Universal Health Care Would be Beneficial to the U.S.

I thank Legit for this debate! I will first present my case, and then address Pro's case. CON's CASEObservation: I do not need to offer an alternative to UHC; as the topic is phrased, I need only show that UHC would not be beneficial to the U. S. Contention One: The U. S. EconomySub-point A: FragilityThe U. S. economy is currently in a fragile position. Even as the economy begins to grow, low growth rates of about 2-3% are jeopardized by dangers in the global market, relatively low consumer spending and confidence, and a widening trade gap. [1, 2] Fears surrounding Ukraine and Russia, as well as concerns about possible deflation in the EU and a slow-down in China have intensified the risks posed to the U. S. 's globalized, interdependent, consumerist economy. Simply put, if the world economy slows down, so too will America's. Furthermore, much of the U. S. economic growth has been caused by the Fed's quantitative easing program, and not by real economic growth, which has inflated the growth numbers in the current economic reports. [3]Sub-point B: UHC Costs“US public debt exceeds 70% of the economy, nearing the danger point of 90%. With national debt projected to reach 16.6 trillion dollars this year, that ominous percentage looms. ” The Congressional Budget Office reported that 15 trillion dollars in spending reductions are needed simply to maintain current debt-to-GDP levels. Even more is needed to reduce the overall debt. It warns that U. S. debt may exceed 100% by 2020 and 190% by 2035. Included in its recommendations was a reduction of subsidies, many of which would be necessary for universal health care. To survive economically, we must pursue a policy of fiscal consolidation. [4]Sub-point C: Foreign InfluenceCurrently, more than 30% of U. S. debt is owned by foreign entities. [5] Much of the America's expenditures would not be possible without borrowing from foreign lenders, which, in effect, makes us dependent upon them to carry out our own governmental functions. The U. S. government best serves its citizens by remaining autonomous and free from possible external coercion. Our reliance on foreign funding diminishes our freedom to act, and in turn reduces the latitude we have to pursue objective that are at odds with the interests of our creditors. Conclusion: The U. S. simply cannot afford UHC at this time. Not only would it require additional loans--and thus additional foreign dependency--but would place further strain on U. S. financial reserves and the U. S. economy that could jeopardize our fragile recovery. Contention Two: CoercionA universal “provision of healthcare would necessarily involve the coercive imposition of some persons’ values upon the citizens as a whole…It would also have to address (and hence decide upon) such moral questions as whether to allow or prohibit certain healthcare-related practices (such as euthanasia) within those facilities…and, if these are to be allowed, whether or not they should be provided under its auspices. It would also have to set standards of professional behavior for the healthcare providers…(would, for example, healthcare professionals be allowed to conscientiously object to the provision of certain forms of treatment, or not), and impose these in the name of its citizens as a whole. ” [6] In other words, the government would necessarily force the uninsured or those covered to conform to its coverage options, which is inherently coercive. PRO's CASEC1: Social BenefitsFirst, let's examine Pro's Harvard study. The study says that people died "because they lack health insurance and cannot get good care. " Therefore, an unspecified portion of that 45,000 statistic may have health insurance, but simply lacked access to good medical facilities. UHC is only about providing insurance; it is not about improving the quality of existing services. Therefore, even if everyone were insured, many people could still be dying due to underfunded or understaffed hospitals, clinics, etc. Moreover, how do we assess if someone died because of "lack of insurance. " How was this data collected? It seems to me that illness causes death--not the absence of insurance. Does someone without insurance, but who arrived at a hospital too late to matter die from "lack of insurance? " The metrics here just seem vague. Next, correlation is not causation. People in nations with UHC live longer because they live in countries that are developed. The average Swede earns more money and eats better than the average Somali--naturally the Swede will live longer even without UHC. Pro has not shown that UHC is the cause of the observed longevity. C2: SatisfactionEuropean countries have a more pro-government mindset than the U. S. , and they also have economies structured to make government entitlement programs easier and more integral. [7] Notice that 3 of the top 10 countries did not have UHC, implying that it is possible to have a highly efficient, well-run non-UHC healthcare program, if we accept that satisfaction should be our metric/standard for what is beneficial. However, this seems ill-advised. Consider that Social Security is highly popular, but yet lacks solvency and is sapping huge amounts of resources that the U. S. simply cannot afford. [8] Ultimately, popular is not the same as beneficial, and so I would question the relevance of this whole contention to the debate. C3: EconomicsPro cites statistics showing how corporations save money when the government pays instead. This is assuming that the government has the money to take on the burden of those costs; frankly, America just doesn't have the funds. The corporations, which earn hundred of billions of dollars in profit do have the funds to contribute towards insurance, and so are better equipped to provide coverage. Pro is also assuming that these companies would put any money they saved back into the U. S. economy, which is oftentimes untrue. [9, 10]While the U. S. system may be expensive, there are ways to cope with that issue other than UHC, including minimum wage increases, increased regulation, government intervention in price negotiations, etc. C4: Misconceptions"Some countries with universal health care struggle to sustain efficiency. Canada and Australia ranked lowest, according to the Commonwealth Wealth Fund study, in accessibility of physician appointments and wait times for basic medical services, as well as specialist care, tests, and elective surgery. Other efficiency issues noted by the study included Canada's propensity for misplacing medical records and tests. .. In Canada, for example, the lionshare of provincial budgets consistently goes to health care. Some provinces spend 40 percent of the total annual budget on health care alone. Funding for other programs like education and infrastructure are continually gobbled up by ballooning health care costs. " [11]So, not only are there high wait times in Canada, but its system is riddled with inefficiencies. Moreover, wait times in the U. S. are fantastic, while still providing some of the highest quality care for illnesses like cancer. [12]Moreover, UHC system tend to pay physicians less than free market models, resulting in many physicians not operating under the UHC or NHS system. "A national shortage of general practitioners means that 1.7 million Canadians don't have access to a regular doctor to go to for routine care. In England, shortages of dentists have caused hundreds of people to wait in line just for an appointment…One British hospital even tried to save money by not changing bed sheets. Instead of washing them, a British newspaper reported that the staff was encouraged to simply turn the sheets over. At any given time in Great Britain, there are over half a million people waiting to get into a hospital for treatments. ” [13] Clearly, wait times are not just interminable, but quality of care was adversely impacted. OFF-CASE HARMS1. Exploiting the System"Often, citizens of countries with universal health care will 'milk' the system. The most common example of this phenomenon occurs when citizens don't live in their country of origin, don't pay taxes in their country of origin, yet still return home whenever they need to go to the doctor. " [11]2. Biased against the Healthy"Smokers, for example, receive the same treatment under universal health care, even though their conditions are self-induced. .. In [UHC], people do not have to take responsibility for the health consequences of bad lifestyle choices. Everyone gets covered, and everyone shares the cost. "SOURCES1 - . http://www.nytimes.com...2 - . http://online.wsj.com...3 - . http://www.huffingtonpost.com...4 - Buchanan, Gjerstad, and Smith, and R. Merry Foreign Policy, 20125 - . http://www.factcheck.org...6 - James Taylor [Associate Professor, College of New Jersey], “Market-Based Reforms in Health Care Are Both Practical and Morally Sound,” Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics, Special Issue: SYMPOSIUM 1: Conflicts of Interest in the Practice of Medicine, Volume 40, Issue 3, (Fall 2012), pp. 537–5467 - . http://www.cato.org...8 - . http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com...9 - . http://money.msn.com...10 - . http://www.theatlantic.com...11 - . http://www.livestrong.com...12 - . http://www.theatlantic.com...13 - . http://abcnews.go.com...Thanks!