My 101st Debate: Universal Health Care

Thanks, Uchiha! Since it seems we're leaving the framework debate until next cycle, I will just defend my case at this time.SAVING LIVESCon writes that all societies have people who suffer, and so UHC's "success depends on whether or not implementing UHC has a significantly beneficial effect on society's impoverished people." Let's put this statement into perspective using an example. Country A and Country B each have 1,000 people. Country A has 2 poor people, whereas Country B has 500 poor people. In Country A, a program has "a significantly beneficial effect on [its] impoverished people" if it lifts just one person out of poverty. Whereas, in Country B, a significant impact might be lifting 100 people out of poverty. Thus, the way Con has explained it, UHC must be examined relative to each country. I disagree with Con's approach on the level that producing any net benefit is good--it is logically fallacious to pass up on a good policy just because it isn't good enough, and, after all, a just society would want to produce good for its citizenry--better to produce some good vice none at all.Since I didn't use intuition as an argument, but rather as a rhetorical device to transition from ideas, I don't see why Con bothered to even mention it. What is important is my MA example:1. Con writes that normal fluctuations range between .5 and 1%. In other words, Con admits that a 2.6% drop is not normal, implying that it is not a natural or un-induced fluctuation.2. It's true that correlation doesn't prove causation, but effects and causes necessarily correlate. Therefore demonstrating correlation is helpful in determining cause.3. Strong circumstantial evidence points to UHC being the cause. "The researchers found that the state's mortality rate decreased starting in 2006, after the implementation of the new system. The change was more pronounced in lower-income counties, which saw a 3 per cent drop in the death rate compared with just 1.8 per cent for high-income counties. Deaths among people with conditions that would be expected to improve through access to healthcare, such as cancer, heart disease and infectious disease, also dropped by 4.5 per cent." The dip in the death rate began in tandem with UHC, and the death rate fell among those groups who would logically benefit most from UHC.4. The overwhelming nature of the correlations gives weight to the idea of a strong link between UHC and better care. Not just in MA, but also the fact that 40 of the top 50 (80%) best healthcare systems worldwide are UHC systems lends credence to the assertion that UHC does improve health outcomes for a given population.Next Con says that my statistics "aren't scary," and that "88 percent of Americans already have health insurance." Let's discuss this:1. My data notes that, prior to Obamacare, anywhere from 41 to 50 million Americans lacked insurance. [1, 2, 3] That's about 12-16% of Americans, consistent with Con's source. Con seems to dismiss these people because most people are covered, but even if 12% of those are only uninsured temporarily, that is still 36-45 million Americans who are chronically uninsured (but even people temporarily uninsured are vulnerable to illness during their period without coverage, so it's not fair to exclude them). Moreover, under Con's libertarian paradigm, Medicare and Medicaid would have to be curtailed. 1 in 10 recipients of Medicare are solely insured by Medicare, meaning that an additional 4.4 million people would be uninsured in Con's world--these are elderly or disabled Americans (groups highly vulnerable to a dearth of coverage). [4] It is logical to assume many more people rely heavily on Medicare and Medicaid, and could not meet their medical expenses without these programs. So, Con is, in effect, proposing that we hang 45.4 to 54.4 million Americans out to dry. That's definitely scary; remember, the U.S. government has a duty to all of its people, and if it can produce a net benefit by reducing death rates and promoting access healthcare services among these millions of Americans, it ought to do so. Con's world, on the other hand, would actually increase uninsurance, thereby promoting death, disease, and suffering--not exactly what comes to mind when we think of a "just society."2. Con next posits the argument of overuse. There are several issues with Con's analysis here. Firstly, Con's own source notes that free healthcare had demonstrable benefits, and that "these benefits appeared to be greater among the poor." Turn Con's argument on him: since this analysis was experimental, it does show causation, and totally defeats Con's earlier arguments about how I failed to show causation. Secondly, Con's source is old (1984). So, if none of my arguments regarding how it should be interpreted stand, we should still take this older data with a grain of salt. Thirdly, Con never quantifies the harms of overuse--again, I consistently explain the concrete impacts of many of my arguments. We need to prefer concrete impacts over nebulous harms when weighing arguments. Fourthly, Con's source agrees that free healthcare had positive impacts for target groups (e.g. the poor), undermining Con's claim that overuse harms care quality. Fifthly, even if you buy into Con's argument, my cases' statement re: ER's negates the impacts of Con's argument. If the needy don't have access to free regular care, they will instead resort to ER care, which actually would cost the system more than free regular care. THE ECONOMY1. This is essentially Con reiterating his efficacy arguments, which I have already thoroughly refuted. There are some key things to call to attention here. Notice, first of all, that Con never disputes that the issues I raise (e.g. absenteeism) are harms--by "harms" I mean things that we should avoid or work to prevent. Then, Con never disputes that these issues can be traced back to uninsurance--he disputes UHC's ability to solve them, but not wherefrom the problems are coming. Basically, Con drops that uninsurance produces myriad harms that need to be addressed. All I need to do is show that I can solve these problems, which I already did, and this contention flows firmly Pro. Con also drops all the individual harms I name, and so, since he cannot address them next round or last round (as that would constitute making new arguments), he cannot rebut them at any other point during this debate; extend them as clean offense for Pro.2(a). Firstly I am not ignoring the fact that UHC costs money, as Con falsely charges me of doing. In fact, the $1 trillion number I cite comes AFTER factoring in those costs. It is a NET savings of $1 trillion, so yes, it does fully reimburse the government, and then adds an extra $1 trillion on top of that number. Secondly, please also note that according to Con's Forbes source, Obamacare actually cause healthcare spending by private individuals which boosted the economy. Moreover, Forbes never recommend scrapping the program, but rather amending it, which implies that healthcare-increasing legislation is not bad in itself, when it is carefully crafted.2(b). Next, Con states that France spends roughly 40% of its GDP on healthcare, and he cites businessweek as his source for this. I went to that link, and did a Ctrl+F search of the article, and couldn't find a single statement to support the claim Con made. In fact, what I did find was this direct quote from the article: "And France spends just 10.7% of its gross domestic product on health care, while the U.S. lays out 16%, more than any other nation." Con's claim is not only blatantly wrong, but his cited source doesn't support his assertion and it makes me worry about where he got his actual figure. I hope it was just a mishap on his part. Moreover, his source CONFIRMS my earlier findings. I wrote earlier: "In fact, no country spends more on healthcare as a percentage of their GDP than the U.S., and so UHC countries...spend the least on their healthcare programs...So, it seems that UHC actually would reduce healthcare costs." Con's source just supports my point. 2(c). The French system, which Con describes as an archetypical UHC system, is actually quite effective. For instance: "the French system may have something to teach the US. Findings published by US journal Health Affairs in 2008, found that...France had the lowest rate of mortality amenable to health care--that is, the lowest death rate from ailments that could probably have been prevented by proper healthcare--of 19 developed countries. The US, on the other hand, came 19th.” [5]3. A healthy economy produces a better tax base for governments to access, which in turn alleviates many issues governments may have. Surely, higher taxes on a richer population just cancels out, and cannot reasonably be construed as a net harm, as Con attempts to present it as. Moreover, that $1 trillion number is also money saved by governments, not just companies and individual persons. CONCLUSIONMany of Con's sources in fact support my case--from noting that, as long as we're careful about it, increasing insurance isn't bad; to positing that the U.S. actually has the highest healthcare spending by any nation as a portion of its GDP; to observing that UHC actually does cause benefits. Given the positive economic, social, and health outcomes I have outline and described thus far in the debate, it seems to me that any just society ought to institute some form of UHC program. The topic is resoundingly affirmed.SOURCES1 - http://www.pbs.org...2 - http://www.huffingtonpost.com...3 - http://kff.org...4 - http://assets.aarp.org...5 - http://www.businessinsider.com...