United States should switch to a Universal Healthcare System

We of course have the difficulty now of a two-round debate. Anyways, I'll take it point by point. You comment: >I believe that your views on a government system are a little too cynical. It comes from having worked for the government and from witnessing how things are done. To your first response... >You claim that a government system is worse than a monopoly, but this is not really the case. ... Social healthcare is run on legislation, legislation is made by ELECTED officials, and elected officials have to keep voters happy. First, there is a huge difference between POLICY and OPERATIONS, and it is in the latter where competitive motivations take place. As an example of mediocre consequence, it's simply not the lawmakers' job to make sure the janitor is doing his job properly and not standing around wasting time. That happy job lies with the individuals managing maintenance in the hospital, and if that person is charging the hospital for six janitors when four harder-working ones would do the trick, then he is simply wasting money. THAT is where competitive drive normally kicks in, but in government, does not. Government is by definition a Monopoly, meaning there is no competitive motivation anywhere in the system. But it's worse because you do not have the option to non-compete. Simply put, there is nobody in the office to kick and scream when expenses get high. Secondly, you are correct, the motivation of lawmakers are based on getting reelected. I would argue, of course, that getting elected is the only sensible reason anyone would push for government health care to begin with. Regardless, the primary motivation of the individuals running health care should not be getting elected, but providing the greatest benefit (measured in REVENUE) at the lowest cost to society (measured in EXPENSES). >You also said the cost of medications would go up, but that's not true either. In Great Britain, another socialized health system, all prescriptions, no matter the kind or amount, are approximately $10. Difference: Cost to Manufacture /= Price to Consumer As I stated before, most European countries and Canada have price controls while the U.S. does not. The result is that the U.S. consumer is ALONE in paying for the Research and Development of new drugs. If we enacted similar price restraints, or enabled consumers to purchase cheaper Canadian drugs, then flat-out, R&D on new drugs in development would be crippled, and the progress of pharmeceutical health care world-wide would come to a halt. Getting these price controls removed worldwide should be a key objective of American foreign policy. >Quite plainly, it's obvious to those who have studied the subject that a universal healthcare system is a vast improvement. Many people have claimed that a government system discourages technological improvements and innovations, but studies prove otherwise. France, the current leader in the world for healthcare, is a government-run system. Not to mention, the government already sponsors innovation in areas like military technology, social engineering, and even medicine. So why do you say that switching to a Universal system would suddenly make the government less willing to give grants for medical technology research? Your data is wrong, the U.S. may fall behind in coverage but it is by far the world leader in the average quality of Health Care services. Where "France" is the "current leader in the world for helathcare" is beyond me, as that distinction is to my knowledge, depending on the measure used, usually awarded to Sweden. Let me put it this way. Name the three sectors in this country that are failing the most. Go ahead, without reading ahead. I would name: Education Healthcare Maybe the Legal System? And like me, you've probably named three government run or government influenced sectors. We could envision a system, for instance, where the U.S. Government has to handle the accounting and bookkeeping of every company in the world in order to prevent cases of fraud and ensure adequate reporting and information-sharing of business. But can you imagine the logistical nightmare? The accounting incompetance? The needless and overbearing red tape? The USELESSNESS of it? If you know anything about bookkeeping, then OF COURSE YOU CAN! Why ON EARTH should Healthcare be any different? Why should we embrace the logistical headaches, the cost overruns, the beaten-up efficiency, and the red tape, when we CAN provide UNIVERSAL Healthcare by changing government policies to bring up competition, bring down prices, and make PRIVATE Healthcare affordable to everyone? There is no reason at all. >Another common argument is that switching to a government system would make taxes go through the roof! This argument is based on the idea that tax structure would remain the same as it is today. The problem lies in the fact that the current tax structure was designed by either a retard, or a rich person, or possibly both (George W. Bush anyone?). Taxes, in their current structure would be devastated by a universal healthcare system, but that can easily be fixed. A simple adjustment, as well as better spending controls would give almost everybody in the country a tax break, only raising taxes for the richest 6% of the country. You mean, by charging your employer who happens to be richer than you? You only encourage your employer to attempt to save money elsewhere, such as in the salaries of the people who might be working for him. Taxes are a NET ECONOMIC LOSS greater than the monetary value of the program they are spent on. Rich $=> Bank Investment $=> Loans $=> Startup Business / Students Rich $=> Stocks $=> Business $=> Salaries for New Employees Rich $=> Private Jet $=> Boeing $=> Pilots and Staff Rich $=> Taxes $=> IRS $=> Government Program And here's the rub: The value of money is based on the number on the bill, times the number of times that bill is spent. In the first three equations above, each transfer is associated with the Creation of Value. In the fourth, the length of time the dollar is being controlled by the IRS, transferred internally in the government, until it is spent by that government program, is a NET LOSS on the OPPORTUNITY COST of how quickly the dollar would be spent elsewhere. The length of time that bill stays in the hands of the government? About six months. >Finally, I have to bring up the greatest issue of universal healthcare: the health benefits of the general public. I already brought up Universal Healthcare, and I argued that the private sector could do a better job of providing it by reducing costs and increasing efficiency, thereby increasing both the desirability and availability of coverage. Try to interact with these arguments in the future. As for your data.... >Many people love to say things like "Oh, universal healthcare has failed in other countries." In reality, it is quite the opposite. As the United States has remained one of the few industrial nations without a social healthcare system, we have slowly but surely dropped to 37th in the world for healthcare, according to the U.N. Even a study by Harvard University has found that "U.S. citizens are less healthy and less able to access healthcare than Canadians." This health decrease has also led the U.S. to drop to 38th in the world for life expectancies, ranking behind even Cuba, according to the United Nations. To show that Government Healthcare is superior, you actually need to isolate the data for only those with healthcare, where you will find that it is not. Our numbers are lagging because of poor coverage (people do not have healthcare), which can be improved through increased Privatization and Competition through the methods I described, and you ignored, in my opening remarks.