Universal Health Care Would be Beneficial to the U.S.
This debate is impossible to accept at this time
However, if you do want to participate, please tell me in the comments section. I will choose an opponent in about 3 days time.
Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Arguments and Rebuttals
Round 3: Arguments and Rebuttals
Round 4: Final Refutations and closing arguments; no new arguments
Universal Health Care: A National Health Care system which provides health care and medical financial protection to all its citizens.
This system has been successful in the Scandinavian countries such as Sweden, Denmark, and Norway, and even in Canada.
**Notes** Universal Healthcare does not imply coverage for everyone for everything, but ensures essential medical services for all its citizens.
Implementation of Universal Health Care will be taken into account, but we will disregard the Obamacare controversy. This debate will be about the effects of implementation in the U.S, and it's benefits to the country.
Burden of Proof
On me, Pro. I will do my best to affirm the claim.
With that being said, let's have a great debate!
I look forward to a great debate and to being devil's advocate, and thank Pro for choosing me as his opponent!
I thank bsh1 for accepting this debate; it'll definitely be a good one! By accepting this debate, Con also accepts that any arguments involving ObamaCare will be dismissed as irrelevant as outlined in Round 1.
History of Implementation
If Obama chose to implement Universal Health Care, the U.S. would sure be in for a treat. However, people often associate Universal Health Care with longer hospital wait times, or lower quality of healthcare. But I'm here to explain that this is all false. Let me give you a brief history of attempted instances of Universal Health Care in the U.S.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
As you all you Americans know (and even myself as a Canadian), FDR was the first president to try to implement Universal Health Care(UHC). Throughout the Great Depression, a significant amount of people couldn't afford Health Care. Hence, FDR wanted to establish publicly funded Health Care accross the U.S. Unfortunately, these reforms were attacked by the American Medical Association as "Compulsory Health Insurance". Even today, many people object to UHC, because of phobia of "evil socialist ideals" (Just ask Fox News).
After WWII. Truman tried to implement UHC as part of the Fair Deal, but the U.S. was already starting to move towards the insurance system.
Why would we want to implement this today? Well let's see the benefits, which leads me to my next point.
According to Harvard Medical School Researchers, nearly 45 000 Americans die each year, largely because of lack of medical service. Dr. David Himmelstein, a co-author of the study and an associate professor of medicine at Harvard stated, "We're losing more Americans every day because of inaction ... than drunk driving and homicide combined." The study also concluded that American adults age 64 or younger who are without health coverage have a 40% higher risk of dying than adults who are covered.
On the other hand, there's a correlation between countries that have Universal Health Care and Life Expectancy. Out of the top 15 countries for life expectancy, 12 of them had UHC. These countries include Japan, which has the largest life expectancy (86.5 overall). Ergo, we can conclude that countries with UHC live longer than countries without UHC.
Overall Satisfaction of Country's Health Care System
The World Health Organization polled 21 countries in the European Union in 2003 about their overall satisfaction with their health care system. Out of the top 10 most satisfied countries with their health care system, 7 of them had UHC. The most satisfied country, Austria, had 70% of the people polled say that they were very satisfied with their Health Care system.
In North America, Canada is well-known for having UHC. According to Health Canada, "In 2009, 81% of Canadians who received health care services were satisfied with the service they received. Only 10% of Canadians were dissatisfied with this service." Here's the chart below:
We can conclude that generally countries with UHC, are more satisfied then countries without UHC. Even Americans want it; in a Washington News poll, Americans that want UHC contrary to Americans who prefer the employer based system is in a ratio of 2:1.
In 2007, GM spent 4.6 billion on health care for its employees, with Ford and Chrysler spending around 2.2 billion as well. If these companies did move to Canada for whatever reason, they would save an estimated total of 9 billion, since health care is through citizen's taxes. In Japan, Toyota is a major car company that's world recognized. It is also estimated that "Toyota's production costs are $1,400 lower per vehicle than the cost for American manufacturers." This is because GM estimates that the cost of providing health care for their employees adds to between 1 500 and 2000 to the "price tag" of every vehicle it sells.
Put this into perspective; America's healthcare spending was 2.1 trillion or 16% of the GDP in 2008, with 54% of it being paid through company's insurance. This would add up to 1.13 trillion dollars of excess money being spent by companies, which was more than the budget's of Canada, the U.K. and France combined (which all have UHC).
According to a 2013 survey done by the Commenwealth Fund, American health care is significantly more expensive than other industrialized nations. Out of 1000 to 5400 people surveyed in 11 industrialized nations, the average American spends way more on health care. See chart below:
The study concluded that Americans are far more likely to come across a cost-related issue when it comes to health care and spend more than $1000 American dollars than citizens in other countries.
Common Misconceptions about UHC
UHC causes longer wait times
The point is, the U.S. government is spending a huge chunk of their money on health care that could easily be covered by citizen's taxes. Many single-payer systems that spend way less on health care can easily get a same-day or next-day appointment conveniently. Even the U.K, in which all 4 countries have UHC, a higher percentage of their citizens can get in faster than the U.S. See yet another chart:
Even then, long wait times aren't necessarily bad. It's been speculated that waiting lists due to prioritization of medical urgency, and risks associated with procedures (in comparison with patient's affordability) can actually help. Why? A system of immediate care for patients can often be counter-productive for them. This is especially true when it comes to surgery, which can take months for clarification. In BC ( a Canadian Province), surgeon Dr. Lawrence Burr stated that, "15 heart patients died in 1990 while on a waiting list for heart surgery." However, according to Robin Hutchinson, senior medical consultant to the Health Ministry's heart program, the number of fatalities would be 22 if the waiting list were to have been expedited due to the operation mortality rate then.
UHC leads to lower health care quality
This is absolutely false; countries like France (highest ranked health care system in the world) have a near perfect system which results in all citizens being covered, with good quality. If it really did lead to lower quality, how come 10 out of the top 15 ranked National health care systems in 2000 had UHC?
Why the U.S. should implement it?
Implementation doesn't have to be immediate. It can easily be implemented in another decade or so. What the debate is about is whether or not it would be beneficial to the U.S. However, numberous sources conclude that UHC is a successful system that is proven to have social and economic benefits to the country. Really the U.S. has nothing to lose; it's far better than the current system that the U.S. has.
I look forward to hearing bsh1's argument agaisnt UHC!
1.Coombs, Jan (2005). The rise and fall of HMOs: an American health care revolution. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. pp. 5–6.ISBN 0-299-20240-2. Retrieved May 31, 2009.
11. Schmitz, Anthony (January–February 1991). "Health Assurance". In Health 5 (1). pp. 39–47.
I thank Legit for this debate! I will first present my case, and then address Pro's case.
Observation: I do not need to offer an alternative to UHC; as the topic is phrased, I need only show that UHC would not be beneficial to the U.S.
Contention One: The U.S. Economy
Sub-point A: Fragility
The U.S. economy is currently in a fragile position. Even as the economy begins to grow, low growth rates of about 2-3% are jeopardized by dangers in the global market, relatively low consumer spending and confidence, and a widening trade gap. [1, 2] Fears surrounding Ukraine and Russia, as well as concerns about possible deflation in the EU and a slow-down in China have intensified the risks posed to the U.S.'s globalized, interdependent, consumerist economy. Simply put, if the world economy slows down, so too will America's. Furthermore, much of the U.S. economic growth has been caused by the Fed's quantitative easing program, and not by real economic growth, which has inflated the growth numbers in the current economic reports. 
Sub-point B: UHC Costs
“US public debt exceeds 70% of the economy, nearing the danger point of 90%. With national debt projected to reach 16.6 trillion dollars this year, that ominous percentage looms.” The Congressional Budget Office reported that 15 trillion dollars in spending reductions are needed simply to maintain current debt-to-GDP levels. Even more is needed to reduce the overall debt. It warns that U.S. debt may exceed 100% by 2020 and 190% by 2035. Included in its recommendations was a reduction of subsidies, many of which would be necessary for universal health care. To survive economically, we must pursue a policy of fiscal consolidation. 
Sub-point C: Foreign Influence
Currently, more than 30% of U.S. debt is owned by foreign entities.  Much of the America's expenditures would not be possible without borrowing from foreign lenders, which, in effect, makes us dependent upon them to carry out our own governmental functions. The U.S. government best serves its citizens by remaining autonomous and free from possible external coercion. Our reliance on foreign funding diminishes our freedom to act, and in turn reduces the latitude we have to pursue objective that are at odds with the interests of our creditors.
Conclusion: The U.S. simply cannot afford UHC at this time. Not only would it require additional loans--and thus additional foreign dependency--but would place further strain on U.S. financial reserves and the U.S. economy that could jeopardize our fragile recovery.
Contention Two: Coercion
A universal “provision of healthcare would necessarily involve the coercive imposition of some persons’ values upon the citizens as a whole…It would also have to address (and hence decide upon) such moral questions as whether to allow or prohibit certain healthcare-related practices (such as euthanasia) within those facilities…and, if these are to be allowed, whether or not they should be provided under its auspices. It would also have to set standards of professional behavior for the healthcare providers…(would, for example, healthcare professionals be allowed to conscientiously object to the provision of certain forms of treatment, or not), and impose these in the name of its citizens as a whole.”  In other words, the government would necessarily force the uninsured or those covered to conform to its coverage options, which is inherently coercive.
C1: Social Benefits
First, let's examine Pro's Harvard study. The study says that people died "because they lack health insurance and cannot get good care." Therefore, an unspecified portion of that 45,000 statistic may have health insurance, but simply lacked access to good medical facilities. UHC is only about providing insurance; it is not about improving the quality of existing services. Therefore, even if everyone were insured, many people could still be dying due to underfunded or understaffed hospitals, clinics, etc. Moreover, how do we assess if someone died because of "lack of insurance." How was this data collected? It seems to me that illness causes death--not the absence of insurance. Does someone without insurance, but who arrived at a hospital too late to matter die from "lack of insurance?" The metrics here just seem vague.
Next, correlation is not causation. People in nations with UHC live longer because they live in countries that are developed. The average Swede earns more money and eats better than the average Somali--naturally the Swede will live longer even without UHC. Pro has not shown that UHC is the cause of the observed longevity.
European countries have a more pro-government mindset than the U.S., and they also have economies structured to make government entitlement programs easier and more integral.  Notice that 3 of the top 10 countries did not have UHC, implying that it is possible to have a highly efficient, well-run non-UHC healthcare program, if we accept that satisfaction should be our metric/standard for what is beneficial. However, this seems ill-advised. Consider that Social Security is highly popular, but yet lacks solvency and is sapping huge amounts of resources that the U.S. simply cannot afford.  Ultimately, popular is not the same as beneficial, and so I would question the relevance of this whole contention to the debate.
Pro cites statistics showing how corporations save money when the government pays instead. This is assuming that the government has the money to take on the burden of those costs; frankly, America just doesn't have the funds. The corporations, which earn hundred of billions of dollars in profit do have the funds to contribute towards insurance, and so are better equipped to provide coverage. Pro is also assuming that these companies would put any money they saved back into the U.S. economy, which is oftentimes untrue. [9, 10]
While the U.S. system may be expensive, there are ways to cope with that issue other than UHC, including minimum wage increases, increased regulation, government intervention in price negotiations, etc.
"Some countries with universal health care struggle to sustain efficiency. Canada and Australia ranked lowest, according to the Commonwealth Wealth Fund study, in accessibility of physician appointments and wait times for basic medical services, as well as specialist care, tests, and elective surgery. Other efficiency issues noted by the study included Canada's propensity for misplacing medical records and tests...In Canada, for example, the lionshare of provincial budgets consistently goes to health care. Some provinces spend 40 percent of the total annual budget on health care alone. Funding for other programs like education and infrastructure are continually gobbled up by ballooning health care costs." 
So, not only are there high wait times in Canada, but its system is riddled with inefficiencies. Moreover, wait times in the U.S. are fantastic, while still providing some of the highest quality care for illnesses like cancer. 
Moreover, UHC system tend to pay physicians less than free market models, resulting in many physicians not operating under the UHC or NHS system. "A national shortage of general practitioners means that 1.7 million Canadians don't have access to a regular doctor to go to for routine care. In England, shortages of dentists have caused hundreds of people to wait in line just for an appointment…One British hospital even tried to save money by not changing bed sheets. Instead of washing them, a British newspaper reported that the staff was encouraged to simply turn the sheets over. At any given time in Great Britain, there are over half a million people waiting to get into a hospital for treatments.”  Clearly, wait times are not just interminable, but quality of care was adversely impacted.
1. Exploiting the System
"Often, citizens of countries with universal health care will 'milk' the system. The most common example of this phenomenon occurs when citizens don't live in their country of origin, don't pay taxes in their country of origin, yet still return home whenever they need to go to the doctor." 
2. Biased against the Healthy
"Smokers, for example, receive the same treatment under universal health care, even though their conditions are self-induced...In [UHC], people do not have to take responsibility for the health consequences of bad lifestyle choices. Everyone gets covered, and everyone shares the cost."
1 - http://www.nytimes.com...
2 - http://online.wsj.com...
3 - http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
4 - Buchanan, Gjerstad, and Smith, and R. Merry Foreign Policy, 2012
5 - http://www.factcheck.org...
6 - James Taylor [Associate Professor, College of New Jersey], “Market-Based Reforms in Health Care Are Both Practical and Morally Sound,” Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics, Special Issue: SYMPOSIUM 1: Conflicts of Interest in the Practice of Medicine, Volume 40, Issue 3, (Fall 2012), pp. 537–546
7 - http://www.cato.org...
8 - http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com...
9 - http://money.msn.com...
10 - http://www.theatlantic.com...
11 - http://www.livestrong.com...
12 - http://www.theatlantic.com...
13 - http://abcnews.go.com...
Thanks! Please VOTE CON!
Fragility of the U.S. Economy and Costs of UHC
Con: “US public debt exceeds 70% of the economy, nearing the danger point of 90%. With national debt projected to reach 16.6 trillion dollars this year, that ominous percentage looms.”
We can't just assume that because the US is in a lot of debt, UHC isn't the best option. As I mentioned before, US Healthcare spending is 17.7% of the US's GDP, more than double than most nations. The general consensus of the US's debt is a combination of low government revenues (taxes) and a vast increase in government spending. America also spends roughly 1 trillion dollars anually on military. Therefore, if the US were to spend significantly less on military and less on healthcare, while collecting more taxes from citizens, they'd be in way less debt.
Furthermore, UHC would allow the government to collect more revenues from its citizens while saving money on health care.
Con:"Much of the America's expenditures would not be possible without borrowing from foreign lenders, which, in effect, makes us dependent upon them to carry out our own governmental functions"
Even if it did come down to the US borrowing from foreign entities, the overall savings of UHC would off-set the costs of
implementing it. According to Economist Gerald Friedman, Ph.D., University of Massachusetts, Amherst, these savings
would be enormous. “Under the single-payer system created by HR 676 [the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, introduced by Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Mich.], the U.S. could save an estimated $592 billion annually by slashing the administrative waste associated with the private insurance industry ($476 billion)." He also added that if the US had implemented this system in 2013, the savings would cover the 44 million uninsured in 2014! The point is, the US could
pay it off under a system like this.
I think Con's argument is absolutely false. UHC doesn't involves the "imposition of one person's values upon the citizens as a whole." UHC doesn't involve the president saying, "This is the way I want it, this is the way it should be done." Obviously, citizens have a say health reforms that UHC would bring about. UHC is not about citizens having to conform to coverage options, it's about giving them opportunity for coverage options. Also, healthcare-related practices such as Euthanasia are a whole seperate issue than UHC.
I think Con misinterpreted my Harvard Study. The study claimed that 45 000 died because they lacked insurance, leading to no access to health care, consequently leading to their death. However, if these citizens had UHC, they would have access to proper health care, which would guarentee access to proper health services. Subsequently, they probably would've survived. If Con's still blurry here, I'll provide him with an example.
Let's say Joe Schmoe has a severe lung infection, but he's insured. He goes into the hospital and claims he needs the proper care to cure him, but they refuse service because he's uninsured. Consequently, he dies next year because of lung failure. This would be an easily preventable death, if they would've given him the proper care. Therefore, yes he died of lung failure, but he also died because of lack of health insurance.
Con: "People in nations with UHC live longer because they live in countries that are developed"
Again, you misinterpreted my point. My point was that out of the top 15 countries in terms of life expectancy, 12 of them had UHC. I never compared developed countries to undeveloped countries; the top 15 were all developed by a longshot. Countries like Somalia are ranked 190 in terms of expected lifespan, which is 50. So, I think I have proved that countries with UHC live longer than other developed nations that don't.
To sum this contention up, way less people would die every year with UHC.
My main point was that since UHC was beneficial, it equals satisfaction amongst its citizens which is a social benefit. A happy country is highly beneficial, especially in terms of stability. The idea of that statistic was to prove that on average, European countries are happier with UHC.
Con:"European countries have a more pro-government mindset than the U.S."
That may be true, however, I brought up Canada as well. Canada has a mixed-market economy while the US has a market economy. Although the US hass less government involvement, Canada is moving towards a more market one. The leading party (Conservatives) are moving towards less government intervention which is making Canada more like the US. But the point was that Canada has a very high satisfaciton rate as well.
Not only that, but I brought up what the US wanted. According to a Washington News poll, Americans that want UHC contrary to Americans who prefer the employer based system is in a ratio of 2:1. The majority of Americans want it as well.
Companies would save a ton of money each year if UHC were implemented. As I mentioned before, big car companies like GM are adding an additional $1,400 for each car they make because of the cost of providing health care for their employees.
It's also interesting to note that medical bills are the biggest cause of US bankruptcy. "Bankruptcies resulting from unpaid medical bills will affect nearly 2 million Americans this year." The statistics are from NerdWallet Health, a price-comparison website. They used a combination of data from the U.S. Census, Centers for Disease Control, and the Commonwealth Fund. And even aside from bankruptcy, 56 million adults will struggle with high health-care related bills. Sadly, an additional 10 million adults with yearly health insurance will still have medical bills that they can't pay off.
Therefore, UHC would reduce the overall medical debt and bankruptcies in America, since all citizens would be insured.
Like I mentioned in the first round, most countries that have UHC don't have long wait times. Even though wait times are long in Canada, fast-tracking of patients is not ideal. Surgeries aren't procedures that should be sped up, as it can result in patients being unnecessarily harmed through carelessness.
Con: "Moreover, wait times in the U.S. are fantastic, while still providing some of the highest quality care for illnesses like cancer"
Maybe wait times in the U.S. are better than Canada, but the U.S. suffers from fast-tracking patients. People in the U.S. with private health insurance often find themselves with unwarrented procedures. For instance, the U.S. "has the highest rate of invasive cardiac procedures in the world." However, these haven't benefited the Americans. Each procedure has serious complications such as a stroke, torn artery, or even death.
Although the Canadian system isn't perfect, it's still far better than America's system. In 2005, Canada had more physicians per capita and more nurses per area. See table:
Exploiting the System
The question is: How often does this occur? In every country citizens exploit things. This is such a small error that almost never happens. The better question is if Canada is annoyed by this. Canada is a country that likes helping people of other nations through benefits of the country. Of course, Canada doesn't let citizens "free-load" but Canada has a different mindset than the US.
Bias against the Healthy
UHC is an egalitarian philosophy, in which there's belief that all people should be covered no matter what. It's a socialist concept so of cources everyone will get covered and share the cost. In UHC, it shouldn't matter if the conditions are self-induced.
I rest my case and look forward to my opponent's next arguments!
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.
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.
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."
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."
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 :(
*Note: The correct link for Source 4, Round 3 is in the comments section.
Although Candian patients experience long wait times, at least 45, 000 people's lives are saved since every citizen is guarenteed basic health care. If we're going to criticize any health care system in the world for being ineffecient, it's the US health care system.
I would like to, once again, apologize for the rushed nature of my previous round. Unfortunately, my day that day was rather chaotic with a malfunctioning alarm, and then me falling down a flight of marble stairs. I will endeavor to wrap things up succinctly in this round, however, by first defending my case, rebutting Pro's case, and then crystallizing the debate.
Actually, if we look closely at the wording of the Atlantic's article, the X-axis is not "the percentage of each government's health care spending of their GDP." Rather, the X-axis represents the percentage of each NATION's healthcare spending as a portion of the nation's GDP. The national expenditures include public sector and private sector expenses, and so my figure of 7.4%  of government spending has not been disproven by Pro's graph. Moreover, Pro says my statistic is highly flawed, but fails to provide a reason for why this is, other than to offer his own evidence, which he has misinterpreted. I cannot access Pro's HHS data, and so I cannot say whether it also has the same issues as the Atlantic's evidence. My accessible data should be preferred to Pro's inaccessible data.
Moreover, reduction is pharmaceutical price in Europe could be attributed more to regulation and price controls than to UHC. There are alternate causalities that need to be evaluated.
Now, let's look at Con's arguments about savings. First, our sources clearly clash. I cited evidence that UHC would cost $1.2 tillion by 2019 , necessitating massive, and rapidly escalating VAT taxes in order to pay for that expense. Prefer my study because it is national, and not merely local. The dynamics of a wealthy urban center such as Minnesota are hardly the same dynamics at play nationally, and so we should look to a national analysis. Friedman, Pro's other study, has ties to labor unions  and has a distinct left-leaning bias in some of his articles. It is fairly clear that his own ideology diminishes somewhat his credibility. Therefore, we should give more weight to my Tax Policy Center information.
So, Pro calls my example of Obamacare. In fact, what the rules actually say is "we will disregard the Obamacare controversy." Pro misrepresents his own rules in order to twist this debate in his favor. In fact, the first time the word "irrelevant" appears is in R2, which is a round for arguments, not rules. I cited Obamacare as evidence of a broader theme in UHC, and was not focusing on the controversy itself. Let's look at what I actually said: "decisions over what type of coverage to offer, are going to limit your autonomy. It is an exercise in biopower, in the Foucault vein." What Taylor (see my R2 args) was saying is that UHC has to make calls that involve moral values. For example, should abortion be covered? Whether or not Obamacare is a valid example, my logic is valid, and my logic went unrefuted. If the government creates a system where abortion coverage is included in all or most plans, and it forces people who are pro-life to participate in one of those plan, the government is coercing people to act against their values. Thus, my argument is UNREBUTTED.
C1: Social Benefits
True, saying that 3 of the 10 best healthcare system in the world are not UHC systems doesn't show that non-UHC systems are better than UHC systems. Unfortunately, I never made that claim. What I did claim was that it was possible to craft a fantastic, top 10 healthcare sector, without UHC.
At no point in this debate as Pro ever rebutted my social security example, which says that detrimental programs can still be popular. This takes out all of Pro's approval ratings arguments because they have nothing to do with whether UHC is "beneficial."
C2: Economic Benefits
Let me simply reiterate my two attacks from R2:
1. Pro cites statistics showing how corporations save money when the government pays instead. This is assuming that the government has the money to take on the burden of those costs; frankly, America just doesn't have the funds. The corporations, which earn hundred of billions of dollars in profit do have the funds to contribute towards insurance, and so are better equipped to provide coverage.
2. Pro is also assuming that these companies would put any money they saved back into the U.S. economy, which is oftentimes untrue.
As for Bankruptcies, if UHC increases taxes, then people are going to be paying a ton of money. What they might save in medical costs, they are afflicted with in taxes. Thus, Pro doesn't actually solve the problem, he just shifts the cause. Consider what I said previously in this debate: "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." So, because the two could offset, people will end up spending just as much as they are now.
Pro essentially concedes that Canada has long wait times. And, as I pointed out in previous rounds, wait times impacted "physician appointments and...basic medical services" as well as surgery. Sure, it might be good to wait to have heart surgery, but if you're experiencing insane wait times for "basic medical services" than the system is just neglecting you, not keeping you safe.
Let's also look at an argument I made in R2 that Pro never rebutted: "In Canada, for example, the lionshare of provincial budgets consistently goes to health care. Some provinces spend 40 percent of the total annual budget on health care alone. Funding for other programs like education and infrastructure are continually gobbled up by ballooning health care costs." We can corroborate my R3 source with this second source , which says: "[Canada] is having problem with the federal deficit and has gradually reduced the amount of funding to the provinces. As a result, the provinces are left focused on cost control. Physicians often complain about low fee levels and hospitals complain about the provinces' high regulation of their budgets. The recent cost control policies may be affecting the quality of service in Canada. Many reports claim that the Canadians have limited access to services." The corroborating sources cites similar problems and inadequacies in Britain's NHS system, stating "NHS resources are extremely scarce ." 
Pro also drops this: "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." 
Finally, Pro drops this: "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...no external incentive...As a result, it is to be expected that a State provider of healthcare will provide less healthcare per dollar...than would a commercial healthcare provider since the latter...is subject to the...pressure of market competition." 
At this time, I will endeavor to tie up all the debate's loose ends and explain why I have won this great rematch. First, let me remind voters that Pro has the sole BOP. Next, let me remind voters that Pro needs to show that the implementation of UHC is net beneficial for the United States at this time.
Let's look candidly at what arguments Pro is winning in this round. He has shown that nations with UHC have higher rates of longevity and reduced mortality. This is impressive offense, but it is handily diminished by an earlier observation of mine. I said: "it was possible to craft a fantastic, top 10 healthcare sector, without UHC." This assertion was backed up by Pro's own evidence. So, my point here is that Pro's offense is potentially non-unique. The U.S. could work on improving and overhauling its existing system to effect reforms without having to adopt UHC. UHC is not a requirement for improving longevity and reducing mortality, and I can still do both of these things in my world.
Next, let's analyze the cost argument. The theoretical models swing in my favor because my source, as discussed earlier, is the most reliable one. It points out that UHC would have a net cost of $1.2 trillion by 2019, necessitating an increase in taxes. But even if you don't buy my theoretical model, I have empirics on my side. If we look and both Canada and the UK, we can see that because of their high debts and deficits (which the U.S. also has) these nations have had to shift the cost of UHC to the provinces/states, which cannot afford to pay for UHC services. It seems likely that the U.S. would have to do the same, because it is in a similar situation to both Canada and the UK in terms of debt. Keep in mind, this Canada evidence was never rebutted.
Next, let's talk about quality of care. Private firms are far more efficient and cost effective, with commercial incentives to provide excellent care. UHC, on the other hand, has unreasonable wait times, leads to costly overutilization of services, and leads to coercive values imposition on patients and consumers.
I have also re-cited sources here. Sources should be judged on reliability, not organization.
Therefore, please VOTE CON because UHC is costly, inefficient, and coercive.
1 - http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...
2 - http://www.umass.edu...
3 - http://www.stanford.edu...
4 - Jeffrey A. Miron [Senior Lecturer in Economics, Harvard University; Senior Fellow, Cato Institute] “Public Option: Treatment Worse Than the Disease,” Oct. 29, 2009.
5 - Taylor (previously cited)
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|