National Healthcare

Thanks for instigating the debate Pro. -----Rebuttals----- R1: Singapore has a modern Health Care System "In a more modern Universal Healthcare System like Singapore, [the quality is good]." Thanks Pro! Here, people have individual HSAs to pay for general medical care. "Singapore has, arguably, the most market-oriented system in the world." [1] R2: Cuba's infant mortality scheme "Cuba has a lower infant mortality then the U.S.A.!" Again, this is nonsense. A total of 62% of all pregnancies end as an abortion. [2] "Since the Cuban gov't keeps a very close track of the performance of each doctor at Cuba's maternity hospitals, any doctor who has to report a death of a baby that would impact the infant mortality rate could get in trouble." [3] This information is from a former Cuban doctor. So it is propaganda. The Soviet Union also promulgated propaganda about their health care sytem, which I brought up in an earlier round. We shouldn't trust closed off Socialist gov'ts. R3: Innovation The United States leads the world when it comes to innovation in health care, specifically in the area of basic science, diagnostics, and therapeutics. The U.S. "has contributed more than any other country, and in some cases, more than all other countries combined." [4] R4: Denial Rates First, I put forth the case for a free market in health care. I said that individuals should have personal health savings accounts, from which they would pay for their personal health care needs. With HSAs, individuals would have direct control of their health care expenditures and decisions, for general care such as a checkup. Through much more vigorous competition and choice, through the reforms I've suggested, this problem would drop. If an insurance company gains a bad notoriety for dropping its clients, its profits would drop. This insurance company would be forced to change or would be removed from the market via the invisible hand -- with a dropping customer base. Besides, single payer presents the same problems. If a certain health care procedure isn't covered, you are out of luck. That's why a former NHS (National Health Service -- in Britain) basically summarized, "not all procedures are covered. We are forced to pick and choose." [5] (paraphrased) We also are aware of the recent legislation -- Obamacare -- which basically creates "death panels". The fact is this. Government health care administrators will be forced to cover only a number of procedures. If your procedure is not covered, it sucks for you. A consumer-driven health care market relies on the free and voluntary exchanges between individuals, and the competition and open markets which arise from these interactions. People generally know what their health care needs are, and so they can usually plan accordingly, and find an insurance plan suited for their needs.----- "We are guaranteed the right to life!" My opponent brings up a vague and confusing argument. Just because you haven't planned, does not give you the right to violate my right to liberty. Stealing from taxpayers, and forcing doctors to provide care violates people's inherent rights to liberty. I already brought this up. Insurance companies will be more likely to offer coverage to those with preexisting conditions if they pay a higher premium. And this is fair because they have a higher risk. Competition among insurance companies should bring down costs additionally. R5: Quality of Health Care In the last few rounds I have debated that consumer-driven health care would lead to better outcomes due to competition and individual responsibility. Also remember the facts on how rationing harms many people overseas. Waiting lists are detrimental to health care outcomes. The World Health Organization's measures should not be taken seriously. "First, [this ranking system] often rel[ies] on unadjusted aggregate data -- such as life expectancy, or mortality from heart disease -- that can be affected by many non- health care factors, including nutrition, exercise, and even crime rates. Second, they often use process measures, such as how many patients have received a pap smear or mammogram in the past three years. Process measures tell us what doctors do, but provide only an indirect measure of doctors' productivity. Third, some of these studies inappropriately incorporate their own biases about financing their statistics, which makes market-driven health care systems appear worse even if their outcomes are similar or better." [4] So let it be clear here. In a single payer system, it is sort of like a lottery. If you are lucky, gov't will cover your procedures. Covering everything would require enormous taxes, more so than we would expect already. I advocate for a laissez faire health care sector. Individuals are free to choose what insurance they want, so they can find insurance that is best fit for their individual and unique circumstances! Open markets and competition will drive down health care costs, as will innovation and personal responsibility for one's health. R6: Medical Research and Results The government does subsidize health care research. We could dedicate any percentage of GDP towards any activity (ignoring the difficulty in collecting revenues), but gov't lacks the productive incentives of the private market economy. Nearly all of the scientific innovations, from which we all benefit, have arisen from the free market. Such examples include penicillin, the cure for polio, recent cancer treatments, etc. It is simply the profit motive. Private researchers would reap profits by providing cures and treatments for various illnesses. R7: The Philosophy of Economic Freedom Government intervention has been destructive. First, the Community Reinvestment Act forced the banks to lend to those with poor credit, and thus the market was set up to fail and crash. The Federal Reserve has artificially inflated the money supply, which significantly caused the housing bubble, and when this bubble burst, the market crashed and hence the recession occurred. Our regulatory and tax policies are hellish for our economy, and we deserve better. The top quintile on average earns about three times as much as the bottom quintile. [6] And the cause of poverty is usually lower IQs and individual decisions. Allowing free market prosperity would facilitate more savings and capital investment, leading to more production. With more wealth being created, we are all wealthier and are thus all better off. Conclusion Among all of its other flaws of top down, central economic planning -- single payer would cost probably $1.5 trillion, after we include current federal health care spending. This would require more than a doubling of current individual income tax rates. [7] Allowing a private health care system, with true laissez faire policies that foster voluntary, mutually beneficial exchanges through markets and competition, will improve America's health care system. Competition will force providers to provide high quality care, at dramatically lower costs, and/ or to innovate. Regardless, people are served the best through competing providers. With a much more affordable health care system, we can expand health care access, as well as improve American competitiveness, which will lead to higher living standards and higher rates of take-home pay.I urge the voters to vote Contra.Sources: [1] http://www.theatlantic.com... [2] http://www.pop.org... [3] http://www.cubaverdad.net... [4] http://www.cato.org... [5] Zakaria, Fareed, prod. "Overhauling Healthcare." CNN Presents. CNN: 2012. T.V. [6] Fullerton and Rogers, Lifetime Tax Burden, table 4-10, p. 114. They do not give these facts and figures, but they can be calculated from those in the table. [7] C.B.O Budget Outlook FY2013 - FY2023. PDF