Universal Health Care

REBUTTAL1. Government DistortionsSo I found myself about to go on about why programs like medicare have vastly expanded the access to healthcare. But then I remembered what we are actually debating here. This part of the debate came about after I demonstrated that the US spends far more on health care than any nation with universal health care. Con responded by saying that the spending is high because prices have been artificially expanded by the government. Lets assume for a moment that he's right. So what? Does that refute what I demonstrated in the first place, that universal health care will reduce spending? No, it does not. Neither did Con refute the effect of preventative medicine in nations with universal health care. Universal health care: Everyone is covered.Not universal health care: Not everyone is covered.Universal health care: Less spent on health care.Not universal health care: More spend on health care.Conclusion? Universal health means a more efficient economy.2. Waiting TimesI showed that the waiting time scenario is a confusion. Americans have shorter waiting times because they are much less likely to use the health care system due to high costs. Again, Con brings up why he believes costs are high. And again, this is irrelevant and does not disprove my point.3. Saving livesCon presents a very interesting fact. Americans do indeed die from many more injuries than other countries. However, I made other points regarding why countries with universal health care save lives. Countries with universal health care have lower infant mortality and were ranked as being healthier than the United States. This is not to mention the fact that, as I showed before, universal health care brings care to tens of thousands of people who otherwise wouldn't have it. The World Health Organization agrees with me. According to them, the United States ranks 37th in best health care systems. All of the top 20 have universal health care. The vast majority of countries below the Unites States on the list do not have universal health care. [1]As for medical innovation, it's really a relative issue. It all comes down to how much we are willing to spend. More spending on research and such would mean more innovations. And, as I demonstrated, universal health care is more efficient with it's spending than private health care. And if the public sector doesn't take care of it properly, the private sector is still allowed to do it. When I mentioned this before, Con replied that they would not be able to because they would be pushed out of the market. Now, he needs to think harder about this one. Whether that is true or not is beneficial to my case. If it is true this means that universal health care's success can be measured by the fact that those who use it, by a large enough margin to make private insurers disappear, are content with the quality of their healthcare and medical innovation is not a problem. If it is false, it means my point about medical innovation being backed up by the private sector is still well founded.4. The EconomyCon points out taxation again. He says taxation would offset the effect of people saving money on buying insurance. This not so. As I have already pointed out, universal health care saves spending. This means less is being paid in taxation than would be in prices. Secondly, even if it did cost the same, it isn't being paid in the same way. A universal health care system would most likely be funded through the income tax, which is progressive. The rich would pay more because they're more able to pay and the price of health care means a lot less to them than it does a homeless man. Thirdly, even if we are all paying in the same, there is still another inherent success in social safety nets. Any time a human need is made an economic right, it diverts spending from things which are non-necessity, making the market better economized. CONCLUSIONEvery other industrialized nation besides the United States has adopted universal health care and there's a reason why. The majority of American's support universal health care and there's a reason why. The best economic and medical associations endorse universal health care and there's a reason.Because it works. Because it works a lot better than what we have now.NOT letting sick people die or live in suffering is a moral and practical thing for society, for the economy, for our daily lives. Universal health care is created to do that and it accomplishes it. It accomplishes it well. Universal health care will improve everyone's lives by making sure those who need treatment get it, by spending less on health care, making the economy smarter and more efficient, letting doctors do their jobs without insurance companies getting in the way, improving the social safety net as the experts urge us to do and so, so much more that hasn't even been covered here.Con's theories have not stood up to the facts in this debate and they will not stand the test of time either. Lol, I'm just taking advantage of my new ability to post images.I thank Con, it's been a wonderful debate.SOURCES1. http://www.who.int...