Single Payer Health Care makes most economic sense

1. GDP expenditures My opponents analysis (comparing countries) actually falls under a statistical problem. This is called a cross sectional data set, and these fall into problems as economists call endogenity. This arises when you compare X to Y, and claim the differences is due to the problem (in this case US healthcare). A good example of this is the DPIC data on states with lower crime have no death penalty. But this ignores histories, previous crime rates, and other variables which include arrest rates and conviction rates. So my opponent claiming to compare the US to say France falls under this endognity problem. I can list the factors. First, this ignores the amount of people on government healthcare. 27.8% of the population, in America, relies on some sort of public insurance plan. Public (government) spending accounts for 56% of expenditures. [1] Now this does much to prove my case, as this shows government plans (Single payer is government) are more expensive then private plans. So the GDP argument has endogenity as it forgets to account for government failures. A second thing it forgets is health habits. As worse habits means more expenditures. If the US has worse habits, we can blame the habits not the HC for the problem. Studies show less then 2% of Americans meet the recommended heart healthy steps to prevent heart attacks as well as other heart problems. [2] 35.7% of Americans are obese. [3] In contrast 11% of french people are obese. [4] More unhealthy habits lead to more need for HC. More need for HC means more healthcare costs, especially for the public sector. So we can blame habits, not our system, for the problem. So all of her GDP arguments fail. We can blame the public sector and the unhealthy American habits for the problem.2. Lower administrative costs?Much of the data have seen for this comes from the bias PNHP. But I would like to note this is highly illogical. This is claiming the government can save money, which has never happened. SS is almost bankrupt. Medicare is almost bankrupt. So is medicaid. Government agencies DO NOT SAVE money, their benefits are often overused, abused, and their leaders are often inefficient. Overuse is the reason for HC cost problems, and single payer will not account for that. Although single payer is not free, it gives that illusion. If you thought a service was free, and you thought you might need it, you would obviously ask for it. Single payer would again lead to overuse of services, and lead to increased costs. [5]And as stated, current government healthcare is about 30% of the population but is 56% of the costs. This actually leads me to believe the government is inefficient and actually leads to higher costs, as current government HC is more expensive. If current government care leads to increased costs, it is illogical to say more government will clean it up. If I cut myself with paper sure it would hurt, and if I thought cutting it with cardboard would fix it, it would seem crazy. It may distract me from my former problem, but not help anything and would make it hurt worse. 3. Taxes My opponents arguments here are unrealistic. The government would tax everyone, especially the wealthy. In current medicaid most of the people on that plan do not pay taxes, therefore people like me pay for their health services. Since the 1918 income tax law we have used a progressive tax. [6] If we assume this is an optional system, the poorest people will likely opt for it as they cannot always afford private insurance. Meaning only the poorest people would opt for the service. Under our current taxation plan all or most of these people that for the system would NOT PAY TAXES. So the government would be forced to pay for the program somehow, and therefore would raise taxes on the middle classes or the upper class to accommodate for the people that opt for the system. In other words my opponents idea is unrealistic and impossible. And, even if you are not on the system, you would still pay for it. Also this also ignores what is happening in other countries. Even if we assume we can not income tax the people who opt out of the system, taxes would still raise to them. There is a 20-28% payroll tax in France, so all of their checks are taxed meaning everyone feels this pinch.[7] The UK has a 20% gas tax, everyone feels that pinch, and Canada also has a high gas tax. [8] So even if we have an opt out income tax, everyone, EVERYONE would feel the increases in payroll and gas taxes. So to conclude this refutation:a) impossible b) even if it occurs everyone will feel the tax in other areas 4. Insurance companies Everyone agrees if we switched to SP private companies would still exist, but would be weaker. In the US abut 70% of us use private insurance. In Canada, however, the number is only 27%.[9] So based on this it is likely the insurance companies would shrink and have little influence in the system relative to before. My opponent then states that it would lower the amount of people denied care, but this argument is a moot as obamacare is already doing that. [10] Even if the supreme court strikes this down, they will likely only be able to hit the mandate not the law, this can have its own fremarket solutions. Many of which include competition to decrease costs. I do not understand my opponents last argument, which claims if private insurance exists there would be no death panels. As I showed Canada has private insurance, and they still have death panels. They recently voted to cut babies life support. [11] Just because private insurance exists does not mean death panels would wither away, private insurance as shown would shrink and cease to have influence, so this point is a moot. *Case*C1: Private cures Singapore is the best example, they are much healthier then Americans and their spending on HC is relativity low. Lower then most SP countries. "What's the reason for Singapore's success? It's not government spending. The state, using taxes, funds only about one-fourth of Singapore's total health costs. Individuals and their employers pay for the rest. In fact, the latest figures show that Singapore's government spends only $381 (all dollars in this article are U.S.) per capita on health—or one-seventh what the U.S. government spends."[12]Meaning the government is not the spender, the private insurance is. Meaning this system is superior to he SP systems, therefore wins the resolution. C2: SP increases taxes As stated I have proven anything the government touches it goes bankrupt. The increased cost means to compensate, they would be forced to increase taxes, this can easily be shown with France. In America employers pay a 7.5% payroll tax. [13] In France the system sucks 40% of revenue and they need a 20% payroll tax. [14] Meaning it increases taxation cost, lower payroll means less money being used in stocks etc. Meaning a worse economy, and makes no economic sense. P.S. My opponents stories are nothing. Look at these. "I wouldn't like to see Americans make the same mistake Canadians have made… Patients in Canada are treated like Third World citizens. Our health-care system is like Cuba or North Korea."- Lindsay McCreith (Brain tumor patient, Canada)[15]CONCLUSION:All of my opponents arguments lie on poor logic, are factually incorrect, or lie on faulty cross sectional data. I have shown SP to be on balance bad for an economy, and the Singaporean system to be better. Also by rebuttals even show the current system to be more cost effective. VOTE CON. [1] http://bit.ly...[2] http://bit.ly...[3] http://1.usa.gov...[4] http://bit.ly...[5] http://bit.ly... [6] http://bit.ly...[7] http://bit.ly... [8] http://bit.ly...[9] http://bit.ly...[10] http://bit.ly...[11] http://bit.ly... [12] http://bit.ly...[13] http://bit.ly...[14] http://buswk.co...[15] http://biggovhealth.org...