Universal health care

Since my opponent does not define Universal Health Care, I will do so now. Universal Health Care refers to a government run single-payer public health care system. Since this does not actually cover the UK- which my opponent references multiple times, we'll agree for argument's sake that countries with health care systems largely run by the government are close enough for comparison. My opponent makes 3 main points against universal health care which I will refute in turn. 1) My opponent asserts that universal health care is a poor financial choice He opens his argument by throwing a lot of figures out, but doesn't attempt to give context to these figures or tell us what they mean. Unfortunately for him these numbers, almost without exception, are actually fine reasons to implement a universal health care system. As my opponent stated, the US health care system constitutes 17% of GDP- largest percentage in the world- and is considered one of the worst systems among industrialized countries(1)(2). Clearly, what we're doing is not the answer. A universal system would lower costs through a single payer system(3), it would remove the element of high "administrative" costs from insurance companies (which are enormous by international standards) (4), and lower medical costs overall by giving access to preventative care to those that could not normally afford it(5). In fact it is estimated that we could lower the health care costs from the private sector by as much as five times what they are now(4)(6). My opponent makes the assertion that it's the poor's fault that they're poor and that poor and undocumented immigrants don't deserve medical treatment. This is one of the most ignorant statements I've ever seen followed by one of the most callus, but it's a moot point. My opponent doesn't want universal health care because he doesn't want to pay for these people to have medical care, but we already do. In fact, we also pay for the financially stable people my opponent mentioned who are too short sighted to pay for health insurance as well as those that get the "wrong" insurance and don't have necessary procedures covered. As my opponent stated, we don' turn anyone away who needs emergency care- if they're uninsured and can't pay, the hospitals have to cover the costs with other patients and this is reflected in costs of care and insurance premiums for us and our employers (in the area of 1100 annually)(6)(7). The assertion by my opponent that people without insurance simply "rather pay cash" is unsupported and baseless. With universal health care it would create a fair method of payment for all citizens- stopping those who simply don't pay their bills or try to "game the system" (jumping in and out of insurance as needed) from having a financial advantage over those who follow the rules. My opponent finishes his argument by stating that ". .. socialist style health care has been a complete failure everywhere. .. " which is unsupported and blatantly false. Universal health care is utilized in many countries around the world, often with enormous success. In fact, it's been in Germany for over 100 years (8). Even in the UK where the health care system is in trouble, people are clamoring to avoid going to a "US style" health care system (9). 2) My opponent asserts that universal health care would reduce the quality of care. His main evidence is accounts of the UK health care system. While this evidence is largely anecdotal, I do not dispute that the UK system has many problems. However, to assume that the UK problems are due to the universal system is a logical (inductive) fallacy. Wait times are a concern to many opponents and, honestly, supporters of universal health care. This misconception stems from a belief that the US has good wait times- which isn't entirely true. While the US does well with elective surgery and specialist appointments, it is among the worst with appointments with GPs and after hours care(10). Canada and the UK generally don't have very good wait times (though in many fields, still better than the US[10]) but these are not prime examples (although Canada has a quality system, it is not among the better universal systems), and many countries have better wait times with similar systems. Countries with universal and near universal systems like Japan, Germany and Switzerland all have wait times far better than the US almost across the board(9). Another common misconception about universal health care is that the quality of treatment would go down as a result of implementing the system. The fact is that countries with universal systems have longer life expectancy and lower infant mortality rates than the US. Preventative care is much more prevalent in systems that are more concerned with health than money, because there is more profit in providing treatment than providing prevention(4). The idea that universal health care would stop competition makes no sense, because universal care does not automatically make hospitals and doctors' offices government run facilities. The level of competition would not change at all unless a single price was established across the board for procedures- in which case hospitals and doctors would still compete for business. 3) Possibly the most baffling argument against Universal health care is that people would lose control over their care. In fact, you would have much more control over your health care because you would not be hit with "out of network" fees when you went to certain doctors, hospitals or specialists. The only freedom you lose with a universal system is the opportunity to roll the dice and have other people pay for it if your gamble does not pay off (7). Aside from a blanket statement from heritage house, a self styled conservative analyst, my opponent offers no evidence of loss of control. As for the death panel nonsense, this is a complete myth meant simply to raise an uninformed stink about health care reform. I'm out of characters, but I'll try to get to it next round. Until then: (SEE VIDEO) . http://www.youtube.com... And that's why people make fun of Sarah Palin. Even a casual glance at the state of the US's health care system shows that it's not working. The United States is one of the most capitalistic countries in the world, and it's largely worked for us. However, capitalism as a rule values nothing higher than profit, so when it comes to an industry where something more important is at stake, like human lives, letting the market sort things out isn't the best course of action. Through Universal health care we could lower the total percentage of GDP used on health care- improving the health care system and quality of care while lessening the financial burden of the lower and middle class and not affecting the wealthy significantly. It is simply a system that- if implemented correctly- makes a lot of sense, it isn't just a load of empathetic hooey from those damn liberals. (1). http://www.huppi.com... (2). http://www.visualeconomics.com... (3)NPR's oxford style debate (4). http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com... (5). http://www.dhs.state.or.us... (6) . http://content.healthaffairs.org... (7) . http://www.time.com... (8) . http://en.wikipedia.org... (9) Frontline: Sick Around the World (10) . http://getbetterhealth.com...