Universal Health Care Would be Beneficial to the U.S.

Universal Healthcare *Note: The correct link for Source 4, Round 3 is in the comments section. My Refutations Fragility of US Economy The article that I sourced had a bar graph with a X and Y axis pictured here: The Y axis represents the health spending per capita (people), and the X axis represents the percentage of each government's health care spending of their GDP. Therefore the source makes two claims; the US government and its citizens are paying significantly more on healthcare than most countries. Con also claims that by 2015, only 7.4% of GDP will be spent on health care, however, this doesn't make any sense. The Health and Human Services Department projects that the health share of GDP will rise to about 19.5% in 2017, which makes sense considering that the US currently spends 17.7% of GDP on healthcare. Wouldn't you agree that it's unreasonable for GDP spending on health care to be cut by 41% in the year 2015? This is unheard of, and I feel Con's statistic is highly flawed.[1][2]Con: "Pro wants us to reduce what we spend on healthcare so we can spend more on healthcare"That's not at all what I'm saying, again, look at the chart. All of the countries on that chart except for the US have UHC. My point is that most countries with UHC spend nearly half as much on health care on GDP compared to the US. UHC saves the stress of the US having to deal with the insured population and could help reduce pharmaceutical prices to European levels (116 billion).Con: "So, basically, under Pro's world, we're going to be stuck with massive debt up to and beyond 2024"Again, the savings would offset the costs of implementing it. Since Con keeps on mentioning the word fiscal, I'll give him a fiscal study. The Lewin Group in 2012 found that a single payer health care system would reduce health care spendingin Minnesota by 4.1 billion, and this is just one city! According to previously cited Economist Gerald Friedman, Ph.D., University of Massachusetts, Amherst, UHC would save the US 592 billion annually.[3][4]Con: "Finally, Pro never contests that the U.S. economy is in a fragile position; his arguments are just that UHC doesn't make it worse."Acutally, UHC would make it slightly better due to savings the US government would have. Con's mentality is that if it doesn't completely solve the U.S. debt problem, we shouldn't implement it. But yet again, the U.S. has nothing to lose when it comes to implementing a system that saves U.S. government spending (see chart). CoercionCon: "But, to use Obamacare as an example, it forces insurers to cover abortions, which is a values-imposition"See R1 rules; "any argument involving Obamacare will be dismissed as irrelevant." This debate is about the effects of implementation of UHC in the U.S. and its benefits to the country. Even if citizens don't approve of all health packages, an overwhelming amount of citizens are satisfied with UHC.My Final ArgumentsSocial BenefitsMy opponent points out that 3 of the top 10 health care systems in the world have UHC, but this statistic is a non-sequitur in claiming that non-UHC systems are better than UHC systems. The top health care system in the world, France, has UHC along with 6 others in the top 10. Therefore, 7 of the top 10 health care systems in the world haveUHC. Therefore, on average, countries with UHC have a better health care system.Approval RatesOut of 21 European countries countries polled in 2003 by the World Health Organization, 7 of the top 10 most satisfied countries had UHC, which means that on average, European countries are more satisfied with UHC.[5]As previously stated, Canada has an 81% approval rate which is the most similar to the US.[6] Countries that are more satisfied with their government policies, are overall more politically stable.The ratio of Americans who want UHC compared to those who don't is a ratio of 2:1 according to a Washington Post Poll which goes uncontested by Con.[7]LongevityThere is a correlation between countries that have UHC and overall life expectancy, with 12 out of the top 15 countries for life expectancy having UHC. This includes Japan which has an overall life expectancy of 86.5 years for the average person.[8]Mortality RatesNearly 45 000 Americans die each year because of a lack of medical service, according to Harvard Medical School Researchers. Because of a lack of health insurance, the U.S. is losing more Americans every day than drunk driving and homocide combined. With Universal Health Care every single one of these people would likely live if they had proper health insurance.[9]Imagine you're in a poor family, and your mom has had a heart attack. You and your family rush her to the hospital but they cannot operate on her because none of your family is insured. She dies the next day.... If UHC was implemented, your mom would probably still be alive today because every single man, woman, and child is provided with basic health care under UHC.Economic BenefitsCompanies of all kind would save a significant amount of money each year if UHC was implmented. Car manufacturers like GM, Chrysler, and Ford spent 9 billion dollars in total on health care for their employees in 2009. If the US had UHC, it would lead to employees being covered through taxes that citizens would pay. Therefore, employers and employees are both benefited.[10]Elimination of most bankruptciesMedical bills are by far the biggest cause of US bankruptcies which will affect approximately 2 million Americans this year. Moreover, 56 million American adults will be faced with high health-care related bills this year. On top of that, 10 million adults with yearly health insurance will have medicals bills that are too high for them to afford. Here's another chart to give you an idea on who it effects[11]: [11]With UHC, medical bankruptcies will be a thing of the past. Common MisconceptionsLong Wait TimesCon criticizes Canada for having long wait times but this is just one country. But even then, long wait times aren't necessarily bad as I've previously stated. In the Canadian province of BC, surgeon Dr. Lawrence Burr stated that 15 heart patients died in 1990 due to being on the waiting list for the heart surgey. On the contrary, the senopr medical consultant to the Ministry's hear program concluded that the number of fatalities would be 22 if the patients were to have been fast tracked into heart surgery, due to the surgery mortality rate of that time.[12] Although Candian patients experience long wait times, at least 45, 000 people's lives are saved since every citizen is guarenteed basic health care. If we're going to criticize any health care system in the world for being ineffecient, it's the US health care system.Conclusion1. Con concedes that less people would die every year with UHC.2. He also concedes the fact that UHC would solve most US Bankruptcies, and would save a significant amount of money for employers.3. Con concedes countries that have UHC are overwhelming satisfied with the system, and that the majority of Americans want UHC.4. Con's sources are disorganized which makes his case less legitimate.5. Con concedes that implementing UHC wouldn't result in higher public debt for the U.S. government.For all these reasons, please vote Pro. Thanks for a great debate bsh1!Sources:1.http://www.theatlantic.com...;2.National Health Expenditure Data: NHE Fact Sheet," Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services3.http://www.pnhp.org... 2013: Economist Gerald Friedman, Ph.D., University of Massachusetts, Amherst4.http://www.pnhp.org... Minnesota, 20125.http://www.who.int...6.http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca...;7.http://abcnews.go.com...;8.http://en.wikipedia.org...9.http://www.reuters.com...10.http://www.huffingtonpost.com...;11.http://www.cnbc.com...12.Schmitz, Anthony (January–February 1991). "Health Assurance". In Health 5 (1). pp. 39–47.