will soon worsen and cause life threatening damage. The law does not place regulation upon how much a doctor may charge for that service and in situations where days, weeks, or months will worsen a patients condition a doctor essentially threatens a patient's well-being with the prospect of a lack of treatment. This is most certainly not fair negotiation nor is it fair consent. I appreciate the sentiment behind the anti-health care movement but find that most of the ar