The US Federal government should implement a single payer health care system.

Since Pro is affirming a change in the status quo, the BoP will be on him to demonstrate that the single payer healthcare system would be better for the U. S. should the current system be reformed. In order for Con (me) to win, I must successfully negate Pro's contentions and demonstrate that the current healthcare is more beneficial for the U. S. (and/or) establishing a single-payer health care system would be detrimental or alternatively, have little or no benefits for the U. S. Argument 1: The Benefits of Private Insurance Although it does seem like a wise, considerate idea at first glance, it is far from the truth. Albeit, my adversary may find this ludicrous, but the reality is that this scheme has already failed in Vermont under Sen. Bernie Sanders' supervision. But before I touch on this, I would like to concede with my opponent that the U. S. spends more on healthcare than any other first-world country. Approximately, 20% of the national income is invested in healthcare. However, throughout the debate, something that my opponent fails to acknowledge (to not be considered as a counterargument) is there are several state-sponsored health care programs that the U. S. has already invested colossal sums of money in, such as Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Affairs, military, and employee benefits. In fact, the U. S. is ranked on top for most money being allocated in governmental health care programs than any other country in the world: "We are spending almost as high a percentage of gross domestic product as every other country, just to cover a fraction of our population" (1). A variation in health coverage means differing prices, the coverages varies by age, employment, insurance companies, types of illnesses, and much more. The U. S. needs insurance companies for a reason. Simply, the government is already covering a lot of people. Another thing that the U. S. government does is it sells augmented assets, which in turn generates discount when bought. The U. S. insurers "already buy in bulk [assets]. They cover more people than many of the countries cited as cost-control models for the U. S. " (1). In essence, this is a per for the population because according to the charts, in countries with single-payer health care programs, such as my home country of Austria, not many people are insured by their companies as compared to the U. S. Americans have a higher selection to choose from. Sub-Argument: SpendingUndoubtedly, my opponent will also touch on the affordability aspect of this debate and the fluctuating prices. Apparently, state-sponsored programs in the U. S. , such as Medicaid don't have a tenacious grip on fluctuating prices either. Statistically speaking, prices are relatively cheaper, however, "states set reimbursement rates that are so low that you could pay more to take your kid to Panera than the government would pay for you to take him to see a general practitioner" (1). Surely it is possible to regulate the prices or cut back on spending, but then we would have only created a new problem, medical professionals earning less, which is actually the case in my home country. The truth is spending would decrease their income (1), or as you're going to see in Sen Sanders' example, it also increases taxes dramatically. Sub-Argument: Sanders' failurePrincipally, Sanders' proposition outlines that in order to make his "Medicare for All: Leaving No On Behind" plan; he would need $1.38 trillion! Including federal spending. This would account for 8% of the nation's GDP. Being diametrically opposed to Obamacare as well, at least it didn't go anywhere beyond 900 billion (2). But aside from Sanders' exuberantly ludicrous plan that would increase the tax rate to an unfathomable level, the same plan failed in Vermont. After the legislation was passed in Vermont in 2011, in a couple of years the program caused the following issue: "an estimated $4.3 billion a year, almost the size of the state’s entire $4.9 billion budget. To make up for the $2 billion shortfalls, taxes would have to go up, a lot. Businesses would see an 11.5 percent payroll tax increase, on top of whatever they chose to provide for employee health care, while individual income taxes could jump by up to 9 percent" (3). Argument 2: No Competition But More Federal PowerWhen there is no competition, there will be lesser reimbursements for medical doctors, which in turn means lesser salaries. Though I've touched on this in my former clause, I will reinforce the premise in this contention. In a governmentally sponsored system, there will only be one provider (obviously). However, in the current system, physicians have the opportunity to select insurance companies they want to work with. Plus, even in state-sponsored programs like Medicaid, private insurers have an influence on MDs as well. In essence, one system has more variety and selection, while the other offers only one scheme. Also, the single-payer system is tense in terms of its strict regulations and MDs don't have a say in what's better for their patients. An expert in the field asserts that "when physicians become essentially employees of the government, which is what happens in a single-payer system, then everything pretty much breaks down . .. Only physicians are the best position to determine the quality of care. We're the number-one patient advocates" (4). Basically, instead of professionals having a say and governance over the type of health care they want to provide their patients, in a single-payer system the government suppresses their choice by deciding what's best for the patients. The single-payer system's flaws are seen in countries like Canada and the U. K. Essentially, what happens is major cuts in hospitals, in terms of budget. Also, in Canada, some Canadians prefer to come to the U. S. because it's almost impossible to make a consultation because of the long lines to the MD, whereas the U. S. is must different and more flexible. Numerous studies have been conducted about the salaries MDs tend to earn in countries with single-payer and nationalized health programs; it turns out that doctors in countries where single-payer is dominant "doctors earn up to 70% less than doctors here [U. S. ]" (5). Argument 3: Distinguishing America from EuropeAs I've emphasized this previously with my Bernie Sanders' clause, in order for the U. S. to achieve the type of health care system like in Europe, Americans would need to pay higher income taxes to have a universal health care system. Although the British government allocates far less than the U. S. government, the rate taxed on the income in Britain from 2015-2016 was 20%, including the flat rate. Should this happen in the U. S. , this would cause a "20 percent tax hike for 45 percent of Americans who pay nothing now" (6). The reality is in 2015, only 45% of Americans paid income tax, the fact that the common fraction is living in poverty, this would only worsen the financial situation of many Americans (6). SummaryBesides limiting the doctor's choice and imposing strict regulations, if the U. S. were to attempt to convert to a universal health care system like that in most European countries, it would worsen the financial conditions of many Americans, despite the fact that a major sum of the population is already living under financial tensions. To conclude, trying to impose the single-payer healthcare system, would be highly detrimental to the economic status of the U. S. and the medical industry. Sources:1. . https://goo.gl... 2. . http://goo.gl... 3. . http://goo.gl... 4. . http://goo.gl... 5. . http://goo.gl... 6. . http://goo.gl...