The USA should establish a Single-Payer Health Care System

Overutilization and Smart Cards Your source specifically said in the first paragraph that when co-pays were high, "appropriate or needed" medical care as well as "inappropriate or unnecessary" medical care were reduced." A Smart Card, when used such as in Taiwan, hugely improves efficiency. Their administration costs are only about 2%. More Taiwanese are satisfied with their system than Americans as well, and they don't have waiting lists, like the USA won't need to have either. [1] --------------------Conclusion on Overutilization and Co-Pays Single-Payer would improve care, and also because with no insurance middle-man, the doctors and the patients deal with the problems without be denied coverage, high costs, or waiting for a referral. The evidence is no longer debatable; NATIONS WITH SINGLE-PAYER SYSTEMS HAVE BETTER CARE, COSTS, AND COVERAGE. With low co-pays that are based on income, and with a Smart Card, and because of our medical establishment, waiting lists would be minor or nonexistent. Overutilization would not be a problem because it would be swiftly dealt with. "Private Care is better than Public" With Medicare, patients show higher levels of satisfaction with their coverage and access to care COMPARED TO private insurance. They were more likely to rate their insurance as "excellent" and were less likely to report negative experiences with their plan. [2] Private health insurance has to pay for profits, and has to deny coverage to make up profits for the company. Millions are denied coverage. Plus, in our current system, 45,000 people a year die to a lack of insurance. This is the worse than a 9/11 attack a month. [8] Just because a hospital is required to let your use the emergency room doesn't mean that you will live. About Physicians and Technology Plus, 59% of physicians supported a Single-Payer healthcare plan. Single-Payer would increase the amount of physicians because of training, and because of stable wages at the same rate as now. Currently, they are declining. Health Planning Board [3] Full explanation on the Health Planning Board: A health planning board would be a public body with representatives of patients and medical experts. The representatives would decide on what treatments, medications and services should be covered, based on community needs and medical science, and allocate capital for major new investments based on assessments of where need is greatest. All medically necessary care would be funded through the single payer, including rehab, dental, etc. Drug Innovation Much medical research is ALREADY publicly funded under the N.I.H. In fact, usually the drug companies produce the marketing and advertising products, not the drug itself. [4] [3] Medical research doesn't disappear under universal health care system. Many famous discoveries have been made in countries with national health care systems. Laparoscopic gallbladder removal was pioneered in Canada. The CT scan was invented in England. The treatment for juvenile diabetes by transplanting pancreatic cells was developed in Canada. [4] Funding ----Businesses The 7% payroll tax would not be crippling. It also replaces all other employer expenses for employees’ health care, which would be eliminated. Plus, it would be a boon for business. In R2, I gave an example of Japan and the USA with auto manufacturers. In the USA, healthcare (private) adds $1500 to the price of a car. In Japan, it is just $500. So, Single-Payer healthcare would help businesses, and the whole economy. [5] --------Adjusting to New, Modern, World-Class (not 3rd world) Healthcare After the transition to public care, the unneeded workers could be protected while be retrained in new jobs. Total Costs People will seek care earlier when chronic diseases such as hypertension are more treatable. Both the uninsured and many of those with skimpy private coverage delay care because they are afraid of health care bills. This will be eliminated under such a system. All of these new costs to cover the uninsured and improve coverage for the insured will be fully offset by administrative savings, profits, and other costs now unneeded. [3] With appropriate investments in expensive, high-tech equipment and care, negotiating fees and budgets with doctors, hospitals, and drug companies, and setting a generous but finite budget on healthcare will be the best way to contain costs. We have the largest economy in the world. Nations that are smaller than us in economic ways still have better healthcare systems. This PROVES that the USA can do this. USA Healthcare "Quality" [6] Hospital Spending is 60% higher than other relatively expensive nations. Drug and medical goods here are also much more expensive, the same as administration costs (2.5 times higher there average). We also have high rates of avoidable hospital admissions for people with asthma, lung disease, diabetes, hypertension, and other common diseases. With life expectancy, we are 28th, right behind Chile. Total quality is at 37th, and our spending is 1#. This is a sign of massive failure. Medicare bureaucracy Plus Con, Paul Krugman, a famous economist and Nobel Prize winner, called the Single-Payer system, "good economics", and wrote, "The great advantage of universal, government-provided health insurance is lower costs... Medicare has much lower administrative costs than private insurance." Krugman also has pointed out that the savings of single-payer would be "far more than the cost of covering all those now uninsured." [9] Private bureaucracy literally dwarfes the size of Single-Payer bureaucracy. [4] Conclusions: Time to Choose Unlike now, under a Single-Payer system, physician income would stabilize, and their number would increase. Single Payer is popular among physicians. Rationing, which already exists in the USA based on wealth, would be gone or very minor, as I said in R3. Overutilization wouldn't occur in a sleek, super efficient Smart Card system and fair co-pays. Administration costs would hugely plummet. Plus, many of my opponent's arguments are based on Socialized Medicine in the U.K., not always Single-Payer. Here is a quote from somebody in Canada on California's Single-Payer proposal: "I live in Canada and we don't have a bunch of people here dying while waiting for healthcare. I don't know where you get this info??? No long wait times either... If you need to see a specialist you may have a wait (if not an emergency) regular doctors appts like checkups you book ahead of time. There is always a doctor on call at local clinics or hospital for any sudden illness or emergency." [7] Care will be dealt between the doctor and patient in a private way, and the government would provide sleek, efficient coverage and payments. It is your choice: our fragmented system on life support, or a 21st century system of Single-Payer healthcare that is state-of-the-art. Sources: [1] http://www.npr.org... [2] Karen Davis, et al., "Medicare vs Private Insurance: Rhetoric and Reality," Commonwealth Fund, October 1, 2002, http://www.commonwealthfund.org... [3] Conrad, Jessamyn. What You Should Know About Politics... But Don't. 1st ed. New York: Hachette Book Group, 2008. p. 118 [4] http://www.pnhp.org... [5] Conrad, Jessamyn. What You Should Know About Politics... But Don't. 1st ed. New York: Hachette Book Group, 2008. p. 123 [6] http://michaelmoore.com... [7] http://www.facebook.com... [8] http://articles.cnn.com... [9] http://www.nytimes.com... ***********Photos from book "Universal Healthcare: Point/Counterpoint" 2010. By Victoria Sherrow*************