National Health Care

In this round I will only be "presenting evidence and arguments. " Onto my case. I reluctantly agree with Winston Churchill, when he observed that "public health insurance is the worst alternative -except for all the others. " (1) Health Care is a service that the government ought to provide because doing so is the moral and pragmatic choice. Like police protection, education, our nation's armed forces, social security, welfare, fire protection, water, waste management, electricity, and infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc. ) health care is a service, and one that "15 percent of the population younger than 65 years of age" does not have. (2) An article from the Berkley Law Review observes that "The Patient Protection Affordable Care Act. .. directs the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services to establish a minimum level of health benefits, called the essential health benefits, that must be offered by certain health plans, including all plans participating in the individual and small group health insurance markets. " (3) Our current system, however, is dramatically flawed because health care is a service that the government ought to provide because in doing so, coverage will be extended to the 40 million of Americans who would currently pay out of pocket for medical treatment, were it to become necessary (4). Even for the insured, as the Berkely Law Review notes "Health insurance premiums have skyrocketed, more than doubling from 1999 to 2008, while the scope and generosity of private coverage have plummeted. " (1) In fact, most "Americans who have insurance yet lack adequate protection against medical costs has increased dramatically. " (1). So, then, what ought to be expected of a health care system? While our health care system is innovative, America has one of the highest rates of child mortality and shortest life expectancies in the industrialized world (5), (5a). A recent analysis of our nation's health care system originating from the University of North Carolina highlighted that "A national survey [conducted by the Kennedy school of Economics at Harvard] found that 53% of respondents chose to forego medical care because they could not pay their deductible, 29% could not make a doctors appointment, and 25% could not leave work or find childcare in order to visit a physician (5). Surely, we can achieve better. In a nation that devotes, as the Harvard Business School observes, "about $2 trillion per year" to a service that "is on track to consume 40 percent of the gross national product of the world's largest economy by the year 2050" one would think that our life expectancy might be higher than "the other twenty-one countries. .. all of whom have some form of taxpayer-financed, single-payer system" that out rank us in a global comparison (5). The unavoidable truth is simple: our system is broken. Others have better coverage that extends to more people at less of a cost to the nation as a whole. The French system of health care "is compelling for two reasons: it seeks to modernize the health care sector and increase the quality of care, and it promises to control costs by increasing the efficiency of resource allocation within targeted expenditure limits" (2). The French model costs less than the US system, only consuming 9.7% of France's GDP, whereas the United States spends 14.6% (2). The French model covers 99% of French citizens, whereas 40 million Americans have no coverage (2). French life expectancy exceeds that of the United States by more than two years and the French infant mortality rate is 2.6% lower than that of the US per capita (2). The French Model does not preclude private competition, however. In contrast it embraces it, as the recent health care legislation passed in the United States attempts to do following the French. The Berkley Law Review further notes that "For the competitive and learning advantages of public-private competition to be realized, public and private plans must compete side by side on a level playing field. " (1) Competition among health care plans is essential, but "it is important to recognize that the potential benefits to [competing] health plans [both national and private] go beyond monetary savings to include the value of better health and well-being that such measures may produce, insofar as enrollees recognize these broader benefits and reward health plans for them" as the French have so meticulously demonstrated (1), (2). Oddly enough, on a per capita basis French citizens are even more satisfied with their health care system than Americans (based on a comparative analysis of satisfaction surveys taken from both nations) (2). Not only can national health care work, but when allowed to compete with private health care the benefits of both systems can be maximized. National health care can be provided more efficiently, more cost effectively, and elicit higher degree of satisfaction than our current system while extending coverage to the 40 million people that are presently uninsured. For each of those 40 million, this could mean the difference between getting a life-saving heart surgery so that a family doesn't loose their father who can't afford the expense of even getting the MRI that would indicate blockage in one of his main arteries -as opposed to dropping dead of a heart attack without warning. For a child, this means dental care to ensure good oral health for a lifetime. For a mother who works three part time jobs just to make rent but doesn't stay at even one long enough to merit benefits, this means the difference between annual screenings for breast cancer and finding a lump as she returns home after a long days work. In the richest nation in the world, we can do better than we are now; for the insured, for the uninsured, for every American man, woman, and child. We can do better. (1) . http://institute.ourfuture.org... (2) . http://ambafrance-us.org... (3) . http://uclalawreview.org... (4) . http://hbswk.hbs.edu... (5) . http://www.unc.edu... 5 A) World Health Organization. 2004a. Available: . http://www.who.int...