National Health Care

Many arguments have been covered in this debate, and I will do my best to both concisely sum them up while not taking up all 8,000 characters allotted. The current health care system in the US is worthy of improvement because it leaves 40 million people without health coverage and millions more underinsured, a I have noted above. While health care is not a right by any means, it IS a service that ought to be provided by the government -to set the standard for minimum health coverage for every American. The French model proves that it can be done, done right, done efficiently, and done effectively. The World Health Organization ranks the French health care system the best in the world, as further proof that quality of health care (rather than declining) will only improve across the board. By implementing a system of universal health care similar to the French model, we do not limit competition -rather we encourage it. Private insurance will still be legal and readily available, but government health insurance will be extended to all -closing the coverage gap permanently while ensuring that all premiums stayed at a competitive market price. Because governmentally provided insurance/health care would set the industry standard, private insurance companies would out of necessity be forced to lower their costs and increase their coverage -as opposed to the current trend of raising costs and depleting coverage (4). Presently we spend more on health care than any other nation in the world on a per capita basis, meaning that the ratio of capital to people is higher here than anywhere else in the world. Population has nothing to do with our ability to extend coverage, if anything it will make us more able to expand the necessary infrastructure to implement such a system. Because we spend so much on health care, all that would really be required to change is to redirect the money. To put this in perspective, if private health insurance providers stopped spending money on advertising and administration they could cover the 40,000,000 people who concurrently lack health insurance (4). The burden of advertising wouldn't be a problem for a government entity. Less waste = more efficient system = better coverage for all. At present, if someone doesn't have health care insurance, they only can receive emergency medical care -care that is often received too little too late. Emergency medical care is, oddly enough, infinitely more expensive than preventative care for reasons that can be attributed to resource demand. As I have mentioned above, prevention is one of the cannons of universal health care -e. g. it is always better to prevent a heart attack than treat it after the fact (for both the system and the patient). No system is perfect, but a dualistic system of national health care where governmentally provided health care and private health care compete is far better than all the alternatives for all the reasons that I have cited, and as the French have proven. The numbers are irrefutable, and have not been refuted in this debate. My opponent has offered neither evidence nor substantiated or qualified rhetoric (that which can be backed up by sources), and this is not a topic that lends itself to rhetorical dialogue alone. I have offered a litany of evidence, all of which is well grounded and I maintain that because of the empirical proof of success offered by the French model that the United States should follow France's lead. It won't be easy, but nothing worth doing is. Accordingly, the evidence and outcome of the debate compel an affirmative ballot.