National Healthcare

Thanks Pro for challenging me to this debate. It is important that issues like this one are discussed so that we can decide the best course of action for our future. I guess I will start with rebuttals, than move forward with my arguments. Rebuttals R1) Economic Benefits? My opponent argues that the economy "would increase by a significant margin, as companies that include health benefits would not have to provide these, due to the government covering that previously". There is a simple economic fallacy here. All economic decisions revolve around the concept of how to manage scarce resources. Regardless of the way how health care is funded, it requires resources. This could be through health care benefits as part of an overall compensation package, or indirectly through higher taxes. However, since consumer driven health care is more efficient, gov't health care will require a higher input of resources, resulting in inefficiency. R2) Quality of Care In a system where there is no competition, there is little to no reason to provide quality care. In the Soviet Union, the hospitals have been noted for their "the filth, odors, [the] cats roaming the halls, drunken medical personnel, and absence of soap and cleaning supplies". In the places you noted Pro, like in Cuba, infants are only counted as infants once they are several months old. [2] In a free market, there is competition. Medical professionals must compete for patients. The profit motive reigns supreme; profits incentivize producers to provide the best service at the most affordable price, and to innovate — so they can maximize their profits. So you can see, both sides benefit from this mutual, voluntary exchange. Rationing Countries with government health care experience rationing and stagnant health care R&D. There are facts to support this assertion: More than 50% of Swedish people have to wait longer than 3 months for surgery. [1] The World Health Organization recently called [England's NHS] a deliverer of 'third world cancer care'. [3] Innovation The United States is a world leader concering the topic of health care innovation and R&D. Due to the high costs of single-payer health insurance, Canada has virtually eliminated spending on R&D. [4] In other words, this results in the loss of 10 to 13 new drug launches per year per country. [5] R3) Morality? "Corporations will deny health care to someone due to their lacking enough money is barbarism." Actually, the denial rate is only about 3%. [6] The framework of our health care system is fundamentally disastrous — we should use health insurance for only catastrophic events, and have people pay for their own general medical care. Arguments C1: The Free Market Alternative Free market health care involves competing businesses. Businesses will compete with each other, and try to keep to keep prices down and their products affordable. They will also come up with innovative solutions and increase the efficiency of their businesses, thus maximizing output, while minimizing input. Where private markets truly have existed in the health care sector, they have succeeded. Lasik eye surgery has one of the highest satisfaction rates of any surgery, and the price has fallen by over $600 when adjusted from inflation (from 1999 - 2010). [7] Cosmetic procedures have rapidly became commonplace, and even before inflation, the cost has declined. [8] With competition, health care providers must provide a high quality product as well. In the USA, we have higher survival rates for cancer. [14] Empirical evidence is on the side of personal responsibility as well. The RAND Health Insurance experiment examined two groups, one that had 95% cost sharing, and another group with "free" health care. The results showed that those with the "free" health care used 40% more health care and were "no healthier" compared to those bearing the full brunt of their health care costs. [9] [10] In other words, consumers can be prudent with their personal health care dollars and live a healthy lifestyle. C2: The Cure for American Health Care I will outline the cure I suggest for our health care malaise. 1. Personal Health Savings Accounts Consumers should pay for their own general health care costs through a personal health savings account. Health savings accounts should be linked to high deductible insurance. We should make all savings accounts, include health savings accounts — tax free. Through competition and personal responsibility, consumers will shop around for the lowest cost health care, which overall in the economy will dramatically lower health care costs, and improve efficiency. 2. Allow Insurance Competition Across State Lines Some states impose many rules, restrictions, and mandates on health insurance. This artificially drives up the cost of health care. For example, the average annual health insurance premium in Iowa is less than a third the cost of health insurance in New Jersey. [11] In the whole country, the red tape of health care restrictions imposes a net harm of $169 billion per year. [12] We should eliminate the red tape, so individuals can find a plan crafted for their needs, and rely on personal HSA's to improve overall market efficiency. 3. Reform Government Programs Medicaid should be transformed into a voucher payment, so that those up to 200% of the poverty line receive subsidies for their personal health savings accounts. Medicare should allow more choice and individual control. Seniors should be able to choose their own health insurance plan. The FDA should focus only on safety evaluations, not efficacy. It should be partially privatized, contracting out some of its operations. This has been tried, and has been a success: "The FDA took up the challenge, embarking upon a two-year pilot program. New Drug Applications were reviewed at the FDA, but also evaluated by the Mitre Corporation, a nonprofit company. For all five applications, the FDA analysts reached the same conclusions as their nongovernmental peers. Significantly though, the Mitre Corporation's reviews cost a fraction of the FDA's and were completed in an amazingly short two to four months." [13] Faster drug approvals = lower pharmaceutical costs. Conclusion America has an economy that's mostly a market economy. A consumer-driven health care market will be focused soley on providing high quality health care at an affordable price to the people. It is basic competition; businesses will compete and try to maximize their efficiency and innovate, so they can increase their profits. Both the consumers and the producers are better off. Individuals also make their choices based on their own unique and personal circumstances. America needs a state of the art, high quality, affordable, and innovative health care system. We can achieve these results by relying on personal responsibility, competition, and free enterprise; which has succeeded in all other areas of our economy. Sources: [1] http://ats.ctsnetjournals.org... [2] hhttp://mises.org... [3] http://www2.uic.edu... [4] http://www.independent.org... [5] http://www.ita.doc.gov... [6] http://www.ama-assn.org... [7] http://www.americanthinker.com... [8] "The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care", By Dr. Gratzer, 94 [9] http://www.hcmsgroup.com... [10] "The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care", By Dr. Gratzer, 70 [11] "The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care", By Dr. Gratzer, 195 [12] http://www.cato.org... [13] "The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care", By Dr. Gratzer, 152-155 [14] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...