|
|
Debate:Health care, universal
From Debatepedia
[  ] [  ] [  ] [  ] [  ] Is single-payer (government-funded) free universal health care a good idea?
|
YOU CAN BECOME AN EDITOR OF THIS PAGE. DEBATEPEDIA IS A WIKI THAT ANYONE CAN EDIT! BE BOLD, CLICK EDIT, AND HELP MAKE THIS PAGE INTO A VALUABLE PUBLIC RESOURCE THAT THOUSANDS WILL READ. SEE THE GETTING STARTED TUTORIAL. ALSO, SEE THE CORRESPONDING FACEBOOK GROUP FOR THIS DEBATE.
Editing tasks you can help with
- This page needs a background section. See Debate:Abortion for a good example of how to do this.
- More quotations should appear on the this page. Too many of them are tucked away in argument pages. They should be copied-and-pasted. A balance of argument summaries and summarizing-quotations is good on debate pages.
- The pro/con videos section can be expanded. See Posting videos.
[ ] Background and Context of Debate:
By definition Universal Health Care is the idea that health care coverage ought to be extended to all citizens and sometimes to permanent residents of a certain geographic area. The idea was first unofficially implemented in Germany by Otto von Bismarck in the 1880s.
The system was first officially used in the United Kingdom in 1948. According to the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences, the United States is the only wealthy, developed nation without a system of Universal Health Care. Almost every nation in Europe has established a system of Universal Health Care. Some states and regions can decide on their own accord whether or not they will establish some form of Universal Health Care for their citizens.
The problem essentially stems from the question of whether or not the government should be hands-off in its legislation and regulation as the establishment of this system would require much of both. Proponents of a more hands-off government do not believe in Universal Health Care because they think the government should allow people to deal with Health Care as they see fit. Those who encourage at least a form of Universal Health Care are those who believe in a government's strong obligation to its people directly through its legislations. However, while such a system has the ability to create more justice amongst social classes, it also has the ability to significantly raise taxes.
Other background resources:
|
[ ] [  ] [  ] [  ] [  ] Motions: What are the general motions of the pro and con sides?
|
[  ] [ ] Yes
- This house believes health care is a right, obligating governments to provide it universally.
- This house believes profit companies cannot provide adequate care.
- This house believes private companies should be excluded from the system.
- This house argues that profit companies are less economical and efficient.
- This house values health over wealth
|
[ ] [ ] No
- This house contends that health care is not a right, making it unnecessary for governments to supply it universally.
- This house believes that companies can better provide health care.
- This house maintains that if a universal system is pursued, it should involve for profit companies and insurers.
- Some on this side maintain health care is a right, but that private companies should be involved in providing it.
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [  ] Human rights: Is health care a human right?
|
[ ] [ ] Yes
- Health care is a basic human right or entitlement Health is fundamental to the preservation of all other individual rights. If one is sick in a hospital bed, they cannot be said to have equal opportunity or the ability to exercise free speech and religion. And, of course, one cannot pursue happiness if they are in a hospital bed. This is why health must be considered a basic human right.
- Universal health care protects healthy citizens from many health risks. If citizens have a right to be healthy, they are due some protections from the sickly. By providing for the sickly, government is helping protect the rights of the healthy.
- Health care is considered a right in international law. The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights enumerates medical care as a universal right.
- Universal health care is a social good, not merely an economic good Universal health care generally decreases human misery and increases human welfare. It is, therefore, a social good, not merely an economic good. In general, the ability to afford something does not play a role in whether it is just or not. If there is a conflict between life and money life should prevail because it is a right while money is a want not a need.
- Universal health care is a legitimate "burden" on the tax payer. People pay for public utilities such as road and people pay for education as well. But do people who don't drive recklessly ask for money back when roads are damaged? Do people who send their children to private school ask for all their money back? We place this burden on the state because of equality of opportunity. No man should be denied the right to live his life.
- Universal healthcare helps foster greater equality across classes. In the United States, the poor commonly cannot afford health care. Universal health care helps them get the care that they need. Without health care, the poor are more vulnerable and have a harder time achieving their goals. This violates their right to equal opportunity.
|
[ ] [ ] No
- Free, universal health care is an illegitimate "positive" right. The main premises here is that "rights" should only protect individuals from harm from others and allow them certain freedoms, but a right to universal health care entails individuals burdening other members of society (possibly violating the liberties of innocents) for things that are perceived as needed or desirable. The extreme of this argument is the circumstance in which a careless smoker is given the "right" to burden others for their expensive health care costs.
- The necessity of medical care does not make it a right. Food, for example, is not considered a right, and companies are allowed to sell it, as well as to withhold it from those that need it but can't afford it. This is the right of grocery stores to do, and receives no complaint from society in general.
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Analogous services: Is universal health care analogous to other government services?
|
[ ] [ ] Yes
- The government funds fire-stations, why not universal health care? The government taxes citizens to fund and provide numerous services universally, including policemen and firemen. These services are comparable to physician services in many ways, particularly in the sense that they help protect the life, safety, or health of citizens. Why shouldn't health care also be provided universally through the same means - taxes?
|
[ ] [ ] No
- Health problems are more about individual choices than fires and crime. While many people compare health care to police stations and fire stations, they are not the same services. Health care is largely about providing a service to the individual that compensates, often, for poor individual choices. Fire stations and police departments, on the other hand, provide services to a community and focus on protecting individuals against things they have no control over (crime and fires). The differences are very significant in regard to what the state is obligated to provide. The state is obligated to protect citizens from one-another. But, the state is not obligated to protect citizens from themselves. Universal health care is wrongheaded to the extent that it involves protecting individuals from themselves.
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Needy: Is free health care important for those in dyer need?
|
[ ] [ ] Yes
- Free, universal health care helps the unhealthy in times of need. When an individual is sick, they shouldn't have to think about how to pay for their treatment. In free, universal health care systems, when one is sick, they are simply told to rest and get better. This is essential for proper healing. Conversely, in a non-free-universal-health-care system, a sick person is required to figure out how to pay for their health care, rather than simply focusing on getting better. The stresses this causes hampers healing.
- It is wrong to make more vulnerable people pay more for insurance The modus operandi of the insurance industry is that the vulnerable (people of higher risk of becoming ill) pay more for health insurance. But, this is unfair and contrary to the higher moral principles upon which societies should be founded. Society should strive to defend and care for the needy and vulnerable, instead of subjecting them to a system that punishes them for their disadvantages.
|
[ ] [ ] No
- A right to health care is not necessary in taking care of sick patients. Indigent patients have been taken care of by physicians with dignity and compassion in the name of genuine charity, pro bono. This model can provide adequate care to the needy. And, of course, this model can be expanded out further, if need be, to aid the needy.
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Choice: Does universal health care deprive some choice? Is this OK?
|
[ ] [ ] Yes
- When the wealthy must use public health care, the system improves If the wealthy are not allowed to buy better health insurance, and are forced to use public single-payer health care, they come to realize that the only way to ensure good care is to pressure for good universal health care. As a result of the wealthy pressuring for improvements, all individuals of all classes will enjoy better health care.
- Many single-payer systems give patients free choice of practitioners. In some countries with socialized medicine, such as the UK, patients are offered a choice of general practitioner, all of whom are self-employed or work in private partnerships employing all practice nurses, doctors and clerical staff. In addition, some hospital services are sub-contracted to the private sector, so that patients can choose from a range of providers International comparisons of quality of care and health outcomes generally rank the UK above the U.S.
|
[ ] [ ] No
- Universal health care will have rules that decrease patient flexibility "Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?" Balanced Politics.org - "Government-controlled health care would lead to a decrease in patient flexibility. At first glance, it would appear universal health care would increase flexibility. After all, if government paid for everything under one plan, you could in theory go to any doctor. However, some controls are going to have to be put in to keep costs from exploding. For example, would "elective" surgeries such as breast implants, wart removal, hair restoration, and lasik eye surgery be covered? [...] The compromises that result will put in controls that limit patient options. The universal system in Canada forces patients to wait over 6 months for a routine pap smear. Canada residents will often go to the U.S. or offer additional money to get their health care needs taken care of."
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Uninsured: Do large numbers of uninsured give cause to universal health care?
|
[ ] [ ] Yes
|
[ ] [ ] No
- Many uninsured are lazy free-loaders who don't deserve care Many uninsured are simply lazy, and believe they can get a free ride off of the system. These people do not deserve free, universal care from the system.
- Universal health care would amount to welfare for the uninsured. The government should not create a health care system that is aimed primarily at helping the poor and uninsured. As such, it becomes merely another wealth-transfer program.
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Socialized medicine: Is it wrong to call single-payer systems socialized medicine?
|
[ ] [ ] Yes
- Single-payer systems involve government paying for private services Most single-payer systems in Europe, as well as ones proposed in the United States (building on Medicare), involve the government paying for the insurance of individuals. This means that individuals would still go to private hospitals and doctors. The only difference is that the government-funded insurance pays for services instead of the money coming from your own insurance company.
|
[ ] [ ] No
- Single-payer health care is "socialized medicine" Lenin said, "medicine is the keystone in the arch of socialism." Government should not be in control of medicine and should generally not be in too many features of our lives. It is both inefficient and an intrusion on our fundamental rights.
- Universal health care leads to rationing. Medical resources are rationed in socialized systems so that some people are either denied care or have to wait for it. If a person is "rationed out" of the public health care service (perhaps because the treatment is not considered effective or cost effective enough to warrant intervention) they will be able seek alternative treatment in the private sector. If they cannot afford private care, they may have to go without.
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Physicians: Is free, universal health care fair to physicians?
|
[ ] [ ] Yes
- Universal health care can actually strengthen doctor pay If there are more insured patients within a universal health care system, more people will seek health care. As such, there will be more paying patients in a universal health care system, which will result in more income for doctors. Doctors will also spend less time on paper work, be more efficient, service more patients, and so make more money.
- Single-payer systems insure individuals, but don't restrict doctors A universal health care system does not mean that the private market should be abolished. Doctors can chooses to operate private practices in a two-tier system. This will attract consumers who require either more personal service, those who know or want a personal doctor, and those who want better quality of care than the public system provides.
- Universal health care grounds doctors in professionalism, not commercialism. Doctors are currently businessmen that sell health services. But, realizing that this is not a good model for dealing people's lives and health, many doctors see universal health care as a way to better root their profession in professionalism instead of this commercialism.
|
[ ] [ ] No
- A right to health care violates the rights of physicians One cannot have a right to other people's services. Does a physician not have the free right of association and contract with patients? Why would physicians be forced to perform free or government-set prices for their labor? Why shouldn't they be able to charge market value for their services? Did they enter into their practices with the understanding that they would not be able to charge fair market value? No. They are generally service providers like any other that expect fair, market-based compensation. Universal health care would deprive physicians of this freedom to charge market-value by imposing government pricing on their services, almost certainly at a discounted rate.
- Universal health care will cut physician cash-flow and disrupt living-standards. It is important to recognize that many private physicians have oriented their private practices around a certain level of cash-flow. They have rented office space at a certain level, taken out mortgages at a certain level, and sent their kids to private schools all on the assumption that their existing cash-flow in their private practices would continue into the future. It is unfair to suddenly and dramatically curtail this cash-flow and force physicians to re-adjust their lives accordingly. For some, this will be impossible or unbearable.
- Single-payer health care over-loads doctors and burns them out Because more people seek care, doctors in a universal health care environment often are over-loaded. Hoping to meet their patients needs, they work over-time. Yet, by doing this, they often burn out and leave their practice early, exacerbating the problem even further.
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Quality: Does free, universal health care provide superior care?
|
[ ] [ ] Yes
- For-profit insurance companies often put patients at risk to cut costs - Health insurance claims are considered a "loss" for profit insurance companies. These companies are designed to maximize profits by cutting costs. How can these companies act in the best interests of their patients if their incentive structure is designed to minimize health coverage?
- Insurance companies screen out those that need health care the most Insurance companies have a interest in maximizing profits that drives them to screen out individuals that are unhealthy, old, and "high-risk". These are the people that need health care the most, and the insurance industry has a direct interest in making it difficult or more expensive for them to obtain health insurance.
- Universal health care systems incentivize improving patient health. Many free universal health care systems provide incentives to doctors to improve the health of their patients. This contrasts with for-profit health care systems that do not provide financial incentives to doctors to improve the health of their patients, largely because healthier patients would mean lower profits.
- Universal health care allows investments in longer-term patient relationships. This happens because there is a long term relationship with the patient and the preservation of records has long term benefits. Investment in IT is one often cited example where health care providers in socialized systems have access to electronic records of patients tests online and where computer systems can check for example incompatible drug combinations and that drugs are administered to the right patient. Some for profit systems find this investment hard to justify because the provider-patient relationship is not guaranteed to last long enough to justify the investment.
- Universal health care decreases the likelihood of health related problems. The single most destructive issue regarding health care in America is the lack of preventative care. Patients wait until their disease progresses to a dangerous level before they seek care because otherwise they can not afford medical cost. Universal health care offers them access, thus increasing the patient's incentive to seek care when the health threat is minimal, and in the long run reducing the burden to the state.
|
[ ] [ ] No
- The markets are better at providing quality; same with health care. The markets and competition generally help produce higher quality goods for the least money (the highest value). The same applies to health care.
- Quality of health care is much worse under universal health care. According to Reuters in London, one in 10 patients admitted to National Health Service hospitals in Britain is unintentionally harmed and almost a million safety incidents, more than 2,000 of which were fatal, were recorded last year, according to a report on July 6, 2006. Such figures were "terrifying enough", the report by parliament's public accounts committee said, but the reality may be worse because of what it called "substantial under-reporting" of serious incidents and deaths in the NHS
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Prevention: Is free universal health care important to preventive care?
|
[ ] [ ] Yes
| |
