Novice Tournament R1: The United States should implement a system of Single Payer health care.

Rebuttals Free Market system values autonomy My opponent makes the argument that Single Payer is a system that rejects individual autonomy and uses tools of government rationing. She claims that private insurance plans are the key to liberty and self-interest. However, this argument is both untrue and self-contradictory. Ironically, with the rise of Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs), private health insurance plans actually regulate health planning of individuals. Essentially, if you are enrolled in a private insurance plan, a general practitioner, or, “gatekeeper,” is responsible for your case management, health planning, and doctor referrals [1]. Thus, the status quo of HMOs, PPOs, and otherwise private insurance denotes managed care, and the erosion of personal liberty with regard to health decisions. Single Payer, however, offers a different path - one that truly values individual freedom and self-autonomy. Under a system of Single Payer health care, citizens are offered free choice of doctor, as opposed to the micromanagement that occurs with private plans [7]. Free choice of doctor allows for a stronger doctor-patient relationship, as there is no longer a panel of third party “gatekeepers” that is managing individual decisions. Patients will find a significant boost in personal liberty and autonomy under Single Payer. Free market encourages growth I agree with my opponent that entrepreneurship is incredibly important to the health care system, but unfortunately is limited by “third parties.” However, my opponent literally concedes that insurance companies are prime examples of third parties that are inhibiting growth. The argument that the free marketplace is ideal for entrepreneurship falls flat on its own logic. As I showed in the rebuttal above, the free marketplace and ensuing HMOs, gatekeeper based planning, and managed care results in drastic inhibitions on growth. According to my opponent’s source, “With respect to healthcare, third parties [including insurance companies] tend to be bureaucratic, wedded to tradition, and resistant to change. They are, in a word, the entrepreneur’s nemesis. [2]” Clearly, the solution for greater entrepreneurship is elimination of the inefficient system of private care and replacement with free choice of doctor, significantly less regulations, and ultimately far more personal liberty that comes with Single Payer. The number of doctors in a system, according to my opponent, is also crucial for growth. She cites a statistic which says that 31.7% of physicians are discouraged by third party interference in medicine. But again, as I showed above, private HMOs are a precise example of third parties that exist under a free market system, and they inhibit growth far more than the government through their “gatekeeping” and managed care. Next, my opponent cites a statistic which claims that the United States has 62,900 doctors fewer than it needs even despite government involvement. I would like to thank my opponent, as this is a statistic that helps my case. In the United States, where third party HMOs interfere with doctors, there is a significant shortage of physicians and practitioners. And according to a study by the Commonwealth Fund, only 64% of doctors in the US are satisfied with practicing medicine [3]. But in Canada, the UK, and Norway, nations where the government ensures stronger doctor-patient relationships through Single Payer, doctor satisfaction rates are 75%, 81%, and 89%, respectively. As you can see, Single Payer is the most efficient and rational system for growth, ensuring both more entrepreneurship and increased incentive to become a doctor. Costs of Single Payer are too high My opponent concedes that the United States spends significantly more on health care than Canada and other nations with Single Payer. Also, my opponent cites a quote and some data from the Daily Caller. Please note that the Daily Caller is a publication that is well known for making wholly unsubstantiated claims and, often times, completely fabricating information in order to fit their conservative agenda [4]. But, regardless, I have provided real, non-partisan statistics from the independent healthaffairs.org and from the CRS report for congress which show that, since 1965, healthcare premiums for private insurance companies have gone up 6.5%, while premiums in Canada have gone up only 4.1% [5][6]. The Medicare program, which is essentially Single Payer for the elderly, has seen costs rise at a rate of only 4.3% per year. Additionally, when Canada implemented its Single Payer system, health care costs were about 8.9% of GDP in Canada, and 11.5% of GDP in the US.Today, Canada spends about 10% of GDP, compared to the US which spends 17% of its GDP [7]. While it is true that, in the last few years, US health care inflation has been lower than Canada’s, this is in large part to the slow US economy. Moreover, Canada’s government has recently been investing in an Electronic Storage System, which appears as “health care inflation” because it is a short term expense, but is really just an investment in long term efficiency [7]. Clearly, the ridiculous overhead and lack of preventive care that plagues the free market system has resulted in extremely high health care inflation compared to nations with Single Payer. Quality of care is low Ironically, in this section, my opponent ignores the significantly better health outcomes in Canada and the lack of preventive care which costs the US 2 million lives per year [8]. Instead, my opponent focuses this entire section on an argument about wait times. Unfortunately, this argument is completely irrelevant. According to Dr. Aaron E. Carrol, “In 1966, Canada implemented a single-payer health care system, which is also known as Medicare. Since then, as a country, Canadians have made a conscious decision to hold down costs. One of the ways they do that is by limiting supply, mostly for elective things, which can create wait times. Please understand, the wait times could be overcome. Canadians could spend more. They don’t want to. We can choose to dislike wait times in principle, but they are a byproduct of Canada’s choice to be fiscally conservative.” [9]As Dr. Carrol describes, wait times have nothing to do with overall health outcomes, as Canadians have a higher life expectancy than the US and better treatment outcomes in nearly every area [10]. Furthermore, 99.39% of Canadians say that they would chose not to come to the US for care, and instead would prefer to stay in Canada [11]. On the other hand, only 49% of Americans approve of their health care system [12]. Conclusion None of my opponents arguments still stand. I have showed that Single Payer would increase individual autonomy through a reduction in private health management, increase entrepreneurship and doctor incentive through reduced third party interference, cut costs through preventive care and reduced inefficiency, and improve health care quality again through preventive care, IT data storage, and simply insuring more people. The resolve is affirmed. Sources [1]http://www.cbsnews.com... [2]http://www.cato.org...; [3]http://www.aarp.org... [4]http://www.mediaite.com... [5]http://healthaffairs.org...; [6]http://assets.opencrs.com... [7]http://archive.gao.gov... [8]http://www.floridahealth.gov... [9]http://www.aarp.org... [10]http://www.pnhp.org...; [11]http://www.aarp.org... [12]http://hotair.com...