args

Universal Health Care Would be Beneficial to the U.S.

Thanks to Legit! I will defend my case, rebut Pro's case, and then address the off-case impacts. CON's CASE Extend my observation. C1: The Economy SA: Overall Fragility Pro makes two claims here: (1) that U.S. health spending is adding to our deficit and debt, and (2) that cuts to the military and increased taxes would pay for UHC. 1. In fact, the article Pro cites says that the government is not actually paying massive sums of money on healthcare, rather it is individual people who are paying. So, firstly, reducing healthcare spending would have not have as great an impact on federal government's spending as Pro makes out. Pro claims 17.7% of GDP is spent on healthcare, but alternative estimate suggest that by 2015, only 7.4% of GDP will be devoted to healthcare spending. Secondly, there are ways to reduce healthcare costs for consumers using free market techniques or regulatory techniques. I will discuss these more later, though it is not my job to offer a counterplan. Moreover, consider that UHC is a form of government healthcare spending. Pro wants us to reduce what we spend on healthcare so we can spend more on healthcare. That doesn't follow... 2. So, let's say we cut military spending by 50%--this is a massive downgrade and would have to be phased in over multiple years in order to allow the armed forces to adjust and compensate correctly. Now, that would save $500 billion, roughly, a year. In 2012, the U.S. national debt was $16.3 trillion--it is projected to hit $25.9 trillion by 2022. In 2013, the deficit (as distinct from the debt) was $1.3 trillion dollars. A 50% increase in the military budget (let's say by 2024) would reduce the annual deficit to $800 billion per year. Only massive tax hikes and unlikely entitlement cuts could feasibly eliminate the rest of this deficit, and even then, eliminating the deficit isn't enough. The U.S. needs to make a surplus in order to bring down the overall debt. So, basically, under Pro's world, we're going to be stuck with massive debt up to and beyond 2024--and each year we spend in debt is a year we risk economic disaster. Rather, it seems smarter to downsize the budget and not engage in UHC programs which would only further add to government expenses, entrenching the current debt problem. Finally, consider that if we have to increase taxes to pay off the debt, even if we reduce health costs, people will still be paying large sums of money, and so the two could cancel out. In fact, UHC programs would requires massive taxes in order to be sustainable. "We estimate that [UHC] would cost...$1.2 trillion by 2019. The required VAT rate, assuming a comprehensive VAT base, would be about...8 percent in 2019. The rate increases because health spending grows faster than other consumption." This analysis shows that every decade the VAT rate would have to increase by around 2%. A VAT, specifically, is "a sales tax on all goods and services that is collected in stages from all the producers in the supply chain." This rapid tax rate growth, as well as the large cost of a UHC program, is enormous. If we factor in the realpolitik of American society, we will also see that politicians are unlikely to keep the tax rate this high, and are, in fact, likely to reduce the taxes, therefore creating an unfunded mandate which will add yearly to the deficit and debt. Such a mandate would be "would be reckless and irresponsible." Unfortunately I cannot access Pro's source No. 4 due to a hyperlink error, and so I am unable to critique it at this time. If Pro has no objections, I reserve the right to do so next round, if Pro would provide a working hyperlink. Finally, Pro never contests that the U.S. economy is in a fragile position; his arguments are just that UHC doesn't make it worse. C2: Coercion Unfortunately, Pro attempts to dismiss my argument out of hand. But, to use Obamacare as an example, it forces insurers to cover abortions, which is a values-imposition. [] It also makes it harder for consumers who want to buy packages that don't include such coverage, but who have difficulty finding those packages. This pattern is inherent in any UHC system, because health decisions, and decisions over what type of coverage to offer, are going to limit your autonomy. It is an exercise in biopower, in the Foucault vein. PRO's CASE C1: Social Benefits Con is basically gaining all of his offense off of saving lives. The thing is, this is non-unique offense. As I point out last round, 3 of the top 10 healthcare systems is non-UHC, and so it is possible to create a stellar medical system for all without UHC. Let me address free market issues now too: "Commercial organizations have an incentive to use their resources efficiently in a marketplace, but organizations whose success is not a result of using their resources efficiently will have weak or no external incentive to do so. As a result, it is to be expected that a State provider of healthcare will provide less healthcare per dollar of expenditure than would a commercial healthcare provider since the latter"is subject to the sustained and unrelenting pressure of market competition." C2: Satisfaction Pro drops my Social Security example. Liked =/= Beneficial. Moreover, even if it is moving towards a more market-based view, Canada is still far more to the left than is the U.S. C3: Economic Benefits The U.S. doesn't have the money to pay for UHC. Yes, companies might save money, but the U.S. as a whole would go bankrupt. That isn't a good tradeoff. Consider another hidden cost of UHC: "Subsidizing health insurance means that patients and doctors are insulated from the costs of healthcare, so they utilize too much " often in the form of unnecessary tests or medical procedures whose value hasn't been proven. This excess demand, along with technological progress, means rapidly growing deficits"" and a whole host of economic problems." C4: Misconceptions Long wait times for even basic care are not "fast tracking" patients. It's just flat out unacceptable. Moreover, showing the complications of surgery does not show how widespread those issues are, or whether they're causing net harm. Next, my source re: Canada's doctors wins on recency. I will have to address the off-case later. I am extremely pressed for time and have to go. I apologize. I will have to cite sources in the comments later. I have 3,000 characters left, so I won't go over if you count the comments. Sorry :(