Universal Health Care

RebuttalGovernment Distoritions in US Health Care SystemMy opponent claims that government interventions have greatly expanded Health Coverage in the US. My opponent, however, is making the mistake of looking at intentions and not the actual effects of the programs. First, my opponent claims that Governmet Programs, like Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and TRI-CARE, have been key in expanding coverage to disadvantaged groups. This certainly was the INTENT of these groups, but the effects have been quite different.The people who are on these programs actually receive very poor Health care Coverage. Internists are 8.5 times more likely to reject Medicaid patients than Private Insurance Patients [1]. Plus, 2/3 of Children on Public Insurance were found to be rejected for Doctors appointments, vs only 11% on Private Insurance [2]. Lastly, a Surgical Outcomes Study from UVA found that people on Medicaid were 13% MORE likely to die in surgery than people WITHOUT Health Insurance at all, and people on Medicaid were 97% more likely to die than people with Private Insurance [3]. These studies show that, despite spending hundreds of Billions of dollars on Public Health Programs, it is not even clear that these patients get better coverage than those without any Health Insurance.Furthermore, my opponent did not even answer my main point that high Health Care costs were the result of various Government Interventions, which they are. This is a key point, as it shows that the private market is not responsible for high Health Care costs.Rationing and Waiting TimesGovernments ration Health Care by limiting individual's use of it. This is basically done through waiting lines. As I showed in my last post, Universal Health Care Systems have high waiting times and low supply of medical technologies. This is classic economics. People demand a good or service (Health Care in this case). When there is high demand for a service, the price goes up. However, if that price is artificially held down, then shortages arise. As prices just reflect the supply and demand of a good or service, shortages arise when there is high demand and low supply for a good or service, but the price is held down.My opponent does not answer this economic issue. Instead, he claims that American shave it worse than those in Universal Health Care systems because, even though Americans have lower waiting times, they have high costs. However, as I explained earlier, these prices are the result of Government distortions and artificial restrictions on Medical Supply. Universal Health Care and Medical InnovationIn my last post, I offered evidence that Universal Health Care reduced medical innovation and, therefore, did not save lives. My opponent claims that Universal Health Care does save lives because countries with Universal Health Care have higher life expectencies than the United States, which does not have Universal Health Care.However, this does not show what my opponent thinks it shows. The United States is the ONLY first world country without Universal Health Care, and the United States also happens to have many more fatal injuries than other countries, which have nothing to do with Health Care. Furthermore, once fatal injuries are taken into account, the US actually has HIGHER life expectancy than other developed countries [4].Universal Health Care and the EconomyMy opponent does not really answer my response from last round. My opponent claimed that Universal Health Care would improve the economy by "putting money in people's pockets". I pointed out that Universal Health Care is funded by taxation, which offsets this effect.Plus, taxation has additional disincentive effects ("supply-side effects"), like reducing investment and hours worked, that hurt economic growth. And, as I showed in my last post, there is a well known growth reducing effect of larger government and higher taxation.Universal Health Care and Medical InnovationMy opponent says that Universal Health Care will not reduce Medical Innovation because Private Insurance will still exist. This is not true, as the Public Sector WILL crowd out the Private Sector because the Public Sector is subsidized by the government and not forced to make a profit. This means that people are already paying for Public Insurance through their taxes, so buying Private Insurance would be the equivalent of paying for insurance twice. Private Insurance would be much like private schools. A privelege that only the wealthy could attain, because it is too expensive for regular people to pay for Insurance through their taxes and then again for Private Insurance.Universal Health Care in AmericaUniversal Health Care would hurt America. It would fail to control costs, it would reduce medical innovation, and it would lead to long waiting lines for Americans. Furthermore, a Universal Health Care system would violently force people to participate in a system that they may not even support. Even if they get Private Insurance, they are forced to pay for the Universal Health Care System through taxation. The solution to the United States's Health Care crisis is to allow individuals to make their own Health Care decisions, free of Government distortions. A command and control, centrally planned Health Care system is not the answer.Sources:[1] http://www.forbes.com...[2] http://www.forbes.com...[3] http://www.nationalreview.com...-[4] http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com...