I'm against. Despite its benefit that nobody is left in a hospital without insurance, modern implementations are inefficient and infringe on rights that Americans have come to take for granted.
One needs only to look toward Canada or Great Britain for examples of universal health care's detriments. People can wait for months to get the care they need. This is usually in cases where the surgery or care is non-vital, but walking around with health problems until your name comes up on the waiting list will be a shock to Americans who have grown used to waiting a couple weeks at the most. Also, the NHS in GB is often forced to ration technologies and medical services it provides to its hospitals, putting British hospitals behind the curve. Politics could come into the game of who gets what.
It is already illegal to refuse a person emergency medical care based on a lack of insurance. Nonprofits and government-run hospitals already provide services to those who are uninsured.
Providing universal health care means funding has to come into the equation somehow. Universal health care isn't really free; either taxes will have to be raised or spending from another government system, like defense or education, will have to be re-appropriated.
Young, healthy individuals are forced to buy health care or pay fines. Why should a young, physically sound individual have to pay for health care that he doesn't need? The individual freedom is lost.
Government regulations on prices and salaries for drugs, medical equipment, and medical services (which will likely be put in place) will cut incentive for medical R&D and investment. Medical advances will slow.
Some would-be doctors may be dissuaded from pursuing the profession when it becomes a creature of the government. Doctors who perform well and attract patients would be paid the same as those who perform poorly and drive patients away.
Universal health care makes the system a child of politicians rather than medical or economic forces. Do we really want politicians, notorious for applying national controls to systems like education without a lick of experience in the area, to control yet another facet of our lives that they have no experience with?
Posts: 29,534 House of: Wordiness XKI Political Party: MSPP - Mayor Shelter Political Party XKI Generation: The Redesign Generation XKI Map Nation Color: Red XKI NS Join Year: 138 - Monday, 18 October 2010
Thanks for signing up Mal! Thats awesome. Which side would you both like to take
Heres the Format the debates will take:
You'll have the proposition and the opposition with 2-3 people each side and you'll have the topic, the motion of the debate.
Once we have 6 participants, the debate begins! Either side can begin Every participant speaks and once all have contributed we can move onto the rebuttals. Once this is concluded the Dean will put up the poll and voting begins. The Winning side gets 3000 tacos each!
Before I start, I want to point out that I don;t believe in a "single payer" system of Universal Health Care, at least not for the United States. The U.S. is quite simply too big for such a system. The tax burden would be incredibly difficult to meet, and would result in tax rates that would adversely impact our economy.
That being said, the United States is an industrialized nation. It has put men on the moon, produced research and technolgies that have impacted the world, and been among the leaders in medical research. It's nearly criminal that millions of Americans lack access to basic health coverage.
So, what is the solution? Universal health care. The model I propose is a combination of public and private solutions to provide access to health care. Those who get access thorugh their employers should continue to do so. Tax breaks for providing employer based insurance should be increased to give employers an incentive to providing coverage.
As to funding: there are programs and other budget expenditures which can be reduced or curtailed to provide funding for Universal Healthcare, which would have no impact on the average taxpayer.
Insurance companies should get tax breaks for providing coverage to high risk patients. In the Netherlands, there is no single payer system, but rather a model similar to the one I've described.
Would this benefit our economy? Yes. Medically induced personal bankruptcy would be offset or eliminated.
Because people are getting basic health care, more prevention would result in curtailment of long term illnesses.
This is also a national security issue: a healthier populace means a healthier pool of candidates for our military.
I've put out the basics, but I'll stop to let the other side ring in.
So, I guess I'll just reiterate what I said earlier with a few additions.
Universal healthcare does have the benefit of providing care to those who could not afford it otherwise. However, there are certain pitfalls to such care that cannot be ignored.
Under universal healthcare, completely healthy, young individuals are forced to help fund a system that will provide little to no benefit for them. The choice is removed from them through the mandate.
Universal healthcare would engender a system in which individuals do not necessarily feel obligated to keep themselves healthy; when you can simply sign up to head into the doctor's office at little to no cost to you, what's another pack of cigarettes or a lost liver due to overuse of alcohol? Universal healthcare would end up being more burdensome in such a situation.
Providing universal healthcare would put the health industry underneath all the bureaucratic red tape that we always hear about. That's just another industry susceptible to government corruption, under-the-table dealings, and funding issues that government simply cannot handle and does not need to. Government regulation does not breed efficiency.
A symptom of universal healthcare that we observe in systems like the UK with its National Health Service is the lack of up-to-date health equipment. By putting healthcare under control of the government, hospital funding becomes yet another obligation in a list of thousands on the government budget. In efforts to save cash and/or appropriate normal funding for other, more "important" areas, it is unlikely that most hospitals will be able to maintain the equipment standards that they now have.
Yet another symptom is the inability of a person seeking medical care to receive the help they need in a timely manner. In nations like Canada and the UK, it is frequently a concern that doctors are unable to see patients with "non-critical" health issues for months on end due to long waiting lists for surgeries and regular check-ups.
It is already illegal to refuse critical care to a patient merely because they do not have insurance or cannot afford it. Many nonprofits or religious institutions will help to provide funding for individuals who cannot do so on their own.
Free healthcare is free in principle but costly in practice. Higher taxes and/or a strain on other areas, such as education, defense, or the environment would need to be enforced.
Competition is healthy for private enterprise; private insurers have to remain competitive. Monopolizing the industry makes companies and government agencies complacent, removing any reason to improve products and/or services.
It is likely that certain services, such as drug rehabilitation, mental health, and dentistry would be reduced or cut completely to keep costs low and the tax increase nominal.
Post by spacemandoug on Apr 9, 2012 16:28:54 GMT -5
I have four reason against Universal Healthcare. Most of them have been said so I'll just reiterate in bullet point form.
• It undermines and individuals responsibility. Universal healthcare offers a safety net but inflicts no responsibility to an individual, how can we learn to take care of ourselves if we do not see the consequences of not? • It's too expensive, when run by governments the first responsibility is to it's people than to the system, a private company would be able to handle healthcare by running it as business, it would be far better at keeping itself afloat. • Private healthcare as I have already said would handle healthcare better than a government, but it cannot operate as long as a universal healthcare does. • Taxes are an infringement upon freedoms, and people should not have to pay for others as it's simply not fair to them.
Universal Healthcare promises many wonderful benefits, unfortunately those promises are hollow. Universal Healthcare is nothing more than a socialist plan to aid in wealth redistribution. My fellow teammates have done a wonderful job of outlining many of the pitfalls this system would bring.
Mothers would not be discouraged from dragging their children to the doctor every time they have a runny nose or scrape their knee. The flood of unnecessary visits would bog the system down.
Doctors would lose all incentive to excel. If working harder doesn't mean more money, what's the point?
Hospitals wouldn't be able to afford the best equipment and the quality of services provided would deteriorate.
There is a famous saying that those who fail to learn from the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them. History has shown, time and time again, that governmental control leads to inefficiency. Any place that offers Universal Healthcare is a portrait of healthcare that is substandard compared to the model we currently have in the US.
Firstly it gives everyone access to the same healthcare, no matter what background they are from or what their financial situation. Many more people can receive help and care and need not worry about the cost on themselves, which may cause some people not to seek medical attention. Even if support is offered by charities for people who can't afford the healthcare needed, other people who can technically afford it would lose a huge chunk of their earnings and would have to rearrange their finances.
Also smaller symptoms would be more likely to be checked out by a local doctor, which can lead to earlier diagnoses, whereas if these people were being charged, they may ignore these smaller symptoms.
The money comes out of taxes so the burden would fall depending on earnings, certainly the usage would not be highest by those paying most and many people may not get the full value of their money from healthcare received in their lives but most taxes are like that, with people paying for some things that may never affect them directly. Also the universal health system would act as a safety net for anyone and everyone, so people wouldn't have to save money just in case of illness.
There may be longer queues but emergency issues still get seen to fairly rapidly and trivial issues would be filtered out by a GP, while more serious issues can be referred to the nearest hospital.
There are many criteria for what qualifies as part of the national health system (e.g. what cosmetic surgery is necessary) so unnecessary issues would not be a strain on the system and these people can go private. Also the option of going private to avoid queues would be there, but at least there is a national system in place too.
I'll leave it there for now as I'm starting to waffle