the right single payer system would be a better economic system than we have now
Debate Rounds (3)
we spend more per capita, and get less health care results back... than any other country in the world:
-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). The costs are higher with so many companies, because there's so much redundancy... thousands of payroll departments instead of one, for example.
-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)
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"
I had an opponent in another debate cite this source as to whether medicare would cost more, even if administration costs would be about the same...
first, i'll also have to point out.... medicare is for those who are elderly etc. they will cost a lot more by virtue of that than comparing to everyone else generally, for purely health care nonadministrative costs. so it doesn't prove that we shouldnt use medicare
assuming it's true that it costs more with medicare, though, doesn't mean a single payer system isn't most economical... it means that we should not use a program that is like medicare. We could do as Europe does and have a tightly regulated insurance industry, with government involvement.
This is from the doctors for single payer link I cited above...
"The nation should listen when a prominent libertarian extolls the virtues of social insurance. Once we accept the principle of social insurance, then we can have a more rational debate over whether we want that to be a single-payer Medicare-type program or a European-style social insurance program using using private plans that are so tightly regulated that they almost function as a single payer system."
we can regulate the system to ensure redundancy and waste and not there. Basically, to be more like other single payer countries...
At the end of the day, it's well established common knowledge that single payer countries pay around ten percent GDP, and we pay seventeen percent. That's the bottom line.
dairygirl4u2c forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 4 years ago
|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||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Easy win to Con. Pro provided no argument (relevant to the resolution) and when Con brought up the fact that a single payer healthcare system is not an economic system, Pro simply forfeited, thus conceding arguments and losing conduct.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.