Universal Health Care

I accept the terms and look forward to the arguments. Arguments1. ) Universal Health Care Will Not Reduce Spending on Health CareMy opponent argues that Universal Health Care will reduce spending on Health Care. The main reason, my opponent argues, is that Universal Health Care Systems put more focus on Preventative Medicine. My opponent does not explain why Universal Health Care systems would necessarily have more Preventative Medicine. Instead, my opponent bases his argument on the fact that countries with Universal Health Care, like the UK, Switzerland, Japan, Germany, France, Canada, and Australia, spend less on Health Care, per Capita, than the United States, which does not have Universal Health Care. First, my opponent uses an incorrect measure of Health Care Cost. The correct measure is Health Care Spending as a Percentage of GDP, not Health Care Spending per Capita. However, even when using the correct measure, we still see the US spending a much higher percentage of GDP on Health Care than other Countries, although it is less dramatic [1]. The reason for this is not Preventative Medicine; it is rationing. Before I get into that, though, I feel it is necessary to explain why Health Care costs so much in the United States. The United States Health Care system is deeply distorted by government programs, regulations, and odd tax laws. These government factors, not private Health Care, are too blame for the high cost of Health Care in the United States. The main thing driving the high prices of Health Care in the US is government distortions [2]. Basically, the US tax code allows a full exemption for employer provided Health Care, but not individually bought Health Care. This incentivizes many employers to offer Health Care as an employee benefit. What this means is that employees are NOT paying directly for their own Health Insurance, and, more importantly, this has caused Health Insurance to function as much more than insurance. In a private market, free of this tax distortion, individuals would mostly buy Health Insurance Plans that offer only catastrophic type coverage. This would mean that they would pay individually for Health Care, unless an extreme expense came by. This is how it should work. With this system, patients would not overuse things like Dentists, Pediatricians, and other non-emergency type doctors. However, with the domination of Employer-Provided Insurance, patients are removed from their costs. Employers frequently add things like dental and low deductibles to Health Care plans. This means that the Health Insurance Company is basically paying for everything. This is known as a third party payer system. And, the problem with this is that patients overuse Medical Services because individuals have no incentive to control their own costs. This is known as the tragedy of the commons, where individuals overuse resources because they are removed from the cost. Now, in the US, the system is dominated by government programs and private insurance companies. The overuse of medical services is typically met with very high prices. Because, even though the US system is deeply distorted, the price system is still basically allowed to operate. In Universal Health Care Systems, the same tragedy of the commons problem occurs, except it is the government instead of private insurers that is insuring people. The difference, however, is that in most Universal Health Care systems, the response to overuse of medical services is shortages and rationing, instead of higher costs. Shortages seen in the long waiting times in most Universal Health Care Systems. Canada, for example, has extremely long waiting times for most serious types of medical services [3]. In a normal market, the price of a good or service is determined by supply and demand. This is actually how it works in the US, demand is just artificially high because of government distortions. Most of the time, higher demand, without a corresponding increase in supply, means higher prices. Therefore, prices are the typical means of rationing things. However, in most Universal Health Care Systems, prices are kept articially low by price controls. However, there is no increase in supply to meet this increase in demand. This means that the state, not the price system, is responsible for rationing care. Of course, whatever board makes the decisions on rationing does not have the information necessary to plan an entire medical system used by millions of people. This means that rationing decisions made by the state in a universal Health Care System are inherently innefficient.2. ) Universal Health Care Will Not Save LivesAs I will discuss later, Universal Health Care systems hold back medical innovation and keep patients from having access to the most up to date life saving drugs and technologies.3. ) Universal Health Care Will Hurt the EconomyMy opponent claims that Universal Health Care will help the economy by "putting money back into the hands of people who need it". This is untrue. Universal Health Care will actually hurt the economy. The main reason is that Universal Health Care requires higher taxes to pay for it. Higher taxes actually hurt economic growth by reducing the incentive to work, save, invest, and report income. There is a well known growth dampening effect of high taxation, that has been confirmed by numerous academic studies [4]. Second, implementing a Universal Health Care system in tough economic times is the worst thing the government could do. The implementation of such a system requires much higher taxes and many new regulations. Worse, this creates a large sense of uncertainty among businesses, who are relied upon to expand and hire new workers in a bad economy.4. ) Universal Health Care Suppresses InnovationUniversal Health Care systems actually lead to less lives being saved because it suppresses life saving technology and drugs. Although the US system is far from a free market, it is not Universal and a large private sector does exist. Not surprisingly, the US has many more MRI's and CT Scans per capita than countries with Universal Health Care like Canada and the United Kingdom [5]. Furthermore, a lions share of the world's medical innovations are coming from the US. 7 of the top 12 Pharmaceutical Companies, as ranked by Forbes Magazine, are located in the United States and 74 of the top 100 Biotech Companies are located in the United States [6] and [7]. The fact is that Universal Health Care systems simply are not producing nearly as much innovation as the non-Universal US system. If the US had a true free market in Health Care, there is no telling how far Medical Innovation would be. ConclusionLet me conclude by saying that I look forward to my opponent's response. I will also say that I have tried my best to source my arguments adequatley, but I do hope my opponent does not use incorrect or inadequate sourcing as a "cop-out" on some of my arguments. Thank You Very Much for Challenging Me to this Debate. Sources:[1] . http://www.nationmaster.com...[2] . http://www.cato.org...[3] . http://www.usnews.com...[4] . http://pirate.shu.edu...[5] . http://oregoncatalyst.com...[6] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[7] . http://en.wikipedia.org...