Resolved: The US should constitute a Single-Payer Health Care System

C1: ----------Rebuttals--------- Current Government Care YOUR SOURCE said that the PRIMARY reason for children crisis is because of low reimbursement rates. The reason is because government reimbursement rates are too low in Medicaid, and thus doctors can't afford to see the children. [1] With Single-Payer, the system is much more efficient because it is centralized, and because S.P. would lead to a streamlined, electronic, yet confidential system. So, extensive paperwork would be heavily cut. [2] [3] You proved nothing about switching over = poor rates of physician pay. Drug "Shortages" About drug shortages, your source was about an isolated case on ADHD medications in Louisiana. In S.P., the government doesn't price the drugs, it negotiates lower prices with the drug companies, because of the gov't bulk purchasing power. [3] In Europe with S.P. systems, drug prices are more strictly controlled, but pharmaceutical companies are stilll very profitable and highly innovative. [4] Doctor Pay and "Shortages" If S.P. was implemented correctly, physician income would not likely change much, although the disparity of earnings among specialties would probably shrink. Billing would be very simple. The patient's N.H.P. card would be imprinted on a charge slip, the doctor would check the box for the complexity of the procedure or service, then send the computer record to a physician-payment board. [2] In S.P., for example in Canada, physician pay has been very well. [5] With reimbursement reform, and helping train more medical professionals and having loan forgiveness under a S.P. plan, there wouldn't be a doctor shortage. [2] Free Market "Cures" S.P. wouldn't provide worse care. Your source didn't even demonstrate that - it was comparing the USA to a Socialized Medicine program - NOT Single-Payer. Besides, the USA ranks poorly relative to other industrialized nations, DESPITE having the best health care providers and the best medical infrastructure of any industrialized nation. [6] For example, we are 23rd in infant mortalilty, 20th in life expectancy for women and 21st for men, (gradually declining over time), and we are 67th in drug immunization rates, BEHIND BOTSWANA. [6] This is sad. Rationing I said that rationing already occurs based on cost in the USA. In other nations, the systems are publicy accountable, unlike our systems. As a result of the public information, wait times have decreased. [2] In Canada, there are reasonable waits for specialists, but this is because of medical infrastructure. Elective surgery, such as cataract surgery, has longer wait times that you are likely describing. [7] The government DOES NOT DECIDE WHO DOES AND DOESN'T GET TREATMENT. It is between the doctor and the patient. [7] Consensus: The USA already has enough funding to cover all American citizens with comprehensive health care. Also, because of our abundant healthcare resources in place, rationing and long waiting lists would not be needed. Any rationing that would remain would be nonexistent or minor, and with our ethical system, it would be based on need and for the public health based on community needs, not for stockholder profits. Defending my S.P. case --> Healthcare costs add $1500 to the cost of every US car, compared to only $500 for Japanese-built cars because they have Single-Payer [4] --> We would still have enough money to cover their costs -- Single-Payer would lead to a surplus of about $100 billion or more even with covering the uninsured and increasing health benefits [6] --> About medical infrastructure, new infra. would be payed for according to community needs (Health Planning Board). As I said earlier, drug companies still thrive under S.P. with high innovation and profits. --> About bankruptcies, these would be because of elective procedures that are not life-necessary. [4] All medically necessary care would be covered. --> Switzerland DOES NOT HAVE Single-Payer! Besides, the funding I described would ultimately save money for the vast majority of businesses and people. [2] In fact, employees would likely get higher wages because the business would have less in medical bills. [3] --> About the Gov't creating inefficiences in the market, it only negotiates down prices. Your article was based on Socialized Medicine. --> As I already said, the USA ranks poorly among industrial nations for health care, and with S.P. this would increase do to full coverage, more physicians, and other factors. --> About freedom, tax increases would be modest, [3] and spending would be less than now. [6] Funding for S.P. Your figures are pretty confused. In Europe, they also have universal college education if they want it, and liberal welfare systems. In fact, in France, they have months of maternity leave, etc. We are talking about a modest increase in taxes, that would not be very large. About the 13% payroll, the source discusses nothing about that. Healthcare Policy I never conceded rationing of care. All medically necessary care is covered. All other care can be paid for by -- private insurance. To make it easier for all of us, I will use bullet points to conclude my arguments. C2: Single Payer Healthcare --Brings competition to doctors and patients. Medical decisions made between these groups. [7] [2] --Rationing wouldn't occur. The USA already spends enough, and has a large enough medical infrastructure. [2] [8] --Modernizes USA economy, by decreasing healthcare costs for businesses and individuals. Many bankruptcies are eliminated. [4] [3] [2] --Improves US medical infrastructure. Many more physicians could be trained. Drug innovation could improve. [2] --Costs would be better contained. S.P. healthcare costs rise slower than nations with private healthcare systems. [9] --Better Health Care. Nations with S.P. have better healthcare results. [10] Plus, workers could get care when they need it, instead of skipping care and being less productive. [2] In the USA, it is less likely to see a doctor the same day as requested, after hours E.R. treatment was harder to get, and millions forgo treatment because of costs. [2] --A Very Efficient System. With centralization of administration, costs would decrease by large amounts. With a streamlined, electronic, yet confidential system, any patient or doctor overusing care would be be recognized and dealt with swiftly. [2] [3] [6] Sources: [1] http://articles.orlandosentinel.com... [2] http://www.pnhp.org... [3] http://www.amsa.org... [4] Conrad, Jessamyn. What You Should Know About Politics... But Don't. 1st ed. New York: Hachette Book Group, 2008. 104-124. Print. [5] http://pnhp.org... [6] http://cthealth.server101.com... [7] http://www.denverpost.com... [8] Ronald J. Glasser, M.D., "The Doctor Is Not In: On the Managed Failure of Managed Health Care," Harper's, March 1998, p.35 [9] http://economistsview.typepad.com... [10] Sherrow, Victoria. Universal Healthcare. 1st ed. New York: Infobase Publishing, 2010. Print.