National Health Care

My opponent keenly observes that at present, if people cannot afford health care or the insurance to pay for it that they are unable to purchase it. Is this really how it ought to be, though? I tend to agree with my opponent that health care is not a right, but it is a service that ought to be provided -especially considering that to do so would not only be more practical than the current system we have and more effective if done properly. While I share my opponent's distaste for "whining" my sense of empathy is a bit more compelling because of the high value that I place on human life. The present system is broken because, as I mentioned earlier, it leaves more than 40,000,000 people without coverage -that figure says nothing for the underinsured however (those who have insufficient medical insurance to meet their needs). Indeed, as my opponent agrees, the cost of health care is high and that could be attributed to a variety of factors. The Harvard Business School (a source I mentioned earlier) attributes that, in part, to "the $98 billion of excess administrative costs... for insurance company marketing and underwriting." (4) The same study that found those results observed that "it would cost "only" $77 billion per year (or about $1,900 per person) to provide healthcare to all of America's uninsured." (4) By merely eliminating the administrative waste characteristic of private health care (waste that would not plague government provided health care) that health coverage could be extended to every American presently lacking coverage (1), (2), (4). Wether health care is a right or not is irrelevant; most of the services provided by our government aren't rights at all -but that doesn't mean that the government shouldn't do it. My opponent expresses concern that people would be more inclined to abuse a national health care system if it were readily available, assuming (I imagine) that people would loose the incentive not to hurt themselves if they were ensured remedy by law. I find this proposition baffling, because all people desire to avoid pain and discomfort naturally -one does not need a law to stop them from jumping off a cliff. There are, however, legitimate question that ought to be asked about the way people live and what impact a system of universal health care would have. A good way to determine how people's lifestyle choices would be effected by a system of universal health care might be too look at nations that have similar policies in play at present. The French live longer, are less obese, have fewer heart attacks per capita, and are comprehensively more healthy than Americans in general (2). Similarly, to curtail unsavory lifestyle habits, the French heavily tax alcohol, tobacco, and other substances that are widely recognized to contribute to poor health as a means (and an effective one) of prevention (2). If the French were "abusing" the system, per se, wouldn't the cost of medical care go up? The French spend almost 5% less of their GDP than Americans on health care as a nation. If they were leading unsavory destructive or unhealthy lifestyles, would their life expectancy exceed ours (as it does (2))? Doubtful... One of the cannons of a system of universal health care is prevention. Through preventative measures, heart disease, diabetes, and other ailments that so plague both insured and uninsured Americans can be treated before they lead to heart attacks, death, or dismemberment for lack of treatment -or treatment that comes too late. While I am sure that my opponent would not be so brandish as to make a statement without a thorough time allotment for research and consideration I find it tremendously difficult to believe that he, by his own expertise, possesses the credibility to opine as to the efficiency of the Canadian or French health care systems as he did here: "I find that Canada and France have very similar health care systems and both work in the same manor, inefficiently." The most remarkably odd thing about it is, though, that the French health care system is, according to the World Health Organization, among the best in the world. In 2001 France, in fact, was determined by the WHO to have the best health care system in the world (2), and it continues to improve. The United States, by contrast, yielded less than impressive results. Presently, we are 37th -behind Costa Rica, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Portugal, Oman, Spain, the United Kingdom, Germany, and (of course) France just to list a few. Strange, considering we are supposed to be the richest nation in the world -and even stranger considering how much more of our gross domestic product we spend on health care on a per capita basis that we can't even make the top ten. Indeed, doctor's wages in France are lower -substantially lower even than those of the United States. Doctor's wages are lower because medical school is paid for by the French government, ergo no student loans to pay off for doctors. There is no French Medical Association (unlike the AMA) artificially deflating the supply of doctors in the work force to ensure that costs (and wages) remain high. If anything, the French model is more competitive than the American system because there are more doctors competing for what a fair market value ought to be for medical care (2). French society views doctors more as public servants than as private purveyors of product, though, and that is a cultural difference -but not one that could be overcome in America. As I mentioned earlier, the supply of doctors is a problem. Where supply of any good or service is artificially low but demand is exceedingly high, prices tend to be astronomical -as we can empirically observe in the American health care system. Merely legislating to provide people with health insurance coverage isn't going to solve the problem -and anyone with even a bachelors degree level understanding of economics can tell you that. In order to implement a system of universal coverage, we would need to dramatically expand our existing medical infrastructure. We would need to graduate more doctors from medical school, build more medical facilities, and the like. These things would take time, but they are achievable. If the French can do it, then so can we.