The U.S. ought to guarantee Universal Healthcare to its citizenry

I’ll go over major issues in the round, pointing out why I’ve won them. -Solvency- Pro argues that morality doesn’t necessitate consequences, however he doesn’t offer any other kind of moral system. He contends that he didn’t have to provide a specific system, which is why my criticisms were about UHC in general rather than, say, just the UKs’s system. UHC solves the issue of uninsurance in name only, as you can see from my case it leads to worse outcomes, death, delay, and corruption, which obviously isn’t moral.—the problem is not uninsurance in itself, but a lack of medical care which is a problem that will only increase under UHC. It’s nonsensical that the US should offer its citizens a system that fails. -Obligations- Throughout the debate, I repeatedly asked Pro to explain why people are obligated to provide others with insurance, with no response. You can vote Con right here as this pretty much takes out Pros arguments. -Survival rates- Pro makes no serious response except to state that the uninsured get less care. The problem is, even with the high amount of uninsured people in the US the US still has significantly higher survival rates in critical diseases than nations with UHC. Check out the numbers and you’ll see that the 15% difference between US and UK survival rates for Cancer alone, for example, amount to around 90k people, far outweighing any impact Pro brings up, not counting other diseases the US leads in. The sheer amount of waste in UHC systems, and the shortages of doctors that will occur in the US with UHC lead to waiting lists, causing death. Remember that in the UK 21% of curable lung cancer patients become incurable while waiting for care. Pro tries to argue that the US system is riddled with medical errors, but without a comparison to nations with UHC this is entirely irrelevant in the round. Survival rates are the best way to judge the quality of care in a system since they are actual measures of the goals of the system—to deliver care. Pro says that I only mentioned 4 diseases, but these are among the leading causes of death and thus the most likely for governments to collect stats about, moreover cancer alone outweighs everything Pro has argued. Pro drops my arguments for why the WHO evidence is completely bunk. -Obamacare- Pro only argues that Obamacare doesn’t solve because it doesn’t insure everybody. The problem is, since Obamacare mandates that everyone buy insurance or pay a tax, vastly lessens the financial burden of doing so, and has more companies providing insurance via the private market. While this doesn’t insure everyone, you can see pretty clearly from this debate that insurance is no guarantee of care in countries with UHC. Pro argues I don’t explain why people uninsured under Obamacare lack it by choice but Obamacare REQUIRES people to purchase medical insurance and makes it affordable. The status quo is solving the issue of health care. -Costs- Pro argues that UHC will be cheaper. Nevermind the fact that this is empirically falsified by the vast costs of UHC systems bankrupting other countries, this is contradicted by my logic that was completely dropped about how people will waste medical care since it’s free (refer also to the evidence I gave in the UK as). I’m the only one with a verifiable study, which showed that a UHC system in the US based on the Swedish model would cost the average taxpayer $17,200. Pro argues that this is only one system, which is true, but it’s a cop out for Pro to just say “oh actually my system wouldn’t do that” without explaining what his would do. If it’s fair for Pro to not defend any specific system, it’s fair for me to level my criticisms based upon all UHC systems. Pro argues the German system is economically good, however according to WSJ[1] Germans pay 15% of their income for their system that is "on the brink of financial shortfall". Even Pros model system can't be properly funded. Moreover Pro provides no logic what so ever for why UHC would be cheaper. His only card argues it would be cheaper assuming: “significant systemic changes including administrative simplification, computerized physician order entry, an automated patient safety/error reporting system, reduction in inappropriate clinical practice variation, and controls of provider payments and premiums”. Face it, this isn’t going to happen and Pro hasn’t proven it will. Pros only economic impacts come from people leaving their jobs where they’re experienced and trying to start new businesses, and Pro doesn’t give you any dollar amounts of revenue that this will generate. It’s literally impossible to weigh. It’s also unfair for Pro to keep citing evidence without linking it in round for review—compare this to my 30 external sources. Thus the cost argument flows clearly to Con. From this you have increased costs of care with lower quality of care. Remember that Canadians desperate for care come to the US. My credit and heg argument stands as well. There’s no way to predict the future, but having the US acting in the exact opposite manner that S&P suggests is no way for credit success. Even if you buy his arguments that UHC is good, the risks are too high right now. -Doctor shortages- Pro never properly responds to the fact that 20% of doctors would quit if we implemented UHC, only arguing that slightly more southern doctors were polled. This however makes sense in a random sample as the south is by far the most populace region[2]. Experiences from countries with UHC also confirm the fact that doctors would quit, creating even more waiting lists. -Rationed care-Pro never provides evidence contrary to the waiting lists that occur in countries with UHC, along with the courruption that happens on these lists, and the deaths that occur while waiting for care. You never see Americans going to Canada for care, you see the opposite because a private sector solution to healthcare is clearly superior. Vote Con. 1. http://tinyurl.com...;2. http://tinyurl.com...;