Universal health care should be implemented in the United States

To start this debate, I would like to introduce a story that was shown in the L.A times. In 2004, 14-year old Nataline Sarkisyan was diagnosed with leukemia. After an initial bone marrow transplant, her cancer relapsed again in 2007. in order to survive, she needed a liver transplant. Cigna, her health care company, refused to pay for the treatment, saying that it did not pay for treatment they considered experimental. When Cigna finally approved the treatment, it was too late, and Nataline died at the age of 17. This story brings to mind a fundamental question: is the current health care system efficient? The answer is no. Our current health care system is inefficient. In this debate, I will explain why, and I will also list the benefits of a universal health care system. The main reason our health care system is inefficient and ineffective because of the cost of it and the quality of health care. The US spends a higher percentage of GDP on health care than any other country. Due to this, many people would expect that the US has a better system of health care than those other countries. However, this is also untrue. According to the Commonwealth Fund, the US has the worst ratings for the quality of care, the efficiency of care, the access to care, safe care, equity, and wait times. In 2007, the US spent an average of $7,439 per person. France however, spent an average of about $3,000 per person. The US's expenditure is more than double France's. The best solution for this crisis would be to implement a national single-payer system. This system is more commonly known as Universal Health care. Some Americans believe that taxes will increase if universal health care is implemented. Already, 59% of the current health care system is financed by tax subsidies, federal and state taxes, and property taxes. Modest new taxes would replace premium payments paid by individuals and businesses. However, there is an equal chance for taxes to be raised without a single-payer health care system. This is because (according to the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting Office), the United States could insure everyone for the same money the United States is paying now. Also, even if taxes were raised, Americans would still save money because the health care would be completely free. Additionally, the potential savings on paperwork reach up to $350 million dollars. This is enough to provide comprehensive coverage for everyone without paying more than we already have to. Another reason for opposition is that if a single-payer health care system is implemented, then the government chooses your doctor for you and that you have no say in the matter at all. This is false. The Canadians, the French, and the British (all of which have single-payer health care systems) all pick their own doctors. Overall, the current health care system is spectacularly expensive. Despite this, the quality of the health care is atrocious. A universal health care system would guarantee health care coverage for all at about the same cost. Also, with a universal health care system, the total spending by individuals would go down due to the fact that the health care is free.