The United States should adopt Universal Healthcare

Thank you, Con. This is the closing round so I will take some time to make some final rebuttals and end the debate with some closing statements.R1: More people get more affordable coverage Con concedes that Universal Health Care offers more people affordable coverage, yet argues that this benefit is not a worthwhile tradeoff - and points to Taiwan's NHI single-payer system that I referenced in Round 2. Con argues that "the Taiwanese government is not actually able to pay for the system," and instead relies on taxes and "constant borrowing from banks" to keep the system running.The problem with this argument, however, is that Con is arguing about the faults of a Health care system implemented in a country which "is slow at adopting technology," has "a low doctor-to-population ratio resulting in too many patients depending on too few doctors," and lacks a "system to regulate systematic reporting of clinical performance, patient outcomes and adverse events." [1]Additionally, Con seems to think that I advocate the Health care system Taiwan has implemented over other successful examples of UHC systems. This is false. I believe the majority of Con's first rebuttal was simply building up a strawman regarding my beliefs and tearing it down. My original argument regarding Taiwan's Health Care system is that it offers its citizens far more protection than what we see in the United States, which it does, covering 99% of its population, [2] a percentage which seems unreal to most of us in America.So what is the reality? The majority of succesful, industrialized nations have implemented UHC and are not going broke. An example of this is the Netherlands, a country which employs a "chaos system" and provides Universal Health Care to its citizens. The result of this highly succesful UHC system is that "the Netherlands has maintained its number one position at the top of the annual Euro health consumer index (EHCI)." [3] Even more surprisingly, "86% of health care spending comes from the government or social insurance." [4] Only 1.5% of the Dutch population is uninsured, and the country is most definitely not going broke. [5] More people are given more affordable health insurance, and the government is not spending more than it can take in. It truly is a win win for both sides.R2: Universal Health Care does save and prolong livesCon concedes that health care does save and prolong life, yet argues that I overexaggerate the extent to which a UHC system would do this. Con uses a very common argument against UHC: waiting lists. He brings up the "atrocities suffered by individuals" on waiting lists to make the case that UHC is inefficient and individuals in UHC countries suffer more on waiting lists than they would in Free Market Health care countries, in which the poorest would be unable to get insured and die in poverty, very similar to the almost 45,000 deaths in the United States each year caused directly due to lack of health insurance. [6] So what is the truth about waiting lists in countries with Universal Health Care? Let's look at Canada, an example Con used in his initial rebuttal. Con claims that "71 Ontario patients died while waiting for coronary bypass surgery and over one hundred more became medically 'unfit for surgery.' While this is indeed tragic, does this mean that wait times are longer in Canada than in the United States? No. Con fails to point out the fact that about 23% of Americans report that they didn't receive care, or get a test due to cost. In Canada, that number is 5.5%. "The reason wait times seem shorter in the United States is that many people can't afford the service in the first place and thus forego the procedure entirely. This is a perfect example of what statisticians would call a selection bias." [7] Additionally, "Americans actually receive less health services than Canadians under their public system with a ratio of .71:1. That is to say that every American receives .71 health services for every health service recieved by a Canadian." [8] While it is undoubtable that no health care system is perfect, the amount of people that die on "waiting lists" in countries with Universal Health Care is unbelievably minute compared to the amount of people in America who die simply because Health care costs too much.R3: Universal Health Care does benefit economic productivityHalf of Con's rebuttal to this contention relied on his "waiting list" argument I believe I functionally disproved above, so I will decline to rebut that point further. Con still claims, however, that I made "conclusions based on insufficient data," and that he sees "nothing that leads us to the conclusion that having UHC would bring about [improved economic productivity]." Allow me to prove my point again:A Mar. 2012 study by researchers at the Universities of Colorado and Pennsylvania showed that workers with health insurance miss an average of 4.7 fewer work days than employees without health insurance. [9] According to an Institute of Medicine report, the US economy loses $65-$130 billion annually as a result of diminished worker productivity, due to poor health and premature deaths, among the uninsured. [10] Universal Health Care gives workers the ability to treat small problems before they become big, and as research has shown, reduces sick days and increases worker productivity. Under a UHC system, as I've proved in previous arguments, more people recieve health care. With more people covered, this would directly lower the reduced productivity caused by "employees without health insurance." The evidence, as I've stated previously, points to the fact that the more healthy and covered a society is, the more productive it is.R4: Universal Health Care does create jobsCon claims that my comparison between the United States' spending on health care alone to the national budgets of France, Canada, and the UK combined is "fallacious." This is untrue, and I'm confused as to why Con took this comparison as literally as he did. It was simply to put America's ungodly spending on health care in perspective. Con did not acknowledge the fact that the United States spends $8,745 per capita on health care, leading the industrialized world. [11]Con also claims that a Free Market Health care system would allow companies to pay their employees more due to not having to offer them healthcare benefits -- are we now suggesting companies should not offer their employees benefits? Nowhere did Con rebut the evidence I provided that Universal Health care creates jobs.Rebuttals to Con's Case Rebuild1) Health Care as a CommodityIt is my firm belief that health should not be a profit-making institution. Con believes otherwise, stating that this incentive is necessary due to the fact that businesses need to be "put in a position where they compete with other providers in the business of protecting the lives and well being of customers in an effort to make a profit." As I've stated, however, there are no examples of a truly free market working in regards to health care. A primary reason for this is due to the fact that health care demand is inelastic. This fundamentally means that efficiency could decline in the free market system because health care providers would still benefit from high inelastic demand even when healthcare efficiency and quality remain low. [12]2) Free Market Health Care in regards to lower cost and better qualityCon claims that my contention regarding the inelasticity of health care demand is "the sort of thinking based entirely in theoretical academia." I find this somewhat ironic due to the fact that Con is arguing for a health care system that has never been proven to work. It is a false equivalency to compare Health care to Cosmetics. One has a supply and demand, the other is needed. And without it, you will very well die. [13]3) Government incompetence and UHCCon claims that "not being able to manage a simple website is the tip of the iceberg of the incompetency the US federal government has consistently shown." I believe that this contention in and of itself is unprovable. Every government has its shortcomings, and to use the failure of a website to somehow justify such animosity towards the government, to me, doesn't make sense. Additionally, Con's evidence for this claim include the fact that the government is $18 trillion in debt, yet neglects to notice the evidence I've put forward that would suggest a UHC system reduces spending on health care. He additionally claims Social Security and Medicare are "going bankrupt," which is a misleading claim due to the fact that neither of these programs will go bankrupt, but will instead start paying 70 - 80% of promised benefits by 2033.Closing StatementsI believe I've made it clear the innumerable benefits that a UHC system provides over our current Health care system, and additionally a free market healthcare system. In no way is a Free Market system superior to a UHC system, nor has it ever been proven to be. There are no successful examples of a FMH system, while there are countless examples of sucessful UHC systems. The Free Market Health care system suffers from major flaws, including the inability to drive down costs due to the inelasticity of health care demand, incentive for profit, complete independence from government intervention in cases of crisis or need of subsidies, and lack of incentive to innovate and improve medical quality. [12]In contrast, a UHC system provides innumerable benefits over any other health care system, including: providing more people with insurance coverage, lowering public and private spending on healthcare, increasing economic productivity through preventative coverage and removing unnecessary barriers to job mobility, increasing societal health, saving lives, creating jobs in the health care sector, and lowering the deficit. I believe the evidence is clear: Universal Health Care is an objectively better system.Sources: http://pastebin.com...