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

I would like to, once again, apologize for the rushed nature of my previous round. Unfortunately, my day that day was rather chaotic with a malfunctioning alarm, and then me falling down a flight of marble stairs. I will endeavor to wrap things up succinctly in this round, however, by first defending my case, rebutting Pro's case, and then crystallizing the debate.CON's CASEC1: EconomySA: FragilityActually, if we look closely at the wording of the Atlantic's article, the X-axis is not "the percentage of each government's health care spending of their GDP." Rather, the X-axis represents the percentage of each NATION's healthcare spending as a portion of the nation's GDP. The national expenditures include public sector and private sector expenses, and so my figure of 7.4% [6] of government spending has not been disproven by Pro's graph. Moreover, Pro says my statistic is highly flawed, but fails to provide a reason for why this is, other than to offer his own evidence, which he has misinterpreted. I cannot access Pro's HHS data, and so I cannot say whether it also has the same issues as the Atlantic's evidence. My accessible data should be preferred to Pro's inaccessible data.Moreover, reduction is pharmaceutical price in Europe could be attributed more to regulation and price controls than to UHC. There are alternate causalities that need to be evaluated.SB: CostsNow, let's look at Con's arguments about savings. First, our sources clearly clash. I cited evidence that UHC would cost $1.2 tillion by 2019 [1], necessitating massive, and rapidly escalating VAT taxes in order to pay for that expense. Prefer my study because it is national, and not merely local. The dynamics of a wealthy urban center such as Minnesota are hardly the same dynamics at play nationally, and so we should look to a national analysis. Friedman, Pro's other study, has ties to labor unions [2] and has a distinct left-leaning bias in some of his articles. It is fairly clear that his own ideology diminishes somewhat his credibility. Therefore, we should give more weight to my Tax Policy Center information. C2: CoercionSo, Pro calls my example of Obamacare. In fact, what the rules actually say is "we will disregard the Obamacare controversy." Pro misrepresents his own rules in order to twist this debate in his favor. In fact, the first time the word "irrelevant" appears is in R2, which is a round for arguments, not rules. I cited Obamacare as evidence of a broader theme in UHC, and was not focusing on the controversy itself. Let's look at what I actually said: "decisions over what type of coverage to offer, are going to limit your autonomy. It is an exercise in biopower, in the Foucault vein." What Taylor (see my R2 args) was saying is that UHC has to make calls that involve moral values. For example, should abortion be covered? Whether or not Obamacare is a valid example, my logic is valid, and my logic went unrefuted. If the government creates a system where abortion coverage is included in all or most plans, and it forces people who are pro-life to participate in one of those plan, the government is coercing people to act against their values. Thus, my argument is UNREBUTTED.PRO's CASEC1: Social BenefitsTrue, saying that 3 of the 10 best healthcare system in the world are not UHC systems doesn't show that non-UHC systems are better than UHC systems. Unfortunately, I never made that claim. What I did claim was that it was possible to craft a fantastic, top 10 healthcare sector, without UHC.At no point in this debate as Pro ever rebutted my social security example, which says that detrimental programs can still be popular. This takes out all of Pro's approval ratings arguments because they have nothing to do with whether UHC is "beneficial."C2: Economic BenefitsLet me simply reiterate my two attacks from R2:1. Pro 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. 2. Pro is also assuming that these companies would put any money they saved back into the U.S. economy, which is oftentimes untrue. As for Bankruptcies, if UHC increases taxes, then people are going to be paying a ton of money. What they might save in medical costs, they are afflicted with in taxes. Thus, Pro doesn't actually solve the problem, he just shifts the cause. Consider what I said previously in this debate: "if we have to increase taxes to pay off the debt, even if we reduce health costs, people will still be paying large sums of money." So, because the two could offset, people will end up spending just as much as they are now.C4: MisconceptionsPro essentially concedes that Canada has long wait times. And, as I pointed out in previous rounds, wait times impacted "physician appointments and...basic medical services" as well as surgery. Sure, it might be good to wait to have heart surgery, but if you're experiencing insane wait times for "basic medical services" than the system is just neglecting you, not keeping you safe.Let's also look at an argument I made in R2 that Pro never rebutted: "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." We can corroborate my R3 source with this second source [3], which says: "[Canada] is having problem with the federal deficit and has gradually reduced the amount of funding to the provinces. As a result, the provinces are left focused on cost control. Physicians often complain about low fee levels and hospitals complain about the provinces' high regulation of their budgets. The recent cost control policies may be affecting the quality of service in Canada. Many reports claim that the Canadians have limited access to services." The corroborating sources cites similar problems and inadequacies in Britain's NHS system, stating "NHS resources are extremely scarce ." [3]Other drops...Pro also drops this: "Subsidizing health insurance means that patients and doctors are insulated from the costs of healthcare, so they utilize too much...often in the form of unnecessary tests or medical procedures whose value hasn't been proven. This excess demand, along with technological progress, means rapidly growing deficits...and a whole host of economic problems." [4]Finally, Pro drops this: "Commercial organizations have an incentive to use their resources efficiently in a marketplace, but organizations whose success is not a result of using their resources efficiently will have...no external incentive...As a result, it is to be expected that a State provider of healthcare will provide less healthcare per dollar...than would a commercial healthcare provider since the latter...is subject to the...pressure of market competition." [5]VOTING ISSUESAt this time, I will endeavor to tie up all the debate's loose ends and explain why I have won this great rematch. First, let me remind voters that Pro has the sole BOP. Next, let me remind voters that Pro needs to show that the implementation of UHC is net beneficial for the United States at this time.Let's look candidly at what arguments Pro is winning in this round. He has shown that nations with UHC have higher rates of longevity and reduced mortality. This is impressive offense, but it is handily diminished by an earlier observation of mine. I said: "it was possible to craft a fantastic, top 10 healthcare sector, without UHC." This assertion was backed up by Pro's own evidence. So, my point here is that Pro's offense is potentially non-unique. The U.S. could work on improving and overhauling its existing system to effect reforms without having to adopt UHC. UHC is not a requirement for improving longevity and reducing mortality, and I can still do both of these things in my world.Next, let's analyze the cost argument. The theoretical models swing in my favor because my source, as discussed earlier, is the most reliable one. It points out that UHC would have a net cost of $1.2 trillion by 2019, necessitating an increase in taxes. But even if you don't buy my theoretical model, I have empirics on my side. If we look and both Canada and the UK, we can see that because of their high debts and deficits (which the U.S. also has) these nations have had to shift the cost of UHC to the provinces/states, which cannot afford to pay for UHC services. It seems likely that the U.S. would have to do the same, because it is in a similar situation to both Canada and the UK in terms of debt. Keep in mind, this Canada evidence was never rebutted.Next, let's talk about quality of care. Private firms are far more efficient and cost effective, with commercial incentives to provide excellent care. UHC, on the other hand, has unreasonable wait times, leads to costly overutilization of services, and leads to coercive values imposition on patients and consumers. I have also re-cited sources here. Sources should be judged on reliability, not organization.Therefore, please VOTE CON because UHC is costly, inefficient, and coercive.SOURCES1 - http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...2 - http://www.umass.edu...3 - http://www.stanford.edu...4 - Jeffrey A. Miron [Senior Lecturer in Economics, Harvard University; Senior Fellow, Cato Institute] “Public Option: Treatment Worse Than the Disease,” Oct. 29, 2009. 5 - Taylor (previously cited) 6 - http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...