National Health Care

Thank you for your thoughts. Now onto my rebuttal. Now, as you mentioned, providing National Health Care my be a moral choice, but, nowhere does it say that the government must be the one to provide the service, making it the responsibility of each individual to afford health care. If they cannot afford it, that is not the governments fault to have to pay for that. Now another point brought up was that the private health care industry is becoming more and more expensive, and less and less generous. While I do agree with that statement, if one is to complain about this, there happens to be a simple answer that does not include whining to the government to provide, the answer is simply not buy the insurance. I agree the fact that America does have one of the highest infant mortality rates, and that it has one of the shortest life expectancies in the world, but what is to blame, our privatized health insurance or the lifestyle people choose to live? It is fact that if we provide health insurance to everybody for no cost to them, they will be more inclined to take risks and live less healthy lifestyles, knowing that the government will pay for their bills. I find that Canada and France have very similar health care systems and both work in the same manor, inefficiently. As you mentioned in your arguments, the French do consume less of a cost for their health insurance than the U.S. does, but, that is because France is also a much smaller country and must provide for much less people for the U.S. If France was the size an had the same amount of people as the U.S. then I guarantee they would pay more than we do. In the next paragraph, you mention that the French system embraces private competition. Knowing that Canada and France have very similar systems, it can be shown through Canada and most likely France, that doctors are being driven out of the country due to the low wages they are paid, therefore this system does not really embrace private industry, but rather drives it out. Next, you mention that French citizens are more satisfied with their system than the Americans are, which can quite obviously be shown because everyone in France is provided for,so it seems common sense that they would be happier with their system. In your last paragraph, you argue that national health care can be provided more efficiently, more effectively, and to more satisfaction than our current system. Now we know this not to be true because under national health care doctors will be more stressed for time, as they will have more patients to provide to, which thus results in slipshod work. You also mention that it will be more efficient, but compared to what? France and the United States can not be compared because the population in France is much smaller than that of the U.S. and will of course be more efficient as they have less people. Lastly, you mention examples of the lives that could be saved under national health care. The truth I actually the reverse of what you mentioned. More lives would not be saved under national health care because in reality, it leads to longer wait times, and cold potentially deny patients care who truly need it most. So you are absolutely right we can do better, by not allowing national health care.