Debate.org members
National Health Care Debates
National Health Care Debates
History and Debate of National Health Care
National health insurance, if established in the United States, would create a single payer health care system. This means that everyone would have the same health insurance card and that all medical expenses would be paid from a single fund. Under this type of system, the funds that pay for the medical expenses of the entire population are obtained from a number of sources. Employers, states and even private citizens must contribute to the fund.
Many nations have established a national health insurance plan. The United Kingdom, for example, offers its National Health Service to all citizens. Australia also offers Medicare to all of its citizens. The Medicare plan of the United States is an example of a single payer system, but is currently available only to certain people. Establishing a national health insurance system would be similar to expanding Medicare to all people.
There are several different forms of national health insurance. In Canada, healthcare services are offered by private parties that are under contract with the single payer. In the United Kingdom, doctors can work for anyone but all payment comes from one fund. Under most forms, the government serves as the single payer.
There have been many proposals for a single payer national health insurance plan in the United States. The first proposal was made in the state of California in 1994. In Minnesota, there was a motion to pass a bill to implement state-wide single payer health insurance. This bill has already been passed by several committees. California and Illinois have also introduced similar bills. If the United States were to establish national health insurance, it would likely mirror the plans called for by these states but on a larger scale.
Several private groups of medical professionals have also called for the establishment of a national health insurance system in the United States. Physicians for a National Health Program and the California Nurses Association are just two of these. The issue has been a source of great debate in the last few Presidential elections. In February of 2009, one poll indicated that 59 percent of physicians felt that national health insurance would be a positive change.
Proponents of National Health Care
Those who do support the establishment of a national health insurance system have many reasons for doing so. Generally, these people believe that health care is a right, not a privilege and should be available to all people regardless of employment status or income. Currently, most Americans receive health insurance through their employers. The quality of the insurance depends on the job that a person has, which leaves many Americans with less insurance than they need. Doctors are also selective in which patients they treat, preferring to treat those with private insurance rather than those who are covered by Medicare, which does not pay as well.
Opponents of National Health Care
Those who are against the idea of national health insurance often feel that it is not the government's place to interfere in the health care system. They may feel as though it is unfair for those who contribute more to the system to get the same care as those who contribute less. They often feel as though health care is a privilege, rather than a right.
The United States is one of the few first world nations that does not have a national health insurance plan. Several groups are calling for change, however, and it is likely that changes will be made in the future.
For National Health Care
Pro
Comment: We need universal health care, one way or another. Whether we do it Swiss-style (which seems like the most feasible option for the US) or Canada-style, we need universal coverage.
Comment: Would-destroy-our-already-fragile-economy.
Comment: A health insurance mandate is inevitable.
Comment: Im a fan of it now and it is much better than the current mess of a system we have now.
Comment: Health care should be accessible to everyone.
Comment: The NHS is one of the best things about the UK. Universal healthcare can only bring good things.
Comment: The people of countries with national healthcare have a higher percentage of people happy with it, and lower spending on it as a whole. That should tell you something.
Comment: Yes. Don't trust them insurance companies.
Comment: Referring to Universal Health Care, that is, healthcare provided by the state, with no corporate involvement whatsoever.
Comment: Support universal health care. Support tax incentives for fruits, vegetables and natural foods. Support tax incentives for positive wellness drug screens. Support incentives for organ and science donors.
Against National Health Care
Con
Comment: Lowers the quality of Health Care
Comment: ItisnottheGovernment'sjobtoprovidehealthcare,privatecompaniescandoitmuchmoreefficiently.
Comment: Obamacare is an out rage. Right now, when we are the farthest in debt than any nation in the world, Obama thinks it will be a great idea to put people on a nation health care service. We cannot afford the Marxism right now.
Comment: Free market healthcare with health savings accounts (HSA) linked to high deductible insurance. A consumer-driven health care system, through competition, will deliver state of the art health care at affordable prices.
Comment: Another waste of expenses for our government when we should be cutting back and saving money.
Comment: The problems with healthcare are rooted in government policies that removed individual control over health care and led to the growth of Health Maintenance Organizations. The recently passed health care reform bill will only make things worse. Congress should repeal all federal interventions in the healthcare markets, starting with the individual mandate, and instead make it easier for individuals to pay for health insurance through Health Savings Accounts and individual tax credits.
Comment: I hate OBAMACARE! At least the RFID chip part got repealed.
Comment: I think state-based healthcare could be more efficient than national health care. Not only this, but I also believe that the private market and private charities could support people in the absence of our unsustainable, debt-causing, inefficient federal healthcare system.
Comment: It'snottheroleofGovernment.Iftheywanttomakeanewhealthcareprovider,that'snotfundedbythetaxpayer,isregulatedbytheFederalgovernment,breaksevenonprofits,andispaidforbythosewhouseit;thanIwouldbeOKwithit.Requiringotherspayforinsurancetheyarenotusingiswrong
Comment: Government healthcare is too inefficient. Provide welfare to the poor to allow purchase of care.

