Resolved: The US should constitute a Single-Payer Health Care System

Thank you 16k for this debate. --------------------Rebuttals---------------------- C1: Medicaid and Medicare: The low reimbursement rates causes medical professionals to decline the patients. [1] With Single-Payer, physician income would stabilize, and raise in some cases, eliminating this problem. [2] Plus, with S.P., a streamlined, electronic confidential system would hugely improve efficiency. The study that you showed, the authors actually admit is pretty flawed. [3] Medicaid patients also have several risks for being at higher mortality, such as low socio-economic status, having poor nutrition, and other health risks. [3] The high commercialization of research is actually beginning to slow research, as well as in areas with high HMO penetration. [2] The National Institutes of Health actually pay for the majority of the research, with drug companies given the rights to sell the product and work on formulation. The reason - your source proves this - of Medicare's drug shortages is because of price caps. C2: Doctor "Shortages": With S.P. in the USA, doctor pay would most likely stabilize. If S.P. payed doctors per fee, doctors would actually get a pay increase - because S.P. would allow much more time to visit with patients because of a much more efficient system. [2] In fact, S.P. has been well received by doctors, as their pay remains high. [4] [5] About your link that many doctors would quit, the same was expected before Medicare was enacted. Besides, your link is on the A.C.A., not S.Payer. With the new system, many more doctors could be trained, wages could rise, and over 59% of doctors said they would view national health care a positive change, with only 32% opposed. [6] This is because the doctors see the pain that the private for-profit system is doing to their patients, not counting the 45,000 that die a year because of a lack of insurance. [7] C3: The Illogical Rationing Fears: Your same source said that high co-pays also cause patients to not seek treatment and needed care. Our healthcare is already rationed. It is rationed according to wealth; those who have it get it, and the more wealthy, the faster. [8] In Canada and other Single-Payer nations, rationing is public information, which has led to recent falls in waits there. [2] In the USA, 51% of adults skip care due to cost. [9] -----Rationing Isn't Needed Several studies, some by the GAO and the Congressional Budget Office, have both found that we could cover all Americans with the costs currently spent on healthcare, with a surplus available. [10] Including the facts that the USA already has abundant healthcare resources in place, and has enough funding, Dr. Ronald Glasser pointed out: "An axiom of economics holds that nothing can be rationed that is itself not scarce, and, absent evidence of infinite demand and infinite cost, you can't ration healthcare when there are more than enough doctors, hospitals, and high-tech equipment distributed throughout the country to do everything and anything that needs to be done. American healthcare is an unsaturated demand market, and in such markets "rationing" is simply a code word for not spending the money to take care of the poor, uninsured, the underinsured, and the high-risk patient." [12] I will give a similar comparison in a later round on a story on rationing --- U.S. style that is real! Consensus on Rationing: We already do it. With our levels of spending on healthcare, everybody could be covered with comprehensive healthcare, and with our advanced, high levels of medical infrastructure, and with competition and affairs brought back to the doctor and patient, rationing and waiting lists would not be needed. With a smart streamlined, confidential system, overusage would be dealt with between effectively, possibly with co-pays used ethically. C4: De-regulated, "Free Market" ideas: We already spend more than enough to cover all medically necessary services for everybody in the nation. Libertarian proposals do not deal with the problem of the cost of healthcare, which is already unaffordable for the average people, and with no S.P., the problem will only get worse. [2] Plus, Singapore's plan would not be as effective as S.P., and Singapore's plan cannot really be replicated across any other nation. [18] Single Payer Healthcare: --Competition is brought back between patients and doctors. Doctors will be still well paid, and won't have to deal with nearly as much paperwork because of a streamlined, electronic, yet confidential system. Medical professionals still have to be competitive, or else they lose their business to other medical professionals. --Rationing wouldn't occur. The U.S. has enough spending and medical infrastructure to cover all in a fair, ethical, and effective way. Over 60,000 Americans go overseas for medical treatment already. --Innovation in the drug industry would increase, because of a lack of heavy commercialization. --Total costs would decrease, with several medical experts saying the cost of the new patients and other initial transition costs to S.P. would be outweighed by the net savings of S.P. [13] --Out of bankruptcies, 56% of them would be eliminated. [8] --Businesses would be more competitive, with S.P. reducing total costs for business. Our lack of S.P. is one reason that U.S. automakers have lost ground to foreign autoworkers. [8] It modernizes America, while improving the economy. --More physicians could be trained with higher amounts of investment.. Higher reimbursements could improve our medical workforce. -Costs would be better contained effectively. The public sector is actually more efficient with healthcare than the private sector. From 1990-1996, costs in the USA rose higher in healthcare compared to S.P. nations. [14] --Better health care. Nations with S.P. have better health care qualities than private nations. As well as other measures, health, life expectancy, and resources (MRIs, hospital beds, etc) are higher in S.P. nations. [15] [16] --More Patient and Provider Freedom. The private industry actually regulates the medical field more than a S.P. system would in many ways. [17] Also, medical malpractice laws would not harm doctors as much because of the gov't picking up the tab. [17] I have effectively defeated my opponent's arguments.Funding for Single Payer:-Move current costs to program-7% payroll tax for businesses-2% income tax hike (saves money for the vast majority)Healthcare Policy: -Health Planning Board: Composed of representatives of patients and medical policy experts. Decides what to cover based on community needs, and on what new investments should be funded based on need. Sources: [1] http://articles.orlandosentinel.com... [2] http://www.pnhp.org... [3] http://mediamatters.org... [4] http://pnhp.org... [5] http://ajph.aphapublications.org... [6] http://www.reuters.com... [7] http://www.reuters.com... [8] Conrad, Jessamyn. What You Should Know About Politics... But Don't. 1st ed. New York: Hachette Book Group, 2008. 104-124. Print. [9] http://www.pnhp.org... [10] http://www.democracynow.org... Ronald J. Glasser, M.D., "The Doctor Is Not In: On the Managed Failure of Managed Health Care," Harper's, March 1998, p.35 Sherrow, Victoria. Universal Healthcare. 1st ed. New York: Infobase Publishing, 2010. Print. [13] http://library.thinkquest.org... [14] http://economistsview.typepad.com... [15] http://www.photius.com... [16] http://www.amsa.org... [17] http://en.wikipedia.org...