• CON

    In fact, publicly funded health care would sidestep this...

    The US should not have universal or publicly funded health care

    I will first refute your points, then make my own. Throughout the debate I am basing my assertions about universal health care plans on Hillary Clinton's plan; as she is the Democratic front-runner (and Obama's is very similar) it is a good platform for what is actually being proposed. What she proposes, in brief, is this: 1. If you have health insurance now, keep it. 2. If you do not, you can: - buy private insurance direct from an insurer - buy private insurance through the government (like what Congress gets) - apply for a subsidized plan. These will be given need-based. 3. Everyone must have health insurance, and all plans must meet certain standards. "My first point, being that there isn't a single government agency or division that runs efficiently; do we really want an organization that developed the U.S. Tax Code handling something as complex as health care?" It is easy to find examples of any system that does not run well. In fact, publicly funded health care would sidestep this problem by having the government do needs-based subsidizing for lower-income families. In terms of universal health care, Germany is a good example of what happens when it works right, and they spend much less of their GDP per capita on health care than we do. "My second point deals with how if we go through with public health care, it will become premanent just like social security turned out to be." It is meant to be permanent, as was Social Security. This is a bit of a non-issue. "And now my third and final point states that patients aren't likely to curb their drug costs and doctor visits if health care is free; thus, total costs will be several times what they are now." The subsidized private plans that lower-income families will be purchasing will cover doctor's visits, of course - just like every other private health insurance plan that is worth its salt. "In closing, by establishing free and universal health-care, we will drastically hurt our economy, everything our nation stands for, and it may also harm our actual health, doing the exact opposite thing it tried to do. Thank you." You have failed to prove any of these. And now, for my points. 1. No industrialized nation except for us lacks some sort of universal health care system. It's a basic right. We are the richest nation in the world, and yet 47 million of us lack any health care. 2. No industrialized nation in the world spends more of its GDP per capita on health care than we do. If socialized medicine is so expensive, than why does the rest of the world spend less? Because hospitals transfer the free emergency room costs onto the medicare plans, because medicare cannot negotiate its drug or hospital costs. With a mandate for health care, there will be fewer costs at the hospital level, because everyone will have health insurance. Period. 3. This is not socialized medicine. A true socialist model is single-payer government, this is blatantly not. This is basic subsidization for those in greatest need. Everyone should be able to have access to quality health insurance.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-US-should-not-have-universal-or-publicly-funded-health-care/1/