Single Payer Health Care makes most economic sense

1. Administraitive costs The medicare low administrative cost argunment is a myth, as I explained last round. The myth is Medicare spends 3% on administrative costs, and that private insurance costs 15% - 20% administrative costs. Now these numbers are misleading, here's why:a) Medicare is partially administered by other agenciesFirstly, other nanny state policies help administer medicare benefits. IRS and many other agencies help with their expences, something private insurers to not have, this already gives medicare a monetary advantage. And:"Private insurers obviously don't have this kind of outside or off-budget help. Medicare's administration is also tax-exempt, whereas insurers must pay state excise taxes on the premiums they charge; the tax is counted as an administrative cost."[1]As taxes are a huge budget impact, likely 10%, this already means private insurance already has 5% administrative costs. Not much of a difference, and if medicare was taxed they would have a 13% administrative cost on that alone.b) The faulty mathThe way the administrative costs are calculated are, in itself, faulty and give the 3% illusion. Ex: two patients cost 30$ to manage. The first requires 100$ in medical help, the other needs 1000$. The first has a 30% administrrative cost the other 3%, but this does not mean the first is less efficient. Interesingly enough, administrativley they cost the same, but the way it is calculated it benefits medicares 3% case. Using more accurate numbers, medicare per capita (per person) actually has higher administrative costs. Why? medicare costs more, so even though it has a lower percentage it actually lower the actual cost is higher. This graph explains it: Medicare costs more administrativley per patient then private insurance. How can this be it has a lower cost? Easy: 6% of 380 is more then 11% of 200. [1] ---> In other words, a) makes the two insurances have virtually the same costs, and b) makes it show the faulty math means medicare actually has higher administrative costs.2. Comparisons US to europeAgain her argunment is actually ignoring my analysis (or much of it). I proved that government HC was more costly this round and last round, then showed much of america actually relies on these plans. I therefore showed the reason we had high cost was due to government inneficiencies, NOT the system itself, therefore my opponents argunment is a moot.And then she criticises, very weakly, the fat comparison. I significantly showed americans where at risk of Obesity, Diabetese, and heart problems. And as stated we have an unlealthy diet. Lets say it again. Our unhealthy lifestyle leads to a high weight. [2] Higher weights = joint problems, and all the other seseises I mentioned. Good nutrition if vital to society. As America here lacks, we will have higher by large margins in almost all sickness. The increased need for care (and the high costs) we witness today are based on overusage of the healthcare system (my opponent dropped that analysis), and a single payer system will increase the amount of people using the system as it gives a "free" illusion. My opponent then states we have high uninsured and thats the reason it is costly, with no logical analysis or source this is just an opinion argunment. And the question is why they spend less, as stated the unhealthy lifestyle we have make it impossible to spend less, also note (as stated) our population is the third highest in the world, a lot of unhealthy feinds will mean we will clog up the hospitals and in turn raise costs. My opponent has failed to refute the reason costs are high are due to overusage, and I have proven all it does is increase it. Also my opponent states the reason the state has high costs is due to uninsured, this is contrary to the facts. The ER and government insurance are seperate entities. Meaning the 56% number is still valid, showing it costs more, and uninsured as a seperate entity hold their own position in ER costs. Further, my opponent is making it seem this is a US vs. Europe debate, but the resolution states single payer is the best. So all I have to do is use ANY HC system in the world that is not SP. So only arguing against the US hurts her case as she has dropped my singapore analysis. --> Pro dropped my whole case.I proved singapore was better, meaning I have fufilled my BOP. Even if all of my logic above seems like sh!t, my singapore analysis is untouched and shows private insurance trumps governmental insurance. I have shown here that another system trumps single payer, meaning another system > single payer. Single payer is now not the most sensible. And I even proved the US was better. My opponent drops this I then proves SP increased taxes therefore would create sloth as their earnings are not being taken away, lowering productivity. Not good for an economy. Also dropped.-> As he dropped my case 100% of it stands, my opponents weak case 0% left. ---> My opponent even dropped my rebuttals, most of them. He dropped (4), I proved the existance of private insurance would be very little and the death panels would exist. She dropped (3), where I showed it would increase taxes.She dropped the last analysis in (2) where I showed it is illogical to say a problem would get better by adding more of what started it. If oil is onfire, adding more oil is not the answer.-----------------> My case 100% stands, 75% of my rebuttals where dropped, therefore I win both points off the bat. And her third round preformance was poor and therefore I won 100% of both sides. =Voting issues=args - She dropped almost all of my rebuttals and all of my case, and her defense of argunments was poor. I win on both accounts. Sources - Me, I used the least bias sources, using pnhp is a highly biassed source. I should win here too. I also used many government sources.Conduct - Me for the FFSpelling and grammar - I have poor spelling, but so does my opponent. Spelling is tied. But grammar I win as my opponent never capitalized letters at the beginning of a paragraph or at the beginning of a sentence. I win this point. 7/0 to con. VOTE CON References:[1] http://www.forbes.com... [2] http://www.cdc.gov...