Improved Medicare for All (USA)

IntroductionAs I have agreed to not respond to Pro's R4 arguments here, I will simply finish responding to R2 and R3 and make concluding remarks.The Cost of SPA core argument in this debate is the cost of single payer. Pro has made cost a centerpiece of his argument in this debate. I have pointed out in R1 and R2 that the evidence simply does not match up with the view that SP is better for cost control. Why?Well, as I showed in R1, the two SP systems with the most relevance to the USA, the UK and Canada, have both had HIGHER not lower health inflation over the past 10 years. Perhaps even more interesting, within the USA, government health spending has risen MUCH faster than private health spending.Now, pro can respond with as many excuses for this as he wants. But, the core fact remains. The great supposed virtue of SP is it's ability to control costs. However, when we look at all relevant examples, Canada, UK, and USA public sector, we see costs rising FASTER not slower than private costs.In other words, the cost efficiency of SP only exists as a theory. We always hear about how cheap SP will be, but, as reality as shown, that is simply not how it has worked out.Also, as an expansion of my previous point on administrative costs, a big reason administrative costs are so misleading when comparing the public and private sectors is that the public sector administrative costs do NOT take into account the costs of collecting taxes. For the private sector, the cost of collecting premiums are counted. Not only that, but taxes also have the additional effect of having a deadweight loss on the economy, due to the incentive effects of taxation [1].Of course, despite this, the private sector still has lower administrative costs than Medicare when calculated correctly, as I showed last round.The Quality of SPI have also pointed out that SP systems are inferior in quality. In my last round, I cited a study showing that Canada had longer wait times and LOWER health care satisfaction rates than the USA, among other problems.The UK is even worse. This is shown, in particular, through cancer survival rates. A landmark study in Lancet Oncology, that I showed in R3, found the UK severely lacking compared to the USA in cancer survival. For example, in the USA, the prostate cancer survival rate is 92% compared to 51% in the UK. For colon cancer, the survival rate is 60% in the USA compared to 44% in the UK. For breast cancer, it is 70% for the UK vs 84% in the USA [2].Now, the reason for this is most likely more aggressive screening for cancer in the USA. I mentioned in R2 that MRIs and CT scanners are much more common in the USA than in the UK or Canada. In fact, as I showed in R2, there are less than 1/5 as many MRIs and 1/4 as many CT scanners per capita in the UK than there are in the USA. Canada is similiar to the UK.Pro said that the superior quantity of medical technology in the USA does not bring all that much value. However, as shown by cancer survival rates, it appears that there may be some value to having this medical technology afterall.Final RemarksSP, we must recognize, is basically the government financing the entire HC system, or at least all basic care.The question then comes, how exactly can a few central bureacrats have the information to finance a system that is used by over 300 Million individuals. Individuals, by the way, with different wants and needs in health care. There simply is no way that any planners could adequatley do this.Of course, pro claims that SP will be simple and efficient. He even has a chart showing just how simple it will be. Goverment programs are always simple when they are being proposed. Politicians have charts showing how complex a free market is and compare it to the supposed simplicity of government bureacrats making all the decisions.Communists and socialists always disparaged the market economy for it's "messiness" and "complexity". After all, they would say, wouldn't things be so much easier if we just let a few smart people make all the decisions.But, of course, economies aren't simple, and neither is HC. HC is a large, complex sector. As mentioned earlier, there are more than 300 Million people using the USA HC system. They all have different wants and needs.This, by nature, is complex. And, as far as large, complex sectors go, the only solution that has ever worked is simply allowing individuals to pursue their own wants on needs without government interfering with it's heavy hand. This is not, unfortunatley, the way HC works today. And, the results are clear. Costs have been skyrocketing without a corresponding increase in quality. But, make no mistake, this is the result of too much government not too little.My opponent, along with other SP advocates, seems to think all we have learned about economics, the problem with central planning, the failure of price controls, and the importance of incentives, don't apply in HC for some reason. But, of course, they do. Once you understand what a free market is supposed to be, you understand why HC in the USA is failing, because it is not one.People who support HC often claim it is a "moral issue", as my opponent has. They are right. And, it is simply not moral to have a system that fails as miserably as does ours today. It is also not moral, however, to have a system with no to little medical innovation, long waiting lines, and low cancer survival rates. These things cost real lives. SP is an economic and a moral failure everywhere it is tried. It is a dismal failure. All of the ideas behind it have been long discredited. It is the same type of government thinking that justified socialism in every form.In the future, mankind will look back at SP and other government HC schemes as just one more notch on the long list of failed government schemes. They will be shocked that, after communism and fascism, people were still willing to put faith in their government to run their HC system.They will look back with not only shock but also sadness. Sadness that it takes so many lives for humans to learn simple lessons. The lesson here is that people are better at running their lives than central planners.Sources:[1] http://healthblog.ncpa.org...[2] http://healthblog.ncpa.org...