The USA should establish a Single-Payer Health Care System

Thanks for the debate Contra. == Smart Cards == Face it, these are just not going to happen in the US, for the same reason a national ID card didn't happen: the ACLU and other privacy groups completely oppose a government database that can track us. Groups have expressed concerns that a national health database could be used for employment discrimination (against sick people). Regardless, the smart cards in Taiwan didn't stop overutilization of health care given the evidence I cited that they are nearing bankruptcy and are being forced to borrow from private banks to prop up their single-payer system. == Private is better than public == My opponent cites a 2002 study showing that slightly more Medicare recipients were satisfied with their health care. Firstly, it is noteworthy that the same study found much lower rates of satisfaction with Medicaid compared to private insurance. [1] Given that Medicare for all would be unaffordable, single payer in the US seems more likely to resemble Medicaid. Secondly, this study was conducted a decade ago. It even found that there was worry among those surveyed that benefits would be cut in the future – which is precisely what has and will happen. My opponent never answers the evidence that the government cut reimbursement rates by 21% recently, leading to a projected 34% of all doctors and 62% of all primary care physicians refusing to take Medicare patients (according to the AMA). Price controls have recently caused massive shortages in 178 drugs for Medicare patients. And regardless, Medicare spending is not sustainable. "By 2020, Medicare deficits will claim one in every five federal tax dollars that are not already dedicated to Medicare and Social Security." [2] This means that Medicare alone will take up 40% of our federal budget by 2020 since 20% of the budget already goes to Medicare/Medicaid. If we gave Medicare to everyone, the system would bankrupt us pretty quickly. The only reason Medicare works now is the many (labor force participants) pay for the few (retired people). If the many pay for the many, the system wouldn't work. It's far too expensive. Obama's health care reform ensures that people will no longer be uninsured by providing government subsidies and state insurance pools to help people afford *private* insurance. This private sector solution is preferable. == Drug innovation == While Canada may have been one of the first countries to switch to laparoscopic gallbladder removal, laparoscopic surgery was first patented in 1972 in the United States and the first laparoscopic surgery equipment was made by Ven Instruments in Buffalo, New York. [3] While I don't doubt that doctors in public research institutions will find new surgical techniques, I do doubt that drug companies will continue investing billions of dollars in drug research when government price controls ensure that those investments will not pay dividends. That's why a study found that countries with single payer price controls lose $22 billion per year in research from their pharmaceutical industries resulting in 13 fewer drugs being invented each year. According to Professor Robert Barro of Harvard University, price controls in Canada mean that Canada utterly relies on the US pharmaceutical industry to invent new drugs for it. [4] If we adopt single payer as well, new drugs will be invented at a snail's pace. == Funding == Auto workers in the US have amazing health insurance; that says more about the strength of their unions (and the lack of unions in Japan) than about public vs. private insurance. My opponent never proves that a 7% tax on employers is sufficient to cover the cost of insuring everyone. Employers only pay about 7.5% now for private health insurance. [5] People in France pay 20% of their incomes for their health care system and a projection for the US found that the average family needs to pay $14,000 per year in taxes to support a single-payer system. People would also be really angry to lose their employer-provided private insurance. In France, their health care is ranked #1 because people still receive supplementary private insurance through their employers to cover everything that the government refuses to provide. == Preventative care == My opponent drops the CBO analysis that preventative care will raise – not lower – costs as many healthy people start overusing it. == Other nations are better == My opponent drops the Forbes analysis that life expectancy, which includes car accidents, homicides, obesity, etc, is not a good measure of the quality of a health care system. If you measure from the point of intervention (once people get sick), the US ranks #1 on five year survival rates. == Medicare bureaucracy == Paul Krugman, who writes his opinions in an op-ed for the New York Times on a range of issues on which he is not qualified to speak, is merely referencing the flawed statistics my opponent already cited. Krugman has been in hot water before for using flawed statistics in his op-ed. The Heritage Foundation found that Medicare has nearly 50% higher administrative costs than private insurance on a per person basis. Doctors agree that Medicare bureaucracy is overly burdensome, which is one of the top reasons they are dropping Medicare patients (second only to the abysmally low reimbursement rates). In contrast, private insurance overhead will only go down now that Obama has mandated that 85% of insurance money go to medical care. == Doctors would quit == My opponent has no response to the poll showing that 20% of doctors would quit under single payer due to low pay. It doesn't matter if some doctors would be happier, 20% would quit. This would lead to serious quality of care issues. Plus, more than 20% of potential medical students would instead seek other professions. Doctors in France earn two thirds less than those in the US. Average pay obviously determines the number of students in a particular field. At best, the number of MD students doesn't decline, but the quality of students becomes atrocious. My opponent concedes that France has severe shortages in doctors in 19 of 22 regions of their country. == Wait lists == This is an easy win for me. My opponent's only response in the last round is to cite some random guy in Canada who thinks there are no wait lists. I cited studies showing: 50% of people in Sweden wait more than 3 months for surgery; 21% of cancer patients in England die while on the wait list, which is why the WHO calls England a deliverer of "third world cancer care"; only half of ER patients in Canada are treated in a timely manner, according to international medical standards; in Canada, the wait time for emergency heart surgery is 65 days and for breast cancer treatment is 168 days. In such a world, it's pretty easy for the US to be ranked #1 in 5 year survival rates for cancer. In addition, I cite evidence from Canada and Japan showing that the rich and well-connected can jump the wait list. I cite evidence that the poor in Canada have worse health outcomes than the poor in the US. And I cite evidence that the health of the poor in England has not improved since they implemented single-payer insurance in 1948. Access to a wait list is not access to health care. == Death Panels == The government often doesn't cover many treatments people need, which is why people in France all buy supplementary private insurance (in addition to paying 20% of their incomes for government insurance). == Conclusion == Single payer means you would have to pay $14,000 a year for access to a government wait list. If you needed care, you would likely die waiting. Government price controls would mean that all the new cancer drugs being invented currently in the US would not be invented and that there would be shortages in generic drugs as well. We would lose a substantial number of our doctors and the best and brightest would start choosing other professions. The poor would not be any better off, empirically. The rich are stuck paying for government insurance they don't want and would need to continue buying private insurance. More health care spending would go to government bureaucracy rather than to medical treatments. In fact, 25 cents of every dollar now spent on private medical care would instead go to government bureaucracy (50% higher bureaucratic costs). Under current entitlements, the government will already consume 60 cents of every dollar produced in the US by 2050. [6] With France as our guide, adding free health care for all would mean that government spending in 2050 will be at 100% of GDP. Single payer will not only bankrupt our nation, but it will quickly topple us from atop our pedestal as the best health care system in the world in regards to 5 year survival rates. Obama's private sector solution for providing universal coverage is clearly preferable. Vote Con. [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] http://www.cato.org...