Improved Medicare for All (USA)

-----Rebuttals----- Superior Insurance R1: Better Health Care Quality Neither the American College of Physicians or the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care recommend mammograms for all women 40-50 (as your source implies). They have not been empirically shown to cut overall mortality rates. Colon cancer screenings and PSA testing are not generally recommended in Canada, based on questionable benefits. We don't know if these may save lives, — or cause more harm than good. We don't really know if the lower use is good or bad. [2] Health care quality is better with Medicare for All — because medical professionals work their best for your health, and are not regulated by private insurance bureaucrats. R2: Rationing All health care systems ration, a fact. [3] Canada doesn't take money into the equation. There are a few waiting lists for elective care, but emergency cases receive immediate attention. Also, if Canadians spent more money on health care as we do, virtually all waiting lists would likely disappear. [4] Also, the time to wait is very close to wait specialists call reasonable in Canada. [5] The USA rations a different way. If you can't afford care, you are denied it. Thus, the tens of millions of uninsured Americans, and the 45,000 deaths annually are both the results of rationing in America. We can end all of this death, and reduce the amount of deaths from 45,000 annually to 0. Health care is a moral issue. And we should make it more equitable, which SP does. American Rationing (current system): *The United Kingdom has Socialized Medicine, not Single payer healthcare. The former has gov't financing and medical delivery. Single Payer only has public financing. Thus, the U.K. is irrelevant to our debate. A Health Affairs survey reports that 27% of Canadians and 5% of Americans waited 4 months or more for elective surgery. However, the same study shows that 25%+ Americans didn't get medical care according to cost. That's 29%+. This is non-emergency treatment. So, American rationing is more severe as we can see. [6] Con has stated that Americans have better access to hip replacement. Ironically, nearly all hip replacement surgeries are provided by Medicare. So, Con has stated that Medicare provides good care. R3: Higher Satisfaction with Medicare Medicare recepients were more happy with Medicare vs those with employer sponsored coverage by 11 points. Medicare recepients also had higher quality care, better access to care, and an easier financial time with Medicare. All these points prove that Medicare has improved quality, improved affordability, and improved access. Thus we can derive that Medicare for All expands our freedom, is fair, improves our liberty, and is essential for our lives. Saves Money R1: Cut Health Inflation The G.A.U. shows that when Canada implemented its Single Payer system, health costs were about 8.9% in Canada, and in the USA 11.5% of GDP. [1] Today, Canada spends on its health costs about 10% of GDP, compared to the USA rate of 17%. Administration costs are lower, because we have not invested in ICT (electronic sharing) information system(s). From this we can deduct that Single Payer systems have reduced health care inflation, and thus lower costs over time. This correlates with my argument last round that Medicare has lower health care inflation. Canada has temporarily higher health care inflation because they are investing in ICT technology for future savings. [8] Taiwan with SP reduced their health care inflation to 2%. [9] R2: True Savings Con's sources basically say that because Medicare has no taxes, they have lower costs. It does not address the fundamental point though. --We have a massive plethora of thousands of health insurance companies. Each one has different rules, regulations, billing procedures, the costs of marketing, advertising, CEO profits, general profits, and huge bureaucracies to deny people care (rationing). This is massively inefficient. We have administrative costs of 7% because of this. --Other nations like Taiwan have a system in which one entity finances care. Simple billing procedures, simplified, and efficient. Administrative costs cut to 2%. Also, an apples-to-apples approach with Medicare and Medicare Advantage shows that Medicare has rates of administration of 2%. M. Adantage is 11%. [10] This proves my point, that private entities are less efficient in health insurance. Consensus: SP would cut many costs. From administrative costs and massive simplifying of financing health care, improving ICT technology, ranking procedures by efficacy, and removing insurance profits from the equation you save about $300 billion or more. And by a large insurance pool, risk is lowered and thus costs are lowered. This is the most important point in the savings provided by Medicare for All. It has been left unrefuted fully. Restores American Competitiveness Con fails to refute any of this argument. The cut in workers comp. by 50%, reducing labor costs by 10-12%, and cutting excess health bureaucracy. Taxes replace the prior premiums. All the savings I just mentioned are after taxes are included. Utlimately, SP would go far strides in making America's businesses competitive again in the global market, worker's wages would increase more with productivity, and the savings would be used for economic growth. All of these points have stood. Efficient Government Con refers us to Socialized Medicine, yet again. Single Payer would finance care based on the actual costs, plus a marginal profit. All of this would be provided a global budget. Global budgets would finance the costs of health care on a patient basis, and a guaranteed profit with it. This would encourage efficiency to increase profits and attract new patients. Look at Medicare now. It doesn't force providers to "extremely low levels" of costs. It just finances care. Conclusion Medicare for All would have huge benefits for America. - Equal Access to Care - Rationing Cut, ethical care restored - Universal comprehensive coverage - Free Choice of Provider - Global Budgets - Pro-business legislation: In addition to cuts in workers comp. by 50%, a 10-12% cut in labor costs, and other cutting other bureaucracy. - Pro-Labor Wages would correlate once again with productivity - more economic growth. - Simple rules - Doctor-Patient Relationship restored - $300 billion in savings, over $1,000 a person after taxes We care about people. This is the core of our Democracy. We should extend this empathy to protect and empower others, and expand their liberty, expand their life, and expand their freedom. We would save over 45,000 lives and end the death panels in the insurance companies that deny us care through rationing that kills . My opponent has also dropped the moral argument. Health is a life and death issue. Everyone's life is expanded with Medicare for All. Freedom is enhanced by Medicare for All. You are not free if you must sell your house or go bankrupt to survive an illness. If an insurance company denies you care, they deny you liberty. Fairness is restored by Medicare for All. Doctor-Patient care is restored, so you two do what is best for your health. ---Medicare for All protects and empowers freedom, liberty, life, and opportunity for all Americans. And be being very simple and economically efficient, and being morally central to America's value of empathy, it is an imperative that we must achieve. *CON will not rebut R4 here. He will use 7500 characters. No contender advantage. [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] http://tinyurl.com... [7] http://tinyurl.com... [8] http://tinyurl.com... [9] http://tinyurl.com... [10] http://tinyurl.com... [11] http://www.heritage.org... Vote Pro for affordable, secure, high quality health care.