Universal Health Care Would be Beneficial to the U.S.

My RefutationsFragility of the U.S. Economy and Costs of UHCCon: “US public debt exceeds 70% of the economy, nearing the danger point of 90%. With national debt projected to reach 16.6 trillion dollars this year, that ominous percentage looms.”We can't just assume that because the US is in a lot of debt, UHC isn't the best option. As I mentioned before, US Healthcare spending is 17.7% of the US's GDP, more than double than most nations. The general consensus of the US's debt is a combination of low government revenues (taxes) and a vast increase in government spending. America also spends roughly 1 trillion dollars anually on military. Therefore, if the US were to spend significantly less on military and less on healthcare, while collecting more taxes from citizens, they'd be in way less debt.[1][2][3]Furthermore, UHC would allow the government to collect more revenues from its citizens while saving money on health care. Con:"Much of the America's expenditures would not be possible without borrowing from foreign lenders, which, in effect, makes us dependent upon them to carry out our own governmental functions"Even if it did come down to the US borrowing from foreign entities, the overall savings of UHC would off-set the costs ofimplementing it. According to Economist Gerald Friedman, Ph.D., University of Massachusetts, Amherst, these savingswould be enormous. “Under the single-payer system created by HR 676 [the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, introduced by Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Mich.], the U.S. could save an estimated $592 billion annually by slashing the administrative waste associated with the private insurance industry ($476 billion)." He also added that if the US had implemented this system in 2013, the savings would cover the 44 million uninsured in 2014! The point is, the US couldpay it off under a system like this.[4] CoercionI think Con's argument is absolutely false. UHC doesn't involves the "imposition of one person's values upon the citizens as a whole." UHC doesn't involve the president saying, "This is the way I want it, this is the way it should be done." Obviously, citizens have a say health reforms that UHC would bring about. UHC is not about citizens having to conform to coverage options, it's about giving them opportunity for coverage options. Also, healthcare-related practices such as Euthanasia are a whole seperate issue than UHC.My ArgumentsSocial BenefitsI think Con misinterpreted my Harvard Study. The study claimed that 45 000 died because they lacked insurance, leading to no access to health care, consequently leading to their death. However, if these citizens had UHC, they would have access to proper health care, which would guarentee access to proper health services. Subsequently, they probably would've survived. If Con's still blurry here, I'll provide him with an example.Let's say Joe Schmoe has a severe lung infection, but he's insured. He goes into the hospital and claims he needs the proper care to cure him, but they refuse service because he's uninsured. Consequently, he dies next year because of lung failure. This would be an easily preventable death, if they would've given him the proper care. Therefore, yes he died of lung failure, but he also died because of lack of health insurance.Con: "People in nations with UHC live longer because they live in countries that are developed"Again, you misinterpreted my point. My point was that out of the top 15 countries in terms of life expectancy, 12 of them had UHC. I never compared developed countries to undeveloped countries; the top 15 were all developed by a longshot. Countries like Somalia are ranked 190 in terms of expected lifespan, which is 50. So, I think I have proved that countries with UHC live longer than other developed nations that don't.[5]To sum this contention up, way less people would die every year with UHC.SatisfactionMy main point was that since UHC was beneficial, it equals satisfaction amongst its citizens which is a social benefit. A happy country is highly beneficial, especially in terms of stability. The idea of that statistic was to prove that on average, European countries are happier with UHC.Con:"European countries have a more pro-government mindset than the U.S."That may be true, however, I brought up Canada as well. Canada has a mixed-market economy while the US has a market economy. Although the US hass less government involvement, Canada is moving towards a more market one. The leading party (Conservatives) are moving towards less government intervention which is making Canada more like the US. But the point was that Canada has a very high satisfaciton rate as well.Not only that, but I brought up what the US wanted. According to a Washington News poll, Americans that want UHC contrary to Americans who prefer the employer based system is in a ratio of 2:1. The majority of Americans want it as well.[6]Economic BenefitsCompanies would save a ton of money each year if UHC were implemented. As I mentioned before, big car companies like GM are adding an additional $1,400 for each car they make because of the cost of providing health care for their employees.[7]It's also interesting to note that medical bills are the biggest cause of US bankruptcy. "Bankruptcies resulting from unpaid medical bills will affect nearly 2 million Americans this year." The statistics are from NerdWallet Health, a price-comparison website. They used a combination of data from the U.S. Census, Centers for Disease Control, and the Commonwealth Fund. And even aside from bankruptcy, 56 million adults will struggle with high health-care related bills. Sadly, an additional 10 million adults with yearly health insurance will still have medical bills that they can't pay off.[8]Therefore, UHC would reduce the overall medical debt and bankruptcies in America, since all citizens would be insured.MisconceptionsLike I mentioned in the first round, most countries that have UHC don't have long wait times. Even though wait times are long in Canada, fast-tracking of patients is not ideal. Surgeries aren't procedures that should be sped up, as it can result in patients being unnecessarily harmed through carelessness.Con: "Moreover, wait times in the U.S. are fantastic, while still providing some of the highest quality care for illnesses like cancer"Maybe wait times in the U.S. are better than Canada, but the U.S. suffers from fast-tracking patients. People in the U.S. with private health insurance often find themselves with unwarrented procedures. For instance, the U.S. "has the highest rate of invasive cardiac procedures in the world." However, these haven't benefited the Americans. Each procedure has serious complications such as a stroke, torn artery, or even death.[9]Although the Canadian system isn't perfect, it's still far better than America's system. In 2005, Canada had more physicians per capita and more nurses per area. See table: [10]Exploiting the SystemThe question is: How often does this occur? In every country citizens exploit things. This is such a small error that almost never happens. The better question is if Canada is annoyed by this. Canada is a country that likes helping people of other nations through benefits of the country. Of course, Canada doesn't let citizens "free-load" but Canada has a different mindset than the US.Bias against the HealthyUHC is an egalitarian philosophy, in which there's belief that all people should be covered no matter what. It's a socialist concept so of cources everyone will get covered and share the cost. In UHC, it shouldn't matter if the conditions are self-induced.I rest my case and look forward to my opponent's next arguments!Sources:1.http://www.theatlantic.com...2.http://www.businessinsider.com...3.http://www.slate.com...4.http://www.pnhp.org...;5.http://en.wikipedia.org...;6.http://abcnews.go.com...7.http://www.huffingtonpost.com...;8.http://www.cnbc.com...;9.http://www.theglobeandmail.com...;10.http://www.cmaj.ca...;