Resolved: The US should constitute a Single-Payer Health Care System

Government Involvement "In the US private Health care is far more efficient then the governments counter parts." Your source did not say that. It said that when a specific funding mechanism, such as private insurane, entered the free market, the costs increase by large amounts. However, the reason is mainly because of liability laws and thelack of awareness of healthcare prices. [1] With Single-Payer, the government can negotiate lower drug prices. This is why other nation's have lower drug prices. [2] Drug companies are still highly innovative and profitable. [1] Single-Payer would cut administrative costs, and mandate reasonable pricing, and this would result in high savings. With the individual Health Planning Boards, they would determine what technology in and what to cover to reduce costs over the long run and reduce inflation in health care as well. [2] "If small scale government health care is poor why add more?" Public health care is more efficient for several reasons, such as lower costs. Small scale government health care is also better, Medicare patients have rate their health care better than private insurers. [3] Drug Shortages The FDA needs to be better modernized, that is a different concern. Besides, drug shortages aren't that common. You haven't listed any real drug shortages. In America, busloads of seniors commonly cross the border into Canada because of the cheaper prescription medications. In Canada, the pharmaceutical companies price drugs withing standards set by the government. These controls make patented drugs less expensive. [1] The NIH funds many new drugs with federal funds. [1] [2] With more private control of drugs, prices will still skyrocket because of marketing and profit costs. In fact, more of the costs of drugs is from marketing, profits, advertising, etc. than actual research. [2] About doctors in Cuba, they have a weaker medical infrastructure than we do, and have Socialized Med. More Doctors, More Care "So, if these SP had the reforms as you imply they have, then why do they have these problems?" Believe it or not, U.S. access to healthcare is poor relative to other SP nations, INCLUDING Canada. [5] About the people getting care in the USA, most of those people are already traveling in the US for other purposes. [6] With early care available, patients can get care when they need it, not at the last moment. This would actually lead to less clogging than we have now. [7] In SP, reimbursement reform, loan forgiveness, increased funding for medical education, and other reforms, more physicians could be trained. Mostly untried elsewhere. Single-Payer: Government financed health care, including payments and reimbursements. Physicians and medical groups/ professionals can choose to be either public or private. Socialized Medicine: Government financing and delivery of health care. Free Market "Cures" You are saying that the market can effectively resolve the issues of access, cost, and quality problems. However, this doesn't usually benefit the consumer. [8] The market has found to result some advantages for particular groups, such as the insurers, while we have seen the pain. [9] In fact, for-profit ownership of health care organizations provide lower quality care than nonprofit organizations. [10] More are denied care in a market HC system. Rationing "We all get care!" We ration care according to cost. The more you have, the faster and better care you get. Besides, not everybody gets care, 45,000 people a year die to a lack of insurance. [11] Does a visit to an overwhelmed emergency room for a non-serious problem, that puts other people's lives at risk count as sufficient? [9] Does the fact that adults who lack continous health insurance experience a decline in health or functional status than if insured count as "quality" care? [12] Dr. Ronald Glasser, on his comment about rationing pointed out that in the USA: "Nothing can be rationed that is itself not scarce, and, you can't ration healthcare when there are more than enough doctors, hospitals, and high-tech equipment distributed throughout the country to do everything and anything that needs to be done. American healthcare is an unsaturated demand market, and in such markets "rationing" is simply a code word for not spending the money to take care of the poor, uninsured, the underinsured, and the high-risk patient." [3] Even if we did ration, it would be minor, and the concern would be based on necessity, not on shareholder profits. Costs of SP The CBO said that we could save $100-200 billion dollars or more by switching to a SP system, while covering all the uninsured and everybody with comprehensive healthcare (as well as financing the SP plan with the terms I listed earlier). [13] [14] [2] Defending SP Case -- Canada doesn't have Health Planning Boards. HPB are more Democratic. -- With SP, bureaucracy is decreased. A typical HMO has costs of about 15-25% in overhead, while Medicare just has about 3% overhead. [2] [1] SP, with a flexible cap, would be the best solution. [2] Another thing, the administrative size of Canada's SP system is the same as Blue Care Network's administrative size in JUST Massachusetts. [3] Talk about efficiency. Conclusion on SP: Single-Payer systems have better results in healthcare. Efficency is much higher, due to a streamlined, electronic, and confidential system [3], and by having centralized administration. SP would save hundreds of billions, enough to cover the uninsured with comprehensive care, and all Americans would be covered with comprehensive care. [14] [15] With SP, businesses would become more competitive with less healthcare costs. [1] Access to care would be improved. [3] Rationing wouldn't occur, since our medical infrastructure and funding are already high in ranks. [3] More physicians could be trained. [2] Costs would increase at a slower rate, and hospitals would get a global budget to make sure their funding is sure. [14] Plus, medical decisions are left between the doctor and patient. With all of these advantages, SP would be the most Democratic, equal, fair, effective, and efficient choice. If a criminal gets a lawyer, a patient should get a doctor, especially if benefits come from this new system are numerous. VOTE PRO Thanks 16k for this debate. Sources: [1] Conrad, Jessamyn. What You Should Know About Politics... But Don't. 1st ed. New York: Hachette Book Group, 2008. 104-124. Print. [2] http://www.pnhp.org... [3] Sherrow, Victoria. Universal Healthcare. 1st ed. New York: Infobase Publishing, 2010. Print. [4] Marcia Angell, "The Truth About the Drug Companies," New York Review of Books, July 15th, 2004. [5] http://www.pnhp.org... [6] Katz, S. J., et al. Phantoms in the snow: Canadians’ use of health care services in the United States. Health Aff. (Millwood) 21(3): 35–41, 2002. [7] Derlet, R. W. Trends in the use and capacity of California’s emergency departments, 1990–1999. Ann. Emerg. Med. 39: 430, 2002. [8] Schiff, G. D., Bindman, A. B., and Brennan, T. A. A better-quality alternative: Single-payer national health system reform. JAMA 272: 803–808, 1994. [9] http://www.pnhp.org... [10] Himmelstein, D. U., et al., Quality of care in investor-owned vs not-for-profit HMOs. JAMA 282(2): 159–163, 1999. [11] http://www.reuters.com... [12] Baker, D. W., et al. Lack of health insurance and decline in overall health in late middle age. N. Engl. J. Med. 345: 1105, 2001. [13] http://cthealth.server101.com... [14] http://www.nytimes.com... [15] http://economistsview.typepad.com...