Nationalizing health care in the U.S. would increase its cost

1. Private insurance ends up paying a high fraction of the overhead costs... Those costs will be realized in government costs. --> Unlike privatized insurance, Medicare is fickle, not contractual. Premiums can increase at any time depending on the market, and there have been instances of Medicare being revoked, suspended, etc. should the govt. be unable to pay. If healthcare were nationalized, a greater fraction of government money could be budgeted towards this endeavor. This means an increase in government costs, but also an increase in funding (taxes). Since citizens would be paying into nationalized healthcare, it's only logical to assume that they would make use of it. This is positive for two reasons: 1) Despite being poorer and sicker, people with Medicare are FAR more satisfied with their healthcare, benefits, options, treatment, etc. then those who currently receive privatized insurance. In other words, healthcare benefits (and possibly health) in this country would increase. 2) A lot of insurance companies out there are BS. For instance, 22% of privately insured people found that their plan did not pay for care that they thought was covered, compared with 9% of Medicare beneficiaries. Insurance companies tend to charge a lot of money but offer little to no gains. Perhaps the amount of taxes one would spend on nationalized healthcare would be LESS than they currently pay for insurance costs, and yet their medical experiences would be far more helpful in their time of need. It should also be noted that over 30% of those who have private insurance cannot make their payments anyway [1]. On a final note, it's important to keep in mind that nationalized healthcare would be a lot different from Medicare/aid regarding eligibility, methods of payment, etc. Also, perhaps vouchers of some kind can be offered to those who choose privatized insurance (still) over public care. 2. Medicare, the model, pays only five or six percent in administrative fees compared to around eleven to thirteen percent for private insurers... --> This is true, but it's because our system is so fragmented. 80% of U.S. doctors practice in groups of 4 or less, and each of those offices is filling out paperwork to be reimbursed by dozens of different insurers. The insurers add another fat layer of administrative costs, as do the employers who purchase policies. In countries where all physicians work on salary for the government, and hospitals are all owned by the government, much of the paperwork is eliminated. Now, if our system were improved and organized so that physicians worked in larger medical centers, and insurance benefits were standardized, we could reap significant savings [2]. 3. Bulk purchases of drugs do not lower the costs of the drugs... With the likely result of fewer newer drugs, health care costs will rise substantially. --> When all patients are under one system, the payer wields a lot of clout. The VA gets a 40% discount on drugs because of its buying power. This "monopsony" buying power is the main reason why other countries' drug prices are lower than ours. This also explains the drug industry's staunch opposition to single-payer national health insurance [3]. 4. Nationalized health care destroys competition, thereby increasing costs. Some aspects of medicine, cosmetic surgery and laser eye correction, are firmly in the free market. Neither private nor government insurance pays for them. --> Right, so why should any insurance pay for them now? Nationalizing healthcare would have no bearing on the cost of cosmetic surgery. Moreover, in the instances where insurance actually applies, doctors would still be competing for business regardless of where the insurance or coverage is coming from. 5. Bureaucratic payment systems shift the emphasis from providing care to gaming the system... Matters that could be handled in one or two visits are typically stretched into many visits... This is inconvenient, inefficient and increases costs... --> Doctors are already gaming the system. It is not uncommon for a doctor to perform one procedure on a patient and list it as another to the insurance company, for example. To blame public healthcare for such a thing would be horribly invalid. To combat this, however, we have several options: First, better planning. Smaller doctors offices should be hesitant to purchase expensive and unnecessary medical equipment. Instead only hospitals or larger scale medical facilities should be privy to things that are only going to act as additional expenses to physicians, without really serving a necessary or useful purpose or costing them an awful lot of money. Second, doctors have to be held accountable. We can compare the procedures and actions of certain physicians to that of their peers. Any repeat poor decision making will be noticeable and investigated. Moreover, patients may find comfort in this type of monitoring (ensuring that their doctors both know what they're doing , and are not wasting their time). 6. Preventive care would certainly be paid for by the government, but it wouldn't be promoted. That's evident in the Medicare system. --> This is an interesting point coming from someone who promotes individual accountability and responsibility. I would argue that it's neither the insurance company nor government's job to remind you to take your pills or get preventative care. Your insurance company does this in their own best interest, and I believe that public healthcare can/would do the same. Nationalized healthcare doesn't mean a free-for-all where people can be irresponsible about their health. People on Medicare still pay premiums, and once they become informed of certain restrictions (or limits) to aid - not to mention their own individual interest to keep themselves healthy and pain free - I don't believe that this will be a huge issue. Moreover, studies show that those on Medicare as opposed to those with private insurance actually seek MORE medical attention and preventative care. This is because insurance does not often cover the costs of all necessary tests and procedures. That would indicate that Pro's point is entirely backwards. 7. A national health care system will end up paying unskilled and low-skilled workers considerably more as a mechanism... Government contracts often require that union wages be paid... Government employees are the largest class of union workers. --> To assume that workers would be low or unskilled is entirely rooted in assumption with no factual basis. To imply that all of those who work for the government have such value is incredibly false. That said, we don't know that this will necessarily be the case. Further, this isn't a debate regarding the Pros and Cons of labor unions. Those who are Pro Union could easily make a case for that side; in this instance I think it's best to move on and stick to other aspects of the CBA as it would take too much time/space to focus on medical labor unions, IMO. If my opponent disagrees, I'll respond in the next round. 8. There are two main reason health care costs are so high in the US - An elaborate and expensive emergency health system, and heart attacks. --> Healthcare costs are increasing because the cost of medical PROCEDURES and PRESCRIPTIONS are increasing. Costs continue to ride: up 6.2 percent in 2000, up 8.3 percent in 2003, up 7.3 percent in 2004, up 7.4 percent in 2005, up 5.9 percent in 2006... Doctors are administering more tests, prescribing more medication and offering more treatment. Sometimes Medicare has been more effective at controlling costs, and sometimes it has been the private insurers. Still, the increase in spending cannot be blamed on 'greedy bottom feeders' who utilize public healthcare. Costs are increasing for everyone because of the problematic and broken system in general; not the methods of insuring Americans. --------- I ran out of characters for this round...