universal healthcare

Okay. First Voter: My opponent fails his own burden. I've stressed this burden repeatedly and he's failed to address. This is the judge's easiest decision as my opponent has valiantly muddles other arguments. Essentially, my opponent states that the harm of our status quo system is that "no one should ever die just because they cant afford it", that this happens in our status quo system, and so we should reject it. I challenged him in R1 and R2 to stipulate an acceptable rationer of healthcare that avoided the harms of the status quo. He's failed to do so. Hence, the harm he specifies in the status quo is non-unique and he fails his burden of proof to provide a unique advantage to universal care. Reference #5 Second Voter: This is an extension of the burden. Essentially, since we prefer the system that rations least, and since the cost of care is the ultimate rationer, then we look to the rate of medical inflation as a litmus. The US has seen less medical inflation than the OECD average over the previous two decades, hence we prefer maintaining the status quo. Related, we already have sufficient 'prevention'. Reference, #'s 2, 3 , 4. . Voter Three: Basically a question of what is driving the perverse health outcomes. I've argued (without response) it's the over utilization of care. That 30% of care is redundant. This is exacerbated by single-payer, which has a significant moral hazard distortion. The average percent of care financed by copay or coinsurance in the OECD is 20%. In the US, it's 11.8%. This discrepancy helps explain why Americans consume care so frivolously. My opponent hasn't explained how single-payer solves for the unique drivers of cost in the US while I've explained how it actually exacerbates them. Responses: 1. On the comparison of countries, i. e. R3 1st paragraph, my opponent misunderstands the statistics and the legitimacy of comparison. It's because unique morbidities in the US run contrary to the US having held down the rate of medical inflation better than the OECD average for the last decade that this comparison is relevant where others aren't. It's because unique morbidities explain the degree and not the rate of change. 2. On the question of prevention, the judge should feel free to disregard my opponent's entire argument. I've cited peer reviewed literature questioning the cost effectiveness of preventive care. Note: this is not the same as saying preventive care can't be effective, but rather that its effectiveness is often completely insufficient to justify its cost in aggregate. I. e. , in hypothetical, it would be difficult to justify screening 1 million people at a cost of $100 each to find cancer in a single person. Yes, it's hyperbole, but it illustrates the point: systems don't spend $100 million to save a single life. 3. My opponent is incorrect about the rationale for the US having held down medical inflation, but then, his claim is without warrant, so we can disregard. (I. e. the US economy has outperformed Euro average, hence res ipsa loquitur, it's false on face) 4. On the question of public spending, I have to say this is very frustrating. My opponent is claiming that the US could get better healthcare if it spent less money privately and more money publicly. He's claiming that we could get the same cost/benefit as a system like the UK if only we spent as much public money as they do. BUT WE ALREADY SPEND MORE PUBLIC MONEY THAN THE UK DOES! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! ! I. e. in order for my opponent's argument to be tenable, the judge would have to accept that private spending on healthcare creates negative health outcomes so as to negate the positive from public financing he assumes. Or, it would have to be the case that while the US gets poor marginal value per dollar spent, it still has aggregate better outcome. But this isn't the case either. If public health financing were a panacea, we'd see its benefit in the US because we spend more public money than the systems my opponent touts. 5. On the subject of "cost rations" it's not clear to me what my opponent is responding to. Truly, it's difficult to follow his organization, but I think what he's doing is admitting that rationing is a part of every health system. Or in other words, admitting he fails his own burden. 6. On the poll, this really doesn't matter. Medicare is popular because it feels freer to people since it's costs have been hidden for so long. Or because the average Medicare recipient is receiving $140,000 in benefits not paid for. Not that my opponent has responded to any of the unique harms in Medicare I've stressed throughout the debate. (i. e. hidden costs, payments below cost, lost money overall, etc. )