Single-payer healthcare is the best, simplest way of providing universal healthcare.

Thanks for the response. You introduced some interesting arguments, not all of which I have heard before. 1. Wait lines for healthcare. This argument seems to me extremely pernicious. These wait lines are a result of increased demand stemming from more people getting treated rather than an inherent flaw in single-payer healthcare. Essentially, this is arguing that we shouldn't have universal health care for people because it will make it more inconvenient for those that already have it. The only viable comparison would be looking at how long people have to wait for treatment for Medicare. There is no physical reason for single payer healthcare to cause longer lines than any other form of universal healthcare- all the doctor has to do is report that more treatment is needed and they will be signed up for it. Just because single-payer systems often occur in a certain way does not mean that they will- and the current private healthcare has much more limited options and discrimination based on age, health, etc. In the single-payer I am advocating for, doctors have control over the healthcare their patients receive and ALL people are included. Drug and health companies are currently able to charge whatever they want because people are going to pay for the treatment they need. They have huge profit margins even beyond research and development. Additionally, universities are the prime arena for research in this country and they will continue to operate unaffected in most ways. 2. Funding crises- it's important to note that the US currently pays well over twice per capita of comparable countries on healthcare. As I mentioned before, the new system will be much more efficient, partly because of administrative costs. Additionally, we will save money because many more people will go to see a primary care doctor on a regular basis, which is much cheaper than going to see a specialist. Currently, many many Americans go to the doctor only after a problem has developed- this leads to not only unnecessary deaths, but unnecessary costs. Demand will expand, but because of the costs of the current system it is likely that much of it can be absorbed by the money we will be saving. This is, of course, theoretical. 3. favoritism/restrictions- This argument seems off to me. In the most common single-payer healthcare schemes currently discussed, the doctor makes the decisions and people have access to the care they need without needing a government official to sign off on it. Hence, there seems little opportunity for political favoritism. Additionally, in this country politically well-connected usually means rich and under any private insurance scheme, the rich would benefit disproportionately- so even if your argument is true, it is still better than what would otherwise be the case. As far as the elderly, I cannot see that situation developing here. Once the country and politicians have accepted that everyone should have healthcare insured by the government, the politically powerful and aware AARP would prevent anything of this sort from happening. 4. Labor strikes and personnel shortages. Don't really understand your point with labor strikes. That could have occurred without being under a single-payer healthcare system and thus seems to be irrelevant to this discussion. As far as personnel shortages, that seems more a problem of a universal healthcare system rather than against single-payer; if everyone's insured demand goes up. Either that, or there's the simple problem of not paying doctor's enough. Under the current system, this is already happening with doctors' pay falling under HMOs. 5. The government need not control what is purchased by doctor's or hospitals. Just as in the current system, each would decide what the most efficient use of their funds is and make the purchases they need. As long as funding is kept the same (or even increased as currently numerous hospitals are closing in the face of rising costs), then there is no reason to see upgrades continue. Each hospital and doctor will still be competing to get their patients. 6.Politicization and lost liberty. That sounds like a litany against the current system where faceless operatives for insurance companies make decisions without seeing the patient and get bonuses based on how many people they refuse care for. Under the system most advocates visualize the doctors have control over care, not government officials. One of your overriding themes is government official interference in decision-making. On the contrary, one of the most appealing facets of a single-payer healthcare system is that choice returns to the doctors and patients rather than having the decision made by a third party. Obviously, some oversight will take place, but this would be in overall evaluations rather than interference in individual cases, and hopefully done by peers rather than government agents. Healthcare is a right, and something that people are willing to pay whatever they need to get. Therefore, the typical market approach CANNOT succeed. In an open market there are ALWAYS losers- people that cannot afford the product as is proven by the vast number of Americans with no insurance or insurance that realistically provides little to no coverage. It is a moral obligation to avoid the situation where people are forced to choose between a healthy life and living saddled with debt that they can never pay back. If you would like to continued this conversation in another debate, I'd be happy to.