The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
Wallstreetatheist
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Single Payer Health Care makes most economic sense

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
dairygirl4u2c
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/30/2012 Category: Health
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,223 times Debate No: 23945
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

we spend more per capita, and get less health care results back... than any other country in the world:
http://cthealth.server101.com...

-we spend 17% of our GDP on healthcare, while single payer countries spend 10%. that 7% represents a lot of money, a trillion dollars.
-the savings come from a decrease in administrative costs: insurance companies are a middleman that serves no real purpose other than spending 30% of revenue on administrative costs and profit, costs that could be just as easily streamlined by the government down to less than 5% or so. (medicare for example requires 3% for administration).
-our GDP is 14 trillion, our national debt is close to there. 1 trillion dollars a year, enough to boost our economy significantly, or eliminate our debt if we wanted (political football as to how that would be done), or at the end of the day simply keep more money our pocket.
-if the government did it right (big if, granted), it would be a self contained system (no taxes other than from those who want to join), we would not coerce people to join, and/or they could utilize 'supplemental insurance' in addition to the government's system and get more options. they wouldn't have to wait in lines then, which aren't that long to begin with. (two weeks max for most standard procedures, short for emergencies etc, and with many insurance companies worse than many single payer systems... and most citizens in single payer countries do not envy us).
-insurance companies could even still exist (they may need to retain the current regulations to cover some preexisting conditions by law, so as to prevent them from skimming off a bunch of healthy people from government plans, to ensure the pool is sufficient to cover everyone in it to a reasonable extent--the most difficult aspect of allowing insurance companies to still exist, the government's power here and the overall give and take here, is huge).
-there could be limits on the amount of care which is essentially what insurance companies already do and people understand as a necessity (eg, a 200k policy) (there would be no need for 'death panels'). the copays, premiums (or taxes), carrots and sticks, could be done so as to ensure people don't abuse the system (as they do with so many insurance plans already)

-"Why I (an economically right leaning libertarian) Prefer French Health Care" (not directly on point, but interesting and relevant, with decent commentary following)

http://pnhp.org...

full article: http://reason.com...

"For a dozen years now I've led a dual life, spending more than 90 percent of my time and money in the U.S. while receiving 90 percent of my health care in my wife's native France. On a personal level the comparison is no contest: I'll take the French experience any day. ObamaCare opponents often warn that a new system will lead to long waiting times, mountains of paperwork, and less choice among doctors. Yet on all three of those counts the French system is significantly better, not worse, than what the U.S. has now"

.
Wallstreetatheist

Con

My opponent has put forth a case that says Single-Payer Health Care is a better system, but she has not compared her system with others to demonstrate that it makes the most economic sense. She has not met her BoP, I will await a stronger argument in the next round, hopefully one with less copy and paste.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

i quoted right at the get go that we pay 17% of our GDP, while single payer countries pay 10%.
this is a well established fact, and as i said, i quoted it right at the get go. i also quoted the first link that gives all kinds of similar facts, and then some.
i await con to actually read my initial argument and actually do a little research on this.
the reason we don't do it as a country, is mostly because because we are ignorant, and also because we don't like socialism. the research as i've quoted is pretty solid in the savings that would occur... i defy you to show otherwise.
Wallstreetatheist

Con

Wallstreetatheist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

all arguments are reiterated
Wallstreetatheist

Con

Wallstreetatheist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by MouthWash 4 years ago
MouthWash
dairygirl4u2cWallstreetatheistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter. Forfeiting constitutes automatic loss.
Vote Placed by vmpire321 4 years ago
vmpire321
dairygirl4u2cWallstreetatheistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't fulfill BoP, but Con forfeited.