Novice Tournament R1: The United States should implement a system of Single Payer health care.

Thank you, Jopo. Introduction The United States is the only nation in the industrialized world that does not have some form of Universal, Single Payer health care. Currently, slightly over 48 million Americans are without health insurance, and a significant number of personal bankruptcies in the United States occur due to lack of adequate health care [1]. The United States spends 17% of its entire GDP solely on health care, by far the highest in the industrialized world. On the other hand, in Canada, a nation with a Single Payer, Medicare-for-all system, everybody has health insurance. And conversely, Canada only spends 10% of its GDP on health care [2]. A system of Universal, Single Payer health care in the United States will dramatically expand coverage, drive down costs, and ultimately improve the quality of care. It is a fundamental role of the state to ensure the health of the general populace. Quality health care is tantamount to the life, liberty, and happiness of citizens. Without adequate treatment options, it is impossible to maintain one’s body and enjoy one’s life. As Dr. Duncan Cross describes, “Civil rights are what we call those claims necessary to secure free and equal citizenship, secondary to basic rights. For example, we have the right to vote because society is ordered in a way that makes voting both possible and essential to our free and full participation in society. Voting is a civil right. Health care is a civil right because society is ordered in such a way as to make it both possible and essential to the free and full participation of the sick, injured and disabled in society. I can tell you: lack of health care makes it impossible for one to participate freely and fully in society.” [3].Access to health care directly dictates our quality of life and ultimately our freedom, and is a civil right entitled to all citizens. Arguably, the primary role of government is to ensure that all citizens are able to maintain their rights. According to the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” [4]. If 48 million Americans are uninsured, the state is not fulfilling its obligation to promote unalienable rights, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. A system of Universal, Single Payer health care is the clearest way for the government to ensure the rights of the American people. Single Payer will drive down health care costs. As I mentioned above, the United States currently spends 17% of its GDP on health care costs. Between 1997 and 2009, private health insurance premiums rose at a rate of 6.5% per year, while Medicare costs rose at a rate of 4.3% per year. Simultaneously, health care costs in Canada increased by a rate of 4.1% per year [2][5]. Evidently, the private insurance market is the driver of health care inflation in the United States, and public care is the solution. The unsustainable costs of health care coverage can be attributed to several factors. First of all, administrative costs with private HMO’s are extremely high, typically over 31% of every dollar put into the system [6]. These “administrative costs” go towards bureaucratic overhead, advertising, and other inefficient means of handling dollars. With Universal, Single Payer insurance, administrative costs are significantly lower; Canada’s overhead is less than 1.3%. The rationale behind this, is that Single Payer is not-for-profit, and thus more money actually goes towards treating patients, and less towards bureaucracy. Rising health care costs in the US can also be attributed to bloated corporate profits. From 2000-2004, profits for the top 17 U.S. health insurance companies rose 114% [7]. This problem does not exist under Single Payer. And finally, exorbitant health care costs in the US can be attributed to inadequate preventive care and costly emergency room visits for uninsured. When one has no health insurance, they are unable to have check-ups or access to preventive measures (ex: cancer screenings). Thus, these people end up in the emergency room, which is ridiculously expensive to hospitals, forcing them to raise the cost of everyone else’s care by about $400 per person [8]. Under Single Payer, everyone has insurance and access to quality preventive care, reducing the burden on hospitals and ultimately driving costs down. Clearly, all of the major issues that plague private insurance companies and increase health care costs are non-existent under Single Payer. In total, reducing the administrative burden to 3% would save about $101.04 billion. Then, add the $12 billion in profits from big insurance companies. Switching to Information Technology and reducing inefficiencies could save about $77.8 billion annually. Also, add the financial savings from preventive care being used, which would save $3.7 billion [8]. As Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman describes, “The great advantage of universal, government-provided health insurance is lower costs. Canada’s government-run insurance system has much less bureaucracy and much lower administrative costs than our largely private system. The savings from a single-payer system would probably exceed $200 billion a year, far more than the cost of covering all of those now uninsured.” Single Payer will improve the quality of care. The cost savings alone from a transition to Single Payer would grant Americans significantly more disposable income to spend on supplementary care. This would likely increase health outcomes for poorer Americans and those who are currently underinsured. Additionally, storage of health information would be streamlined through a single IT system, which would improve the efficacy of health motions. Computerized IT health records would also reduce errors within the system. And finally, an emphasis on preventive care and increased health care utilization for the underinsured could save up to 2 million lives per year [9]. In the World Health Organization's rankings of overall health in 191 nations, the US ranked 72nd, which was worse than almost every industrialized nation in the world [10]. However, nations with Single Payer such as Canada, ranked significantly higher. Plus, in 2007, Gordon H. Guyatt et al. conducted a meta-analysis of 38 studies addressing conditions including cancer, coronary artery disease, chronic medical illnesses and surgical procedures in the United States and Canada. He concluded, "Available studies suggest that health outcomes are superior in patients cared for in Canada versus the United States [10].” All in all, there is widespread consensus that nations with Single Payer health care, such as Canada, receive significantly better health outcomes than the US. Conclusion Single Payer health care is, without a doubt, the best option for the United States. The vast majority of studies and empirical analyses suggest that Single Payer would both significantly reduce costs, as well as improve health care quality and outcomes for everyone. Moreover, Single Payer would allow the state to fulfill its moral obligation to the 48 million uninsured in this country. I would love to write more, but alas I am out of space. The resolve is affirmed. Sources [1]http://kff.org... [2]http://assets.opencrs.com... [3] http://www.kevinmd.com... [4]http://www.archives.gov... [5] http://healthaffairs.org... [6]http://www.pnhp.org... [7]http://www.amsa.org... [8]http://www.pnhp.org... [9]http://tinyurl.com...... [10]http://www.pnhp.org...