The Instigator
16kadams
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
SANTORUM2012
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Single Payer Healthcare

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 1 vote the winner is...
16kadams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/19/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,166 times Debate No: 24788
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

16kadams

Pro

I am devils advocating this.

Single Payer Healthcare, I am Pro. The challenger is CON. I am for universal healthcare in this debate, in other words.

==Definition==

Single payer is one entity pays for the healthcare of its citizens. In this case the government funds healthcare.

==Structure==

First round acceptance, the rest will just be the flow of the debate :)
SANTORUM2012

Con

Challenge Accepted!
Debate Round No. 1
16kadams

Pro

C1: Cost savings from single payer

It is a common myth that single payer would increase costs to the government and raise current deficits. But many federal studies have shown that the overall cost saving would be extremely large, 100-200 billion dollars in savings. If you are assuming local benefits, for example Massachusetts or Connecticut, studies have shown 1-2 billion in savings within those states. During the years when Canada had a system like ours, their GNP per capita in spending was identical to ours. But when they switched to a single payer systems there where large savings increases, even when compared to the US, even though the US's economy is stronger [1].

Let's say the switch we did was mirroring the Canadian model. GAO studies concluded, “If the US were to shift to a system of universal coverage and a single payer, as in Canada, the savings in administrative costs [10 percent of health spending] would be more than enough to offset the expense of universal coverage”[2]

Although other costs would arise from the universal coverage, that's inevitable, most of which would be accounted by the savings in administrative costs.

Sub-Point a: How would we fund the system?

This is the greatest concern with the single payer transfer. Although administrative costs would decrease debts, funding would still be necessary for the universal coverage. There would be very modest tax increases which would not hurt the economy due to the fact the overall savings from the system would benefit the economy. These increases are:

1. 7% payroll tax
2. 2% increase in income taxes [2]

Many ask why would the tax increase be so small? Other then the savings of administrative costs, ER costs would also decrease due to the fact almost 200 million dollar would be saved by insuring the current uninsured [2].

Sub point b: What the studies say

- Single Payer would save Minnesota 700 million per year
- Single payer would save Connecticut 200 million per year
- Single Payer would save Massachusetts 1 billion in administrative costs
- Single Payer would save 345 million in Maryland per year
- Single Payer would save California 3.7 billion per year
- Single Payer efficiency would save Main millions
- Single payer would save 270 million in Rhode Island
And the list goes on...[2]

C2: Single Payer increases quality

Another myth is that single payer would decrease quality and therefore fail to benefit americans. Single Payer has been shown to increase the access to care, increase the access to quality care, insure everyone, among other things. All of these would mean increased quality and increased lifespans for everyone. Most doctors agree (71%) that the current stem deprives many patients quality care [3]. Other concerns include that overall medical research could and and lead to disastrous results. But this is not true, most current research is done by the government and not private entities. Under single payer this would continue. Current studies show our current systems is decreasing the amount of medical advances the US has been able to accomplish, and that it is likely that under single payer innovations will increase as more funding would go to these governmental association[s]. Further many of the most important discoveries, like the CT scan, where invented in countries with universal systems (like the UK) [4].

Single payer also increases efficiency, which increases quality of care. It computerizes many documents which are currently in filing cabinets. And we all know computer documents are easier to find then ruffling through files. This has been shown to increase the quality of care in many nations. For example, it can take hours to find files you have never used in years [in a doctors office], though other times it takes a few minutes. With computer documents you:
a) its harder to lose documents
b) easier to edit them
c) easier to find them within seconds
The increased efficiency is good for everyone!

Conclusion:

Lower cost, better care, its a win win.



[1] http://cthealth.server101.com...
[2] http://www.pnhp.org...
[3] http://library.thinkquest.org...
[4] http://www.pnhp.org...
SANTORUM2012

Con

Problem 1: It inevitably must ration care.

My opponent claims that cost will not be driven up by single payer health care but a single-payer system is a "free-for-all system," where costs are driven up. Patients are likely to over-use health services because they don't have to pay for them, and, thus, providers (taxpayers) must oversupply those services. The only way a government can deal with over consumption and oversupply is to ration those services through waiting lists.

Canada's health care system, for example, illustrates this very point: everyone in Canada's public system must wait for practically any procedure or diagnostic test or specialist consultation. Moreover, in the long term, access to care will decrease more substantially because the prospect of lower compensation (see below) and lower lifetime earnings reduces the incentive for talented people to choose careers in health care.

Problem 2: It would not save money.

When has our government ever saved money? Social Security is essentially bankrupt. Medicare will soon be bankrupt. So will Medicaid. These programs don't save money and, instead, lose a lot of it because of the amount of fraud and, more importantly, the overuse they incentivize. Overuse is the real cause of rising health care costs.

After all, when something is free and you feel like you need it, would you ever stop asking for it? Moreover, as long as doctors are paid for providing you with that free service, why would they stop providing it? The same scenario would exist with a single-payer health care system. Overuse of services (again, because they are free) would limit any potential savings and eventually bankrupt the system.

Moreover, any analysis of costs savings by a government-run system is always misleading. Comparisons between private sector costs and the costs of a single-payer system usually exclude many government administrative expenses, such as the costs of collecting the taxes needed to fund the system and the salaries of politicians and their staff members who set health care policy. By contrast, the salary costs of executives and boards of directors who set insurance companies' policies are included in private sector costs. A government is somewhat immune to the free-market bottom lines that private sector companies deal with annually. Government doesn't have to account for every penny, and, thus, a lot is lost through the cracks.

Problem 3: Compensation for physicians and health care providers would decrease.

A single-payer system would substantially lower payments to physicians and health care providers compared to our current system. For those of you who embrace class warfare and think this is a good idea, consider this: human beings are only so charitable. Many will draw a line somewhere. An individual spends almost an entire decade (and hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loans) studying to become a doctor, and that doesn't even include college. These people expect to be (and should be) compensated adequately for their effort and expertise. Whatever you think of what they should be paid, if they don't feel they are paid enough, they will find something else to do. If doctors leave a profession that no longer pays well, the system will experience a reduction in the supply of active physicians.

That reduction, in turn, will impair access to health care and the quality of health care for everyone.

Problem 4: The quality of care would decrease.

Lower compensation for doctors will limit their ability to invest in advanced medical equipment and new technology, as well as the time they need to stay up to date with medical developments. These limitations, too, will impact the quality of health care for everyone.

Problem 5: It would take medical decisions away from doctors and patients.

A single-payer system will insert the government into private decision-making. Many provisions within the health care bill will slowly chip away an individual's ability to make choices about everything from his or her private health insurance to actual decisions about medical care.

Now, who wants Uncle Sam telling you what insurance you should have or what treatment you should receive? These are private decisions made by an individual and, often, with the private advice of a physician. The government has no role or expertise in this area and should stay out.

Problem 6: It would hamper medical research.

A single-payer system would also reduce the rate of medical progress. Recall (from above) that, because doctors will be compensated less, fewer talented people will pursue careers in medicine. Fewer people receiving medical training decreases the supply of talented medical researchers and, thus, impairs medical research and progress.

Problem 7: The countries that have had single-payer systems for decades are slowly moving towards more private systems.

Debate Round No. 2
16kadams

Pro


My opponent plagiarized, http://www.watchblog.com...


Conduct point pro, also I think that her points are irrelevant due to this, but I will rebut them anyway.




Rationing



The US already rations care. Except the way the US rations care is more deceptive, it is based on income. If you afford care, you get it. If you cant, then you’re out of luck. 45,000 Americans die each year, as they do not have access to care, many skip treatments as insurance companies don’t cover it or deny access. That’s rationing.



The reason we get all the hype about SP rationing is because in SP the system is held responsible for damages and it publicly aired when mishaps occur. Out system no one is ultimately responsible therefore the news can be hazier and not report the rationing that the American system has. The US rationing is unnecessary as the GAO (1991) study has stated we have enough money in our system to treat everyone, but don’t due to money interest. The US has high administrative costs making an excuse for US rationing, but other countries with SP save money on administrative costs and therefore can give care to more people [1].



Money



There are many examples of government efficiency, chiefly road building. Further Social Security is bankrupt because congress steals from it and uses its revenue on other projects. This point is more ideology then fact.



It has been shown government healthcare lowers drug cost and lowers overall costs to the consumer. Many attempts at freeing the market (Medicare part D) it has no effect on drug prices, and in some cases, increased them. Governmental healthcare saves 5-8% of GDP over our current system [2].



“Some are better than others, just as some businesses are better than others. Just to name a few of the most successful and helpful: the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control, and Social Security. Even consider Medicare, the government program for the elderly; its overhead is approximately 3%, while in private insurance companies, overhead and profits add up to 15-25%.”[3]



It saves money.



Physician incomes



The experience with single payer in Canada has revealed that not only were physicians’ incomes not harmed, physicians remain the top earners in the country. This article should allay the fears of U.S. physicians who would like to see us achieve a health care system that ensures quality health care for all but who remain apprehensive that their incomes might be adversely affected. As this report states, “The universal, single-payer system has been good not only for Canadians but also for their doctors.”[4]




Quality



Lower quality is not a necessary evil of a single payer system. Many strategies, mainly the one created in Japan, is proven to increase quality of care from an private insurance system. Studies have shown SP does not decrease quality of care, and in many cases with these comprehensive strategies and computerization techniques have increased quality in many cases [5].


As these points by my opponent where plagiarized I needn’t refute them in detail.



Decisions



Each person has the free choice of choosing their doctors and choosing their bill. Here is the catch: they get no bills, and on balance the people pay less for healthcare then they would otherwise. Doctors choice would also increase – the insurance companies would no longer be involved with their decisions – and therefore increase the amount of choice given to the people [6].



Medical research



The government does most medical research anyway. As stated, SP would not change this and would increase funding for the research via the costs saved and therefore would have little effect on the pace of medical research.



Countries are moving the other way



The plagiarized argument here is irrelevant as you provide no analysis and the source of which you plagiarized has no references, therefore for all we know they are not telling the truth. And, anyway, most Americans support a SP system [7].



Conclusion:



My opponent plagiarized so here is what should happen:



Conduct point PRO


My opponents case is irrelevant



My rebuttals where written because I was bored…





[1] http://www.pnhp.org...


[2] http://www.csmonitor.com...


[3] http://www.pnhp.org...


[4] http://pnhp.org...


[5] Schiff, Gordon D., Bindman, Andrew B., Brennan, Troyen A. “A Better Quality


Alternative: Single-Payer Health System Reform.” Journal of the American Medical Association, (1994).


[6] http://www.pnhp.org...


[7] http://www.healthcare-now.org...


SANTORUM2012

Con

*No Plagiarism intended. All sources are put at end of debate in last round. My opponent addressed some reasons for why universal health care is reasonable and I got this work because I personally know the author. (Robert Fojo) Who gave me permission to use his work.


Conduct to Con. Pro jumped to conclusions and falsely accused me of Plagiarism.


Rebuttals in next round.


My argument stands

Debate Round No. 3
16kadams

Pro

Plagiarism

Even if accidental its still plagiarism, further I highly doubt one could accidentally do this:

What my opponent wrote: “When has our government ever saved money? Social Security is essentially bankrupt. Medicare will soon be bankrupt. So will Medicaid. These programs don't save money and, instead, lose a lot of it because of the amount of fraud and, more importantly, the overuse they incentivize. Overuse is the real cause of rising health care costs.

After all, when something is free and you feel like you need it, would you ever stop asking for it? Moreover, as long as doctors are paid for providing you with that free service, why would they stop providing it? The same scenario would exist with a single-payer health care system. Overuse of services (again, because they are free) would limit any potential savings and eventually bankrupt the system.

Moreover, any analysis of costs savings by a government-run system is always misleading. Comparisons between private sector costs and the costs of a single-payer system usually exclude many government administrative expenses, such as the costs of collecting the taxes needed to fund the system and the salaries of politicians and their staff members who set health care policy. By contrast, the salary costs of executives and boards of directors who set insurance companies' policies are included in private sector costs. A government is somewhat immune to the free-market bottom lines that private sector companies deal with annually. Government doesn't have to account for every penny, and, thus, a lot is lost through the cracks.”


What the website wrote: “When has our government ever saved money? Social Security is essentially bankrupt. Medicare will soon be bankrupt. So will Medicaid. These programs don’t save money and, instead, lose a lot of it because of the amount of fraud and, more importantly, the overuse they incentivize. Overuse is the real cause of rising health care costs.
After all, when something is free and you feel like you need it, would you ever stop asking for it? Moreover, as long as doctors are paid for providing you with that free service, why would they stop providing it? The same scenario would exist with a single-payer health care system. Overuse of services (again, because they are free) would limit any potential savings and eventually bankrupt the system.
Moreover, any analysis of costs savings by a government-run system is always misleading. Comparisons between private sector costs and the costs of a single-payer system usually exclude many government administrative expenses, such as the costs of collecting the taxes needed to fund the system and the salaries of politicians and their staff members who set health care policy. By contrast, the salary costs of executives and boards of directors who set insurance companies’ policies are included in private sector costs. A government is somewhat immune to the free-market bottom lines that private sector companies deal with annually. Government doesn’t have to account for every penny, and, thus, a lot is lost through the cracks.” http://www.watchblog.com...

What she wrote, “My opponent claims that cost will not be driven up by single payer health care but a single-payer system is a "free-for-all system," where costs are driven up. Patients are likely to over-use health services because they don't have to pay for them, and, thus, providers (taxpayers) must oversupply those services. The only way a government can deal with over consumption and oversupply is to ration those services through waiting lists.

Canada's health care system, for example, illustrates this very point: everyone in Canada's public system must wait for practically any procedure or diagnostic test or specialist consultation. Moreover, in the long term, access to care will decrease more substantially because the prospect of lower compensation (see below) and lower lifetime earnings reduces the incentive for talented people to choose careers in health care.”

What the website wrote, “A single-payer system is a “free-for-all system,” where costs are driven up. Patients over-consume health services because they don’t have to pay for them, and, thus, providers must oversupply those services. The only way a government can deal with overconsumption and oversupply is to ration those services through waiting lists.
Canada’s health care system, for example, illustrates this very point: everyone in Canada’s public system must wait for practically any procedure or diagnostic test or specialist consultation. Moreover, in the long term, access to care will decrease more substantially because the prospect of lower compensation (see below) and lower lifetime earnings reduces the incentive for talented people to choose careers in health care.” (see link above)
To see the rest of my opponents case is plagiarized see link above

As we can see the plagarism was real.

Extend
I extend all the rebuttals I made last round which my opponent dropped.

Conclusion:

If your literate PRO has won.
SANTORUM2012

Con

SANTORUM2012 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by famer 4 years ago
famer
It's a debate, and that means you are suppose to make your own arguments. Using other people's arguments (ideas and arguments are not identical) is therefore plagiarism.

Perhaps con should read some of the DDO rules and guidelines.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
We cannot verify that.
Posted by SANTORUM2012 4 years ago
SANTORUM2012
Did yall not read my post?

It is not plagiarism because...

1. I had permission from the author to use his argument

And yes, I forgot to put my source at the bottom because I sometimes wait until the last round to put my sources? What is difficult about that????
Posted by Man-is-good 4 years ago
Man-is-good
"Accidental plagiarism" as in the failure to provide a source for the arguments seem plausible...or perhaps due to some writing structure or ethic behind the written word.:-)
Posted by famer 4 years ago
famer
Clear sign of plagiarism by the Con side.

I have never heard of such thing as "accidental plagiarism". Plus, con didn't even explain why they did not plagiarise (probably because it is impossible to do).
Posted by bossyburrito 4 years ago
bossyburrito
*You're
Posted by TUF 4 years ago
TUF
@ SANTORUM2012

You can't expect to get a conduct point, when you forfeit all arguments to the next round and blatantly lie about not plagarazing. Even if 16k was wrong, I highly doubt anyone would award you a conduct point for that.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Even if it's accidental it's still plagiarism
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by famer 4 years ago
famer
16kadamsSANTORUM2012Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: FF and unjustified plagiarism.