Improved Medicare for All (USA)

Thanks for your starting arguments JamesMadison. As per say the rules, in this round we will both attempt to rebut our opponent's starting arguments. R1: Improving Health Care Results I agree, we do not have a *general* market in healthcare. We have a market composed of bloated insurance companies and some gov't programs including Medicaid, the VA, etc. The thing is, our current system is a disaster. We both know this. What is driving up costs? - High cost of surgery - High spending on pharmaceutical drugs- Bloated Profits [7] - Administrative costs - Heavy use of some technologies (MRIs, etc.) - Overusage of care [1] However, Improved Medicare for All is a brilliant system to combat all of these issues. For starters, it is very efficient. As I've said, administrative costs would fall to about 3% or similar to this, and the system would be massively streamlined. Global budgets would encourage additional efficiency, and rewards fiscal constraint, and aligns incentives between patients, providers, to maximize profits for the medical providers. [2] My system also with global budgets and doctor-management would limit overusage of care, by discouraging overuse of care so profits are maximized for the doctors. A separate budget for high tech items like MRI's would be established to make sure each region gets the optimal technology levels so costs are restrained. [4] Our current system is a absolute mess. Here is a picture of our current system, a plethora of insurance companies with bloated profits and bureaucracy to deny patients care which maximizes patient suffering and death while lining the pockets of the companies. Gov't tries to solve the problem marginally by providing tax breaks and subsidies. Billing is a foreign language and requires massive bureaucracy and costs: The alternative: Improved Medicare for all with a streamlined and simple billing process. Very efficient. Overuse of care is ended. The Doctor-Patient care improves quality and efficiency: R2: Private Insurance Has Higher Costs My opponent's source did not provide evidence that private insurance companies are more efficint. On the contrary. Since 1969, Medicare costs have went up 400%. However, private insurance rates went up by 700%. [3] This is why partially privatising Medicare under the GOP will increase costs. Here is a nice picture showing my point of health care inflation, Medicare vs Private insurance: The market in private insurance companies doesn't work effectively. In fact, from 2000-2004, profits for the top 17 U.S. health insurance companies rose 114%. [7] Why is this? Companies in health insurance have an incentive to price people higher in health care and focus on denying people care to maximize profits. [5] And due to the complexity of health care, most people cannot do much about this. Health care is not a product like bread. There is a vast complexity to it. Will I choose if my plan covers a triple bypass? You really can't, that's why its insurance — to protect yourself against risk. With private plans, that have an incentive to deny you care to maximize profits, your life is at risk. That is why private health plans could be called death plans. They have an incentive to have deny you care. R3: The Brilliant Economics of SP My opponent refers us to Socialist, statist healthcare. He is off, by a lot. Ironically, since private health plans do regulate health planning of individuals, he presented an argument for my side. However, SP is different. Improved Medicare for All has: - Free Choice of Doctor; so all patients are free to choose their health care provider without penalties. - Global Budgets; so hospitals receive so much funding per patient, and have an incentive to reduce overusage of care. They have an incentive to be more efficient to improve profits [2], and cut costs on other areas where waste occurs. - A strong Doctor-patient relationship. This is a huge point with SP. In this system, it is just you and your doctor who make the best decisions to improve your health, while protecting the authority of the doctor. Private plans meddle with this. Medicare for All let's you and your doctor make the medical decisions. Furthermore, when a patient does receive overusage of care, her health card will provide evidence of this, and the doctor would deny the patient care that is unnecessary, as it would cut profits for the hospital provided in the global budget. - Smart Copays; that are progressive to a point, and adjusted by income level. This will discourage use overuse of care, while allowing preventive care to occur. It is a win-win. All the gov't does is finance this. The process: You arrive and show your health card. You receive health care services. You leave with your health card. An efficient system protects you and your doctor. Everyone has comprehensive access to care. Costs are cut and efficiency is maximized. It really is a dreamy concept. Bill Clinton with a health security card that all Americans would have ^ ---Ultimately, Single Payer provides incentives to make doctors and hospitals become more efficient and cut costs, limiting overusage of care, allow patients free choice of doctor, and cutting costs, which is economically efficient. R3: Single Payer works Con mentions that both Canada and the U.K. have higher health inflation. True, but misleading. They are both, as well as other industrialized nations investing in ICT technology, which will in the future reduce costs. If we do this, as I proved in R1, it would save us ultimately $77+ billion. But the initial investments require money. A SP system would establish separate funds for financing health care technology like MRIs and CT scanners, to make sure each region gets a sufficient supply. [5] Also, overuse of technology like we have today increases costs and doesn't help that much. [1] The G.A.U. shows that when Canada implemented its Single Payer system, health costs were about 11.5% of total GDP in the USA, and about 8.9% in Canada [6]. Today, Canada spends on its health costs about 10% of GDP, compared to the USA rate of 17%. Conclusion: As this debate has shown so far, Improved Medicare for All is a great idea. We have a moral obligation to provide access to health care. Rationing care based on if one will contribute to a company's profits is immoral. The status quo incentivizes cruel death with 45,000 deaths a year. However, Improved Medicare for All would restore America. Our businesses would become competititve again. With $1000 per average capita savings this could be reinvested in our economy for broad growth and prosperity. With equal access to care, we would become healthier. Efficiency would be promoted with global budgets instead of encouraging overuse of care with fee-per-service. A modern and efficient system would control costs and is necessary for America's future. "In economic terms, single-payer is clearly the way to go." - Paul Krugman Sources: [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [4] http://www.pnhp.org... [5] http://www.scu.edu... [6] http://archive.gao.gov...[7] http://www.amsa.org...