Access to and the distribution of health related services ought to be handled by the free market.

Before we get into a semantics game, Please realize that government controlled insurance does pertain to specifically the "access to" portion of this debate. Insurance specifically dictates what health services you have access to. Distribution isn't a "free market" decision in the slightest. Doctors decide what patients need in both systems. This argument isn't about optional health-related things like Lasik surgery. We can both agree that optional "health-related" services should be left to the free market. Government regulations should only then seek to protect citizens from con artists. Ill be making claims here with no citation. I will link sources that cover much of this but linking tens of sources will prove tedious an uninteresting. If you need a specific source for a claim you can message me or put it in the comments here. My Arguments: 1. The free market is not the ideal option for every market. From a business perspective, Monopolies make sense for several markets, But none more-so than health insurance. If monopolies are the most efficient option, They make more sense under government control than private control. Direct accountability from citizens and a tempering of the profit motive are key concerns. The government has a monopoly on many services currently that few argue about, Although presumably you would. To argue against those you have to deny that externalities exist. An econ 101 student may not understand what externalities are, But no serious economist would doubt that they do. Think of how the business of insurance works. A large group of people pay a fixed yearly rate to cover the damages that everyone in the group sustains over the course of that time. This buys people peace of mind knowing that a catastrophic event won't put them out of business. What people pay is determined by the yearly cost of insurance divided by the number of participants in the insurance. Only, That isn't all that goes into what people pay. Admin costs, The rental of buildings, Employee costs, Et cetera. All of these costs exist under government control, But are severely reduced. Governments wouldn't need to negotiate with every single healthcare provider for every service. On top of that, Government control comes with reduced costs in other ways. The government does not need to pay for advertisements. Depending on the product this severely reduces the costs, Directly leading to savings by the consumers. The government doesn't seek to make a percentage profit for expansion. This cuts costs. Pooling the largest group of people makes the most sense for insurance. Government control makes the most practical and efficient sense. No company had the scope the government does. The government doesn't underinsure people as well. The large group of people covered gives the government the ability to negotiate prices from the strongest possible position for drugs and health services. This also reduces costs for the taxpayer. Let's not even mention the time saved not having to shop around for insurance, Doctors, Meds, Not having to give your information to hospitals, Not having to figure out which doctors your insurance covers, Which pharmacies accept your insurance, Etc. 2. Single payer covering all medical services is cheaper than our current system and it covers everyone. What this means is that you may pay 5000 for insurance yearly now. To cover everyone in the US your taxes would rise by lets say 4800 as a conservative number. This means that because of advertising costs, Profit motive, Admin and employee costs, Et cetera private insurance gives you access to a limited number of doctors and services and costs more. If you could pay 5000 to cover just yourself or you could pay 4800 to cover yourself and 2 other people, The choice is clear. This is the benefit we gain from single payer, And why the majority of the US, Even in the republican party, Wants single payer. Thus, Claiming that taxes will be raised on the rich is a ridiculous point. All studies done on this even libertarian ones show that single payer costs less, Not more. While your taxes will be raised, You will have extra money in your pocket when the system changes at the end of the day, And a wider choice of doctors. Your insurance would even cover you in other countries as long as you are a US citizen. Arguments such as 'taxes will raise' or 'on the backs of the rich' are all entirely asinine when the numbers are entirely in the opposite direction when it comes to the money you have in your pocket at the end of the day. 3. Single payer is superior for doctors too. There is no free market when it comes to doctor services right now. This is because no doctor or hospital can tell you how much a procedure costs. This is because insurances all negotiate prices separately for pricing. Have you ever gone to the doctor and known what you would be charged? A free market would include people not having insurance being able to shop around. Most necessary healthcare is void of a free market because of necessity. If you have a stroke or heart attack you are not shopping around for ambulances or the best or cheapest doctor services. There is no guarantee that your insurance will pay for it all either. Many services are not. When people by chance come down with a condition that is not covered they are liable for the full amount. We call this 'underinsured. ' This is what private healthcare gets us. Millions of people underinsured. Millions of people not insured at all. This is not what efficiency looks like. Now, When you have underinsured people or people who aren't insured what happens is they're more likely to come down with serious problems due to no preventative care. Preventative care is quite efficient at reducing costs. When underinsured or people without insurance have emergencies and are taken to the hospital, They are taken care of. When they can't pay the doctors suffer because they aren't being paid. The people go bankrupt and have their lives shattered, Or hospitals are forced to sell their debts to collections agencies at a massively reduced rate, Or the government pays for it anyway. Why not go for single payer to pay for the preventative care and not have doctors and hospitals wondering if or when they'll get paid while simultaneously reducing the number of serious illnesses and diseases in America? The immediacy of payment and not having people go bankrupt, Avoid payments, Et cetera is actually a big problem in America. 4. Nearly all metrics you can use to analyze the efficacy of a healthcare system show that single payer is superior to private healthcare, Ie our current system. Outcomes? Better in countries with national healthcare. No way to disagree. Coverage? Millions underinsured or lacking insurance, On top of some 45 thousand a year dying due to lack of insurance (a 9/11 event monthly) can all be cited in favor of single payer. Wait times? Worse in single payer, But why would you weigh this as more important than outcomes? Approval/happiness with the system? Single payer wins. Freedom of companies? Healthcare is still private. The only losers here are private insurers who have gouged our citizens long enough. No reason to weigh this more than outcomes. Freedom of the people? See whatever doctor you want. Live without worrying that your next hospital visit will see you homeless. For people with no insurance now, Live without the worry of immediate death. Live with doctors who can prevent many serious conditions. Live improved lives and be better workers with lower stress. In the end I have to ask, Why are you limiting the freedom of hundreds of millions and costing the lives of hundreds of thousands to save the gouging inefficient business of tens of thousands of private health insurance providers? The free market, If it were free, The majority of the citizens choose single payer. In every country that starts it, Its efficacy is proven. What metric of analysis do you have to tip the scales in your favor? I submit there are none. Nothing you have can outweigh the pros. 5. Net Benefit of Healthcare for all citizens What if everyone's serious communicable diseases could be treated? What if people could go to the doctor and understand their illnesses, Understand their risk of spreading diseases? What if everyone could have help from doctors when birthing their children? Herd Immunity is important. If everyone in the herd is treated, Our entire society improves. What if everyone with eye problems could see a doctor? Less accidents on the road. Improved learning. Improved ability to read warning signs. Improved life. What if everyone with seizures could see doctors? Less accidents. Less problems at work. Etc. There is a reason we all want to see doctors from time to time. Those same reasons work for everyone else. Why have stressed workers or workers working with severe problems when we could eliminate those problems? It is all well and good to hoard wealth for yourself, But why not save yourself a buck and make it less likely the person driving the car next to you hasn't slept in two days from insomnia and health related issues, Who then may drive directly into you? In the end, It is in the interests of even the most selfish people in our society to be altruistic. It is an argument for selfish altruism. What happened to America? Aren't we supposed to be a shining example for the rest of the world? The most powerful country? The best place to live? The envy of the world? Is that why our citizens go to Canada and Mexico for drugs? Is that why people from other countries dread moving here and losing their healthcare if they aren't rich? Why are US citizens forced to envy all of the other countries with superior outcomes as we lie stressed and dying allowing our citizens to rot? May your thoughts be clear, -Thoht