Resolved: The US should constitute a Single-Payer Health Care System

C1: Flaws in the current US goverment healthcare systemAbout 11% of children on US private insurance get declined from doctors, but or medicaid a whole 67% get rejected from doctors! [1] Ok before I go into other stats may I go into personal belief? (note my opponent DOES NOT NEED to refute this). My dad as a doctor hates medicaid, to many regulations. Ok back to evidence. there is a 74% higher death rate from surgeries when your insurance is medicaid over their private counter parts. [2] *stYes, pubic insurance in america means you are 74% likely to die, *start sarcasm* isn't that great kids? Government healthcare sounds great! Can't wait until we are all on medicaid type healthcare! *end sarcasm* the extensive paperwork (see my non needed refutable opinion) is the main reason doctors refuse seeing these people, says the GAO. [3] Another study indicates they are 8.5 times more likely to say no to you if yo have medicaid then if you have private insurance. [4] 17% of doctors and 31% of primary care doctors reject patients on medicare. [5] medicare part B is the cause for many drug shortages. [6] I could rest my case here, as current US programs for healthcare are terrible, and a national system woudl just spread the pain, but hey lets keep going. C2: A doctors shortage may occurIn France (a country with universal health coverage) The doctors make about 1/3 of what US doctors do. [7] Doctors in Japan get relatively low pay. [8] The average meet with a US physician is is about 100 second longer, 668 seconds in the US, 505 in Japan. [9] This difference indicates they rush their patients through. US doctors spent more time in their social talk and follow up talk then the Japanese doctors. [9] In Japan the doctors had more silence then in the US. [9] 45% of doctors would quit if we switched to a Universal Healthcare plan as these plans have less pay. [10] C3: Rationing of Healthcare Many people under Universal plans go to the doctor many more times then needed. People go more often, this leads to worse overall treatment. [11] When healthcare is "free" people think they can go waste the resources, so they go to the doctors more often then they need to therefore using up the... (repetitiveness) resources. [12] In England each person goes on the ambulance about once a year, much of the time it is a non emergency purpose, about 90of the time no emergency. [13] To combat the costs, they ration the healthcare. The Canadian system has long lines and the goverment chooses who ts what treatments. [14] Sweden has wait lines that cause higher mortality rates on certain procedures, a study proclaims. [15] Another estimate says their wait times are about 14 days. [16] Based on the source I trust 15 more. In Canada, a country wit universal healthcare, many are not treated in a timely manner and either die or the condition gets worse. [17] In the countries these emergency room needed procedures are terrible! They are given to late. Example:"Sorry sir your tumor will be treated in 6 months""ok :( "6 months later:"Sir your surgery is up... Sir""He's dead ma'am, can I go?""wait for 6 months like everyone else please!!!"Ok Back to stats. In England 21% of lung cancer patients receive long waiting lines before they acquire their treatment. [18] Once again, I am both surprised and worried about these statistics. Surprised as people in need of surgeries wait to get them, and is done in an efficient manner. I sincerely do not want this happening to my care, at all. Also people claim the lists are set, and therefore it is fair as we all get HC right? Well... No. As stated above you die while waiting. Joyful surprise. But Canada's lists get hacked by the wealthy and the people with connections. [19] The rich get far better healthcare in Canada then the poor do. [20] In japan the rich bribe their way to becoming the front of the lists. [21] So the government rations care, unless your bill gates. C4: Singapore modelSingapore spends less then 4% of GDP on HC, and at the same time have the most private healthcare in the world. [22] The low goverment intrusive in HC business reduces costs and taxes. [22] 1/3 of the people in Singapore pay for HC, in the US about 90% is paid by insurance, so personal responsibility is Singapore, not the goverment. [23] Conclusion:Current Government Healthcare is, well, bad, and how would putting more goverment in there be better? So your arm hurts in a crocodiles mouth, lets just jump in! No this logic is flawed. The Singaporean system of the people actually pay system seems work without the European universal system, and universal healthcare means you are now a ration. The goverment says there is to much HC cost? Time for more wait times, and people abuse the system. And some people (doctors) say a system like this would mean "see ya!!" A universal healthcare system may not be the way to go, rather a Singaporean system. PS: I wasn't trying to source load :( Dang... Sources using up all my pace... :(References:[1] http://www.forbes.com...[2] http://www.avikroy.org...[3] http://www.forbes.com...[4] http://www.forbes.com...[5] http://www.usatoday.com...[6] http://www.heritage.org...[7] http://blogs.wsj.com...[8] http://www.economist.com...[9] http://fampra.oxfordjournals.org...[10] http://www.foxnews.com...[11] http://en.wikipedia.org...[12] http://www2.uic.edu...[13] http://www.independent.org...[14] http://www.npr.org...[15] http://ats.ctsnetjournals.org...[16] http://en.wikipedia.org...[17] http://online.wsj.com...[18] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[19] http://freemarketcure.com...[20] http://voices.washingtonpost.com...[21] http://www.independent.org...[22] http://www.american.com...[23] http://www.washingtonpost.com...