Universal Health Care Would be Beneficial to the U.S.

My ArgumentsHistory of ImplementationIf Obama chose to implement Universal Health Care, the U. S. would sure be in for a treat. However, people often associate Universal Health Care with longer hospital wait times, or lower quality of healthcare. But I'm here to explain that this is all false. Let me give you a brief history of attempted instances of Universal Health Care in the U. S. Franklin D. Roosevelt As you all you Americans know (and even myself as a Canadian), FDR was the first president to try to implement Universal Health Care(UHC). Throughout the Great Depression, a significant amount of people couldn't afford Health Care. Hence, FDR wanted to establish publicly funded Health Care accross the U. S. Unfortunately, these reforms were attacked by the American Medical Association as "Compulsory Health Insurance". Even today, many people object to UHC, because of phobia of "evil socialist ideals" (Just ask Fox News). [1]Harry TrumanAfter WWII. Truman tried to implement UHC as part of the Fair Deal, but the U. S. was already starting to move towards the insurance system. [2] Why would we want to implement this today? Well let's see the benefits, which leads me to my next point. Social BenefitsAccording to Harvard Medical School Researchers, nearly 45 000 Americans die each year, largely because of lack of medical service. Dr. David Himmelstein, a co-author of the study and an associate professor of medicine at Harvard stated, "We're losing more Americans every day because of inaction . .. than drunk driving and homicide combined. " The study also concluded that American adults age 64 or younger who are without health coverage have a 40% higher risk of dying than adults who are covered. [3]On the other hand, there's a correlation between countries that have Universal Health Care and Life Expectancy. Out of the top 15 countries for life expectancy, 12 of them had UHC. These countries include Japan, which has the largest life expectancy (86.5 overall). Ergo, we can conclude that countries with UHC live longer than countries without UHC. [4][5]Overall Satisfaction of Country's Health Care SystemThe World Health Organization polled 21 countries in the European Union in 2003 about their overall satisfaction with their health care system. Out of the top 10 most satisfied countries with their health care system, 7 of them had UHC. The most satisfied country, Austria, had 70% of the people polled say that they were very satisfied with their Health Care system. [5][6]In North America, Canada is well-known for having UHC. According to Health Canada, "In 2009, 81% of Canadians who received health care services were satisfied with the service they received. Only 10% of Canadians were dissatisfied with this service. " Here's the chart below:[7] We can conclude that generally countries with UHC, are more satisfied then countries without UHC. Even Americans want it; in a Washington News poll, Americans that want UHC contrary to Americans who prefer the employer based system is in a ratio of 2:1. [8]Economic BenefitsIn 2007, GM spent 4.6 billion on health care for its employees, with Ford and Chrysler spending around 2.2 billion as well. If these companies did move to Canada for whatever reason, they would save an estimated total of 9 billion, since health care is through citizen's taxes. In Japan, Toyota is a major car company that's world recognized. It is also estimated that "Toyota's production costs are $1,400 lower per vehicle than the cost for American manufacturers. " This is because GM estimates that the cost of providing health care for their employees adds to between 1 500 and 2000 to the "price tag" of every vehicle it sells. [9]Put this into perspective; America's healthcare spending was 2.1 trillion or 16% of the GDP in 2008, with 54% of it being paid through company's insurance. This would add up to 1.13 trillion dollars of excess money being spent by companies, which was more than the budget's of Canada, the U. K. and France combined (which all have UHC). [9]According to a 2013 survey done by the Commenwealth Fund, American health care is significantly more expensive than other industrialized nations. Out of 1000 to 5400 people surveyed in 11 industrialized nations, the average American spends way more on health care. See chart below: The study concluded that Americans are far more likely to come across a cost-related issue when it comes to health care and spend more than $1000 American dollars than citizens in other countries. [10]Common Misconceptions about UHCUHC causes longer wait timesThe point is, the U. S. government is spending a huge chunk of their money on health care that could easily be covered by citizen's taxes. Many single-payer systems that spend way less on health care can easily get a same-day or next-day appointment conveniently. Even the U. K, in which all 4 countries have UHC, a higher percentage of their citizens can get in faster than the U. S. See yet another chart:[10] Even then, long wait times aren't necessarily bad. It's been speculated that waiting lists due to prioritization of medical urgency, and risks associated with procedures (in comparison with patient's affordability) can actually help. Why? A system of immediate care for patients can often be counter-productive for them. This is especially true when it comes to surgery, which can take months for clarification. In BC ( a Canadian Province), surgeon Dr. Lawrence Burr stated that, "15 heart patients died in 1990 while on a waiting list for heart surgery. " However, according to Robin Hutchinson, senior medical consultant to the Health Ministry's heart program, the number of fatalities would be 22 if the waiting list were to have been expedited due to the operation mortality rate then. [11]UHC leads to lower health care qualityThis is absolutely false; countries like France (highest ranked health care system in the world) have a near perfect system which results in all citizens being covered, with good quality. If it really did lead to lower quality, how come 10 out of the top 15 ranked National health care systems in 2000 had UHC? [12] Why the U. S. should implement it? Implementation doesn't have to be immediate. It can easily be implemented in another decade or so. What the debate is about is whether or not it would be beneficial to the U. S. However, numberous sources conclude that UHC is a successful system that is proven to have social and economic benefits to the country. Really the U. S. has nothing to lose; it's far better than the current system that the U. S. has. I look forward to hearing bsh1's argument agaisnt UHC! Sources:1. Coombs, Jan (2005). The rise and fall of HMOs: an American health care revolution. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. pp. 5–6. ISBN 0-299-20240-2. Retrieved May 31, 2009.2. . http://en.wikipedia.org...3.http://www.reuters.com...4.http://en.wikipedia.org...5.http://truecostblog.com...6.http://www.who.int...7.http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca...8.http://abcnews.go.com...9.http://www.huffingtonpost.com...10.http://www.theatlantic.com...11. Schmitz, Anthony (January–February 1991). "Health Assurance". In Health 5 (1). pp. 39–47.12. . http://en.wikipedia.org...