The U.S. ought to guarantee Universal Healthcare to its citizenry

My rebuttal of the Con"s Case: Con"s Observations: The Con begins by asserting that I must offer a means of repairing the flaws of the current system. This would seem to imply that, conversely, the Con must show that UHC fails to address these flaws, which the Con does not do. The Con merely talks about the viability of UHC"s implementation, but when discussing things "on principle," feasibility"s importance is reduced. In other words, what we should do is more important than what we can do. But in addition to this, there are two other reasons to reject the notion that I must offer a means of repairing the current problems. Firstly, the terms "on principle" and "ought" negate the need for solvency. According to Merriam Webster, "ought," in particular, connotes morality. Therefore, when discussing what we ought to do regarding UHC, we are really asking "is it morally right for the U.S. to guarantee UHC to its citizenry." Secondly, even if you don"t buy that solvency is unimportant, UHC does address the flaws of the status quo, primarily by eliminating uninsurance. By so doing, the myriad harms of uninsurance are alleviated, "solved." As Prof. Dale Murray notes, "Major advantages from universal"coverage of the population accrue to virtually everyone. In regard to efficiency, these include more accessible preventive care, lower inappropriate use of emergency rooms"freedom from financial and care-giving burdens placed on others by the uninsured and lower absenteeism and more reliable productivity from a workforce that can access basic health services." All of these are solutions to the problems of the status quo are discussed within my first statement. We both agree that we"re talking about UHC in general, not any particular system. Her final observation, regarding the phrase "on principle," was to note that the term was as yet undefined. However, instead of defining the phrase, she offers an individual principle that the U.S. should uphold. But, just as it would be incorrect to define the term "in general" by naming a specific generality, is incorrect to define the term "on principle" by naming a specific principle. In fact, I would characterize "on principle" as meaning "as a matter of morality in general." But even if you don"t buy this, I still meet the burden as stated by the Con. One: Time (1) Rowley categorically fails to justify why UHC will be detrimental to the economy. He talks about the need to maintain hegemony and to avoid lower credit ratings, but does not draw any direct connection to UHC. In fact, the only two times he mentions UHC are to say that "UHC will weaken the economy" and that UHC would be hard to pass. Nowhere does he explain UHC"s direct impact on the economy. I would go so far as to say that all of the evidence offered by my opponent about the precarious nature of our economy fails to show why UHC would add to the problem. Specifically, the Con fails to warrant why UHC would lead to any downgrading in our rating"UHC will not necessarily add to the deficit. This is because there are many different types of UHC, and the program could be funded in a variety of ways, including compelling private insurers to foot some of the bill. But, since we"re not debating any particular form of UHC, it is unfair to say that UHC will invariably cause added debt or fiscal expenditure. (2) Even if you accept the validity of the Rowley evidence, it can be turned to show how the cost-benefit calculus bolsters the Pro. The Rowley evidence relies on a 1-in-3 chance that the U.S. would have its credit downgraded. That"s about 33% odds that UHC would damage the economy. Given the vast potential for improvement I cited earlier (greater longevity, better quality of life, reduced bankruptcy, etc.), these odds are worth it. So, when my opponent asserts that the U.S. should do what is best for its people, the cost-benefit-analysis here clearly favors the Pro argument; namely, because if we don"t implement UHC, the harms of the status quo will perpetuate, but if we do implement UHC, there is a massive potential (and a high"67%"likelihood) for reward. (3) I can agree that the U.S. economy is presently not ideal. However, UHC would actually be a boon to the U.S. economy, not a burden as the Con tries to (and unsuccessfully) argue. My Sub-point B offers important economic analysis to back my claim (Thorpe and Murray.) But additionally, I can show how failure to guarantee UHC is detrimental to the economy. Kao-ping and Casoy note, "A lack of universal care leads to unnecessary use of the ER: [Use of the ER for common illness skyrockets when people are uninsured; namely, because the uninsured cannot afford to see a regular doctor.] The ER is an expensive place to receive care. An average visit to an emergency room costs $383.11 whereas the average physician"s office visit costs $60.12. It is estimated that 10.7% of ER visits in 2000 were for non-emergencies, costing the system billions of dollars. Additionally, "Job lock" ensues: Job lock refers to the idea that people stay with their jobs when they would rather work elsewhere because their current job offers health insurance. For example, many individuals opt to stay with their job instead of starting their own business"the number of people who would be self-employed if there were universal health care is close to 3.8 million. This loss of entrepreneurship is a real economic cost in a society that is relying on start-ups to offset the loss of jobs that are moving offshore." This evidence supports the notion that UHC would not only be beneficial to the economy, but that a lack of UHC actually harms the economy. Therefore, in hard economic times, the policy of UHC makes sense. Two: Empirics (1) According to the World Health Organization, some 27 of the world"s best healthcare systems (taking into account waits, quality of care, accessibility of services, etc.) are nations with UHC. It seems, consequently, that the empirics actually support UHC. (2) Con only offers a handful of specific examples, which fails to give a broad picture about UHC in general. Canada, specifically, is having trouble with its system not because UHC, but because the Canadian legislature would take money from the program to spend elsewhere, leaving the system bankrupt. (3)The famous will still get special treatment, regardless. In the U.S. they can pay for more exclusive hospitals, doctors, etc. In fact, the kind of corruption/economic imbalance the Con cites would be more prevalent in a non-UHC system. Prof. David Stuckler, et al, note "An over-reliance on partial"care appears to disproportionately benefit richer groups, reducing both efficacy and access to coverage." The observe that this imbalance results from the rich being able to afford better care, whilst those with fewer resources get progressively inadequate and sub-standard care as you go down the income bracket. They go on to state, "[A lack of UHC] also creates groups with strong vested interests in the status quo that can block further progress. Public financing is more equitable"and reflects the shared value of providing care based on need rather than ability to pay." (4) Finally, even if there were a delay, it would still be better than receiving no care or sub-standard care, which is often the case when individuals are permitted to go without insurance. Furthermore, delays can be too long in the U.S. system too. As Kao-ping and Casoy conclude: "(1) The uninsured are less likely to be able to fill prescriptions and more likely to pay much more of their money out-of-pocket for prescriptions. In a recent survey, one third of uninsured Americans reported that they were unable to fill a prescription drug in the last year because of the cost. (2) The uninsured are 3-4 times more likely than those with insurance to report problems getting needed medical care, even for serious conditions. In one study, more than half of the uninsured postponed needed medical care due to financial concerns, while over one third went without a physician-recommended medical test or treatment due to financial concerns. (3)The uninsured are less likely to have a regular source of health care. 40% of the uninsured do not have a regular place to go when they are sick or need medical advice, compared to less than 10% of the insured. As a result, 20% of the uninsured say their usual source of care is the emergency room. (4) The uninsured are less likely to get needed preventive care. When compared to the insured, uninsured, non-elderly adults are 50% less likely to receive preventive care such as pap smears, mammograms, etc. (5) The uninsured are more likely to be forced to delay medical services, affecting the timeline of diagnosis and thus the prognosis of the disease process"The uninsured patients were"1.5 times more likely to be diagnosed late for colorectal cancer, melanoma, breast cancer, and prostate cancer, respectively. (6) The uninsured are more likely to receive poor care for chronic diseases. Among nonelderly adult diabetics, a lack of insurance is associated with less glucose monitoring and fewer foot and eye exams, leading to an increased risk of hospitalization and disability"As a result of these myriad difficulties accessing health care, the non-partisan Institute of Medicine estimates that the uninsured have an excess annual mortality rate of 25%...which is of comparable magnitude to the number of people in this age group who die each year from diabetes, stroke, HIV, and homicide."