privatization of health care in Canada

This round is a very basic outline with relatively few warrants. I will respond to any counter-arguments made against any of the claims I henceforth put forward. There really wasn't an argument made by my opponent, so I'll go ahead and outline a few reasons why it would be advantageous for the Canadian people to replace Medicare with a private hospital system. As CON is the instigator I feel he shares the burden of proof with myself. The sole thesis is: that Canada would be better off with a free-market based system of healthcare. There are a few main reasons that a free-market system is preferable. This is NOT the US system; it is something entirely different. No Medicare. Just business. Such a healthcare system would present three distinct advantages over the current Canadian system. Healthcare is not a special economy. It is the same as buying food, water, or housing. James C. Robinson [*] writes: The most pernicious doctrine in health services research, the greatest impediment to clear thought and successful action, is that health care is different. . . . To some within the health care community, the uniqueness doctrine is self-evident and needs no justification. After all, health care is essential to health. That food and shelter are even more vital and seem to be produced without professional licensure, nonprofit organization, compulsory insurance, class action lawsuits, and 133,000 pages of regulatory prescription in theFederal Registerdoes not shake the faith of the orthodox. . . . The uniqueness doctrine hence proves too much. Since healthcare is just like any other business, it follows that it would function the best under a free-market format with limited intervention, like all businesses. My opponent must prove, then, why 1) healthcare is a different economic plane than, say, buying groceries and 2) why this means socialized healthcare is preferable. Wait Times A major problem with Canadian healthcare is wait times. Wait times cost the Canadian Health system over 14.5 billion CDN$ per year [1]. Wait times can be very ugly. 57% of Canadians reported waiting 30 days for a specialist. [2] These wait times can be extremely costly, to the tune of 14.5 CDN$+ [3] is the flight of doctors. Source 1 explains that a major factor in wait times is the lack of doctors in Canada that can keep up with the massive influx of patients. A large portion of Canadian doctors move to the United States [4]. A free-market system would solve wait times. The law of supply and demand states simply that when people have more demand for a service (ie, healthcare) there will be an increase in supply. Free Market AdvantagesExtensive government regulation in healthcare destroys competition, which keeps prices lowEven in nations whose health care system isn't totally free-market (for instance, the US), there is a huge range of medical advances as scientific discoveries as a direct result of private funding. This is one of the many reasons a true free market system (Something not like that in the US) is preferable. According to Hans-Hermann Hoppe [5] via [6], advantages include the following list. While writing specifically about the US, the principles do not apply to Canada, which has similar federal agencies to deal with medical doctors, etc. I contend that all the claims made in the following list are true, and I will defend them should be opponent challenge them. The Advantages are: 1. [Elimination of] all licensing requirements for medical schools, hospitals, pharmacies, and medical doctors and other health care personnel. Their supply would almost instantly increase, prices would fall, and a greater variety of health care services would appear on the market.2. [Elimination of] all government restrictions on the production and sale of pharmaceutical products and medical devices. This means no more Food and Drug Administration, which presently hinders innovation and increases costs.3. [Deregulation of] the health insurance industry. Private enterprise can offer insurance against events over whose outcome the insured possesses no control. One cannot insure oneself against suicide or bankruptcy, for example, because it is in one's own hands to bring these events about.4. [Elimination of] all subsidies to the sick or unhealthy. Subsidies create more of whatever is being subsidized. Subsidies for the ill and diseased breed illness and disease, and promote carelessness, indigence, and dependency. If we eliminate them, we would strengthen the will to live healthy lives and to work for a living. In the first instance, that means abolishing Medicare and Medicaid. All of these advantages are hindered by Canada's healthcare system. Getting rid of Medicare would save Canadians thousands of dollars per year (Up to 6000 in 2009 [7]) in tax dollars, taxes that could be spent on their own needs and budgeted freely. Even in semi-free market systems, this translates to more individual freedom - whether the chosen treatment be traditional or mystic. I again apologize for the poor development of this case and will definitely make sure to rectify it next round. Thanks! [*] The End of Asymmetric Information Robinson, James C. (James Claude), 1953- Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, Volume 26, Number 5, October 2001, pp. 1045-1053 (Article)[1] . http://www.ctv.ca... Four-Step Health-Care Solution" [2] Commonwealth Fund, "Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: An International update on the comparative performance of American health care", Karen Davis et al. , M[3] . http://www.ctv.ca...[4] . http://www.aafp.org...[5] Hans-Herman Hoppe, Ph. D Equivalent in Economics & Sociology; Professor Emiritus of Economics at University of Nevada-Las Vegas in the Mises Institute's "Free Market" journal. [6] . http://mises.org...[7] . http://www.cbc.ca...