Health Insurance Should Be Abolished & Health Care Covered For Only Those Who Need It

1. The Difference Is Clear “Health Insurance” is when you pay some person or organization to pay yourself later if you have certain health care expenditures. Two examples of a person getting health care without health insurance: 1. A person has a billion dollars, no health insurance, and requires his appendix be removed. He writes a check from his bank rather than flash an insurance card. He is rich, so no insurance, no middleman is necessary. Even if he has health insurance it is less expensive for him to just pay straight up with a check than bother with what ever copays and administrative costs there are in health insurance 2. A person qualifies for a government program paid for by the general fund(which is what I advocate for when a person can not afford health care). This is not the same thing as health insurance. Health insurance entails that there is a separate program paid for much the same way health insurance is paid for with premiums, deductibles, and copays. I propose a government program that pays for people’s health care if they can not afford it based on medical necessity and individual affordability and not based on how much the individual has “paid in” to any kind of insurance scheme. Making mandatory insurance would not help either, since it would effectively work as a regressive tax, requiring the same non-percentage payment from everyone thereby requiring the poor to pay a higher percentage of their own wealth than the rich have to pay from theirs. “Health insurance” is just one financial tool, a specific financial tool to pay for health care. Simply writing a check can also be a tool, and either the individual or the government could simply “write a check”. For the government to run “health insurance” is wasteful and unnecessary when the government could pay for health care by “writing checks”. It costs more taxpayer money to include “health insurance” as a medium for this exchange. I do not advocate the government pay for all health care, but for the remaining health care I advocate that to keep prices low so the government will have LESS health care to pay for we ban health insurance, so that if an individual is paying for themselves they are paying out of their checkbook and if they can not afford it then the government will pay for it or part of it depending on need out of its own “checkbook”, out of the “general fund”. 2. Not Specifically Federal Or State I’m just debating that this would be a good policy in general. The states could do it or the federal government could do it. 3. Where this money will come from? The general fund, what ever money the gets through taxes, tariffs, fines, and other financial transactions it is involved in. No different than any else the government pays for. 4. How the entire department will function in terms of how it will organize it self? The government has created similar departments and programs(Medicare, Medicaid) that have had their share of things to criticize but which most would agree we are better off with than without. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. An expansion of “Medicare” or “Medicaid” perhaps with a merging of the two into one organization for the sake of efficiency would suffice. 5. Finally, what qualifies you for this benefits? Reasonable standards should be passed. A free minimum numbers of appointments depending on age and condition of health would have to be set for various types of appointments from simple checkups to dental checkups to checkups specifically for certain ages. If an individual wanted more he would have to pay for that on his own and without using insurance to do it. Besides the appointments if someone needed surgery it would depend on the person’s income if they got any government aid and how much. Other financial situations such as taking care of children, having children in college, or being in college would also be taken into account. RE-Rebuttal: ". I never suggested any deliberate taking advantage of. Personal biases are active whether we acknowledge them or not. Just because the conscious intent is to "perform there best" does not mean there will be no biases involved" 6. Physical Intent? Con states that physical intent plays a major part in doctors working their best. What does Con mean by “physical intent”? Is that even a term? Furthermore Con missed my point. Yes, doctors have every incentive to TRY their utmost to perform their best. My point was human imperfection. You can try your best and still fail. And just because you are trying your best does not mean biases will not influence your decision-making. Let’s say a doctor is reasoning about whether or not to give a patient a test involving radiation to diagnose for a possible disease. A doctor could reason “I should not give this test, there isn’t enough evidence anything is wrong so this would just add pointless radiation that would increase my patient’s cancer risk” OR he could reason “I should give this test, there is a little evidence, the radiation is unlikely to give my patient cancer, and if the patient actually has a problem and dies as a result of not getting this test I could be sued”. No doctor is going to want to reason “I know I’m only increasing my patient’s risk for cancer from radiation and that this is a total waste of time, but just in case I don’t want to be sued”, because if he uses that reasoning he will feel unethical. Naturally the bias is to use either of the two reasonings in the previous paragraph. Since there is next to no risk that even if it is a bad idea to perform the test and cancer results that it would be linked to the test and the doctor sued, but substantial risk that if a problem comes up after refusing to test for it that the doctor may be sued and may lose his license the incentive is biased in favor of the doctor picking the second reasoning and ordering the test. In less serious conditions such as when a patient complains of having a mild infection doctors are more likely to prescribe than not, even prescribing antibiotics to treat viruses when the antibiotics only affect bacteria. There is also overpresription for the most mild bacterial infections, which can encourage the mutation and evolution of dangerous superbugs. 7. People Not Going to the Doctor Intelligence encourages people to go to the doctor at least once in a while. Those that don’t go are weeding out the gene pool. For children and adults under guardianship there should be some requirement to see the doctor, and since it is required then the government should pay for it. 8. Not Affording Con says “over 87% of all Americans will reside in the same position hoping that there illness will just fade away, simply because they can't afford to go to the clinic for a check up or diagnosis more than twice a year.” If they can’t afford it then the government will pay for them. Before the bill is signed into law sociological and economics researchers should gather data so that a scientific assessment can be used to determine who can and can not afford to pay for their won. 9. What qualifies? It’s not if you are rich or poor it is if you can afford it. 10. Large Reservoir of Money How does the government pay for Medicare and Medicaid now? How does the government fund the military? How does the government pay for anything? It’s easy. We will pay primarily out of general taxes. Cuts to other things could be made or taxes could be raised. 11. “Privatization as seen in every other public affair is far more efficient than public ownership.” My opponent is arguing that privatization is automatically more efficient. I ask what is efficient about giving extra money away to the “health insurance industry” instead of it just being an exchange between hospital, doctor, or clinic and the patient? Adding that extra element is not efficient. Furthermore, what exceptions is Con willing to make. What about the court system, police, and fire department?