args

The USA should establish a Single-Payer Health Care System

Before I start this debate, I will say that I defend the resolution, while Con defends a private health care system. I request that in the last round, Con doesn't add any new arguments. I will do my best to win this debate. Single-Payer Health Care System in USA would: Restore true competition to medical providers Increase innovation Be More Efficient Decrease total costs Coverage of all citizens Improve quality of care Improve national economy C1: Restore true competition to medical providers There are two different areas where competition exists in healthcare, 1) payers, and 2) providers. With private insurance payers, there are a lack of choices for the consumers. The reason is to make the insurance company gain a profit. It gives too much power to the administrators instead of the actual medical experts. It is offensive to medical experts as well, as well as the people who have their loved ones die because of these choices. In a Single-Payer system, people can go to any provider of health care in the nation. It would be much more efficient. Medical decisions are left to the patient and doctor, as it should be. It is also Capitalistic, because medical professionals would be still forced to make good decisions in health treatment, or else they will lose patients. Health providers get profits still in a Single-Payer system, and doctors still are well paid. Therefore, Single-Payer would restore true healthy competition to medical providers. [1] [2] C2: Increase Innovation Currently under HMO/ insurance payer system, grants payed towards medical research and reduced, and with much higher costs in the private system, innovation is less than what is would be in a Single Payer system. Plus, with the commericialization of research, innovation is stifled. With little to no commercialization of research, and with much more funding, as well as more research, a Single Payer system would increase innovation in healthcare. [3] C3: Be More Efficient The United States has the most bureaucratic health care system in the world. Over 31% of every health care dollar goes to paperwork, overhead, CEO salaries, profits, etc. Because the U.S. does not have a unified system that serves everyone, and instead has thousands of different insurance plans, each with its own marketing, paperwork, enrollment, premiums, and rules and regulations, our insurance system is both extremely complex and fragmented. [3] Typical HMO's have about 15-25% of total costs directed just to administrative costs. Medicare, a form of a single-payer healthcare system for the elderly, costs about 3-6 percent in total administrative costs. [3] [5] With a larger economy of scale, costs would be even lower for administrative costs. Plus, with a single-payer system, health records are much more streamlined, and would make shuffling paperwork unnecessary since records can be recorded in a electronic way. With much more electronic, streamlined recording, much less spending on paper-shuffling and much less spending on administrative costs, and by lowering bureaucracy, a Single-Payer healthcare system would be much more efficient, modern, would be more affordable, and cover all fairly and effectively. C4: Decrease Total Costs With a Single-Payer system, everybody is covered with high quality insurance. Experts have said that the USA could cover all medically indicated care for all citizens without additional expenditures, because current insurance premiums, as well as administrative costs, could be shifted to care instead. [5] [6] 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." [7] [5] The gov't of Colorado hired the Lewin Group Technical Assessment to analyze how well several different health-care proposals might work for the state, and the result from the group was that the "single-payer plan was the only one that would achieve universal coverage and also save money - about $1.4 billion a year. " [8] [5] The government will also not need to pay for profits, marketing, shuffling paperwork, higher adminstrative costs, etc. Plus, with more directed funding, the per capita spent on healthcare would drop, as quality improves as well. If you look at other nation's spending on healthcare per citizen, many get better care for lower costs. For example, look at France, the nation with the top ranking healthcare, the USA spends twice as much, but is 36 spots behind in healthcare. This represents that a Single-Payer system is needed. [4] C5: Coverage of All Citizens A single-payer healthcare system covers all citizens with quality healthcare. C6: Improves Quality of Care Health Insurance companies usually base decisions based on coverage, restrictions, and costs, and what will make the company prosper. This does not equal great care, and may even conflict with that. [5] A single-payer program can allolocate resources based on the two vital parties in a healthcare scenario: the patients and the providers. Plus, Single-Payer plans in the USA, such as Medicare, show that the patients have higher levels of satisfaction with coverage and access to care than people to private insurance. [5] Plus, France has the top-ranking healthcare in the world, and is a Single-Payer system, and has a comprehensive plan for all citizens. However, it only has to pay HALF of what the USA does. The USA is only in place 37, but is number 1 for spending. [9] C7: Improves National Economy States and other businesses would have to pay less on medical care for their workers. Right now, American workers also have to compete with foreign businesses which nation's have universal health care. For example, in 2006, health care for workers added $1,500 to the price of a medium size care, while the cost in Japan was about $500. This, as well as other reasons including a cut in HALF OF BANKRUPTCIES due to a lack of medical insurance, and lower costs by a Single-Payer system, would help the economy. [4] [5] I will discuss in a different round how a Single-Payer system would be funded for. Conclusions: A Single-Payer Healthcare system would have huge benefits for the USA. A Health Planning board, if included (I debate Pro for this being the primary government body of execution of healthcare) 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. Plus, coverage would be universal for a Single-Payer healthcare system. Quality would absolutely improve for all. Medical records could be streamlined in an efficient way. The national economy would get a boost with 1/2 of bankruptcies removed, and with much lower costs, businesses would be more competitive, and have more funds available. It also modernizes the USA, helps all our citizens, and returns legitimate healthcare competition to the providers and patients, while the government facilitates better health care for all. Sources: [1] http://bcn.boulder.co.us... [2] http://www.pnhp.org... [3] http://www.pnhp.org... [4] Conrad, Jessamyn. What You Should Know About Politics... But Don't. 1st ed. New York: Hachette Book Group, 2008. 104-124. Print. [5] Sherrow, Victoria. Universal Healthcare. 1st ed. New York: Infobase Publishing, 2010. Print. [6] http://www.mdanderson.org... [7] http://www.nytimes.com... [8] http://healthcareforallcolorado.org... [9] http://www.photius.com...