Single Payer Healthcare

Problem 1: It inevitably must ration care.My opponent claims that cost will not be driven up by single payer health care but a single-payer system is a "free-for-all system," where costs are driven up. Patients are likely to over-use health services because they don't have to pay for them, and, thus, providers (taxpayers) must oversupply those services. The only way a government can deal with over consumption and oversupply is to ration those services through waiting lists.Canada's health care system, for example, illustrates this very point: everyone in Canada's public system must wait for practically any procedure or diagnostic test or specialist consultation. Moreover, in the long term, access to care will decrease more substantially because the prospect of lower compensation (see below) and lower lifetime earnings reduces the incentive for talented people to choose careers in health care.Problem 2: It would not save money.When has our government ever saved money? Social Security is essentially bankrupt. Medicare will soon be bankrupt. So will Medicaid. These programs don't save money and, instead, lose a lot of it because of the amount of fraud and, more importantly, the overuse they incentivize. Overuse is the real cause of rising health care costs.After all, when something is free and you feel like you need it, would you ever stop asking for it? Moreover, as long as doctors are paid for providing you with that free service, why would they stop providing it? The same scenario would exist with a single-payer health care system. Overuse of services (again, because they are free) would limit any potential savings and eventually bankrupt the system.Moreover, any analysis of costs savings by a government-run system is always misleading. Comparisons between private sector costs and the costs of a single-payer system usually exclude many government administrative expenses, such as the costs of collecting the taxes needed to fund the system and the salaries of politicians and their staff members who set health care policy. By contrast, the salary costs of executives and boards of directors who set insurance companies' policies are included in private sector costs. A government is somewhat immune to the free-market bottom lines that private sector companies deal with annually. Government doesn't have to account for every penny, and, thus, a lot is lost through the cracks.Problem 3: Compensation for physicians and health care providers would decrease.A single-payer system would substantially lower payments to physicians and health care providers compared to our current system. For those of you who embrace class warfare and think this is a good idea, consider this: human beings are only so charitable. Many will draw a line somewhere. An individual spends almost an entire decade (and hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loans) studying to become a doctor, and that doesn't even include college. These people expect to be (and should be) compensated adequately for their effort and expertise. Whatever you think of what they should be paid, if they don't feel they are paid enough, they will find something else to do. If doctors leave a profession that no longer pays well, the system will experience a reduction in the supply of active physicians.That reduction, in turn, will impair access to health care and the quality of health care for everyone.Problem 4: The quality of care would decrease.Lower compensation for doctors will limit their ability to invest in advanced medical equipment and new technology, as well as the time they need to stay up to date with medical developments. These limitations, too, will impact the quality of health care for everyone.Problem 5: It would take medical decisions away from doctors and patients.A single-payer system will insert the government into private decision-making. Many provisions within the health care bill will slowly chip away an individual's ability to make choices about everything from his or her private health insurance to actual decisions about medical care.Now, who wants Uncle Sam telling you what insurance you should have or what treatment you should receive? These are private decisions made by an individual and, often, with the private advice of a physician. The government has no role or expertise in this area and should stay out.Problem 6: It would hamper medical research.A single-payer system would also reduce the rate of medical progress. Recall (from above) that, because doctors will be compensated less, fewer talented people will pursue careers in medicine. Fewer people receiving medical training decreases the supply of talented medical researchers and, thus, impairs medical research and progress.Problem 7: The countries that have had single-payer systems for decades are slowly moving towards more private systems.