Universal Health Care

This has been set as Novembers Public Forum Debate topic, it's pretty interesting, actually.

Resolved: That the United States should implement universal health care modeled after the French system.

I'm actually for this one, what about you guys?

We'd pay for it in taxes basically, but we wouldn't have the burden of insurance companies or extreme hospital bills and such.

I'm for it, in other words.

Yes sir, give me universal health care, I'm tired of being told I'm accepted for health care by self-centered businessmen. Should the health of a nation really be a business?
I guess the final question we must ask ourselves is if the United States is a country who cares about its people or a country who cares about itself.

The USA is really like a bizarro form of the rest of the world. This one of the only countrys where doctors actually get into the buisness to make lots of money as opposed to actually helping people. In some countries it's actually ILLEGAL for doctors to make a large profit out of it.

Yeah, and naysayers complain that MEDICINE IS 16% of our REVENUE.
It's awesome that some people know what's truly important in this world

I'm going to quote a huge portion from my essay I did that was partially about health care.





All economies in the world exhibit mixed economies while some rely more on privatization than others. America’s current economy emphasizes private enterprise over public enterprise. Many American entrust in consumer driven industries rather than taxation or redistribution of wealth to cover the expenses of higher education and health care. Supposedly this is freer. Private Enterprise companies are owned by the company’s families and a certain number of investors. It also holds the philosophy that it provides competition, therefore reduces costs.


However, this concept might not always be evident. For instance, while we spend more per individual on health care than nations that have established public health care, health care remains private. There are many natural causes of increasing costs, such as the population rapidly gaining weight and a reduced birth rate. The profit incentive however, (the primary objective of privatization), is the fundamental root of immensely inflated prices. Doctors get paid by the volume of tests they run. You'd like to think your doctor wouldn't administer unnecessary tests, but he has an economic incentive to maximize profits. Private healthcare involves hospitals and healthcare clinics being run like any other business. Depending on the various legislation of the state, people who do not pay privately will either be refused treatment or legislation will require the hospital to provide treatment.

In the case of people being refused treatment, (due to pre existing conditions mainly), this has the economic cost of increased deaths as well as less motivated workers, and thus a less productive labor force. This will eventually influence the rest of the economy and result in serious consequences. Whether it leads to a violent revolution, decreased production or worker strikes, it is detrimental for the economy as a whole. When hospitals have to provide treatment, this will result in treatment being provided for people who probably will never be able to afford it. This will mean two things: people who haven’t got the funds are given a huge bill that will likely financially ruin them, (which results in similar economic consequences as mentioned above, as well as increasing the poverty rate and contributing to the cycle of poverty), and businesses have now provided a service, amassing costs in the process, that they won't collect. This leaves the business to be burdened with costs, which will either be taken by the business cutting into profits or they will raise premiums. This in turn, creates a cycle of increasing costs where healthcare costs exponentially rise, and result in a system of hyper inflation. Consumers end up paying a higher proportion of their incomes for service, which shrinks their disposable income (World Socialism 2004).

So, what does that mean for consumers? The first priority of insurance companies is to minimize their losses. This takes the form of manipulation: either avoid payment or pay far less than the cost of healthcare. As costs increase these exclusions occur more frequently and to a point where consumers are denied treatment because they've been misled about the terms of the initial insurance contract. The insurance company worms its way out of payment by not covering it wholly and consumers are left to pay the majority of the bill.

It’s clear in this industry your survival rate is based on how much wealth you possess. This does not appear to be freedom to me, as insurance corporations behave more like despots than anything else. Of course problems exist in all health care systems, but on average the quality of countries that provide universal health care is higher. Innovation is not affected either, for such countries like Canada and Sweden have invented many new medicines and technologies. On the absolute rare occasion should someone die while waiting for treatment, (those who need it greatest are put at front of the line), people here in America who die due to not being able to afford it far surpasses that number (Krugman 2009).
Those who oppose universal health care frequently blur together the definitions of socialism and communism, while reminiscing about the failures of government control during the time of the Soviet Union. Ronald Reagan’s LP, “Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine”, was a pivotal piece of media presented to the American public. Reagan had claimed socialized medicine was disguised as a humanitarian effort but its’ true intentions were to terrorize society and eventually seize control of all citizens’ rights. Rush Limbaugh declared on his show once, “socialism is socialism, as I say. If you want me to, I'll go back and give you the fascists of the '20s and '30s. You don't like Nazi Germany? I'll give you Mussolini's Italy. Or I can give you the Soviet Union any time in the '70s, '80s, and '90s. Whatever you want, I can give you. I can give you the North Koreans today. Socialism is Socialism, wherever it is and whatever you call it”(Media Matters 2009).

According to David Harmer, a tea party activist, public education is socialism and would benefit from returning to being private, (before any demographic other than rich white men had access). In education there is also a desire, (namely amongst the tea party), to censor teaching particular subjects for apparently rebelling against American ethics. For example, instructing what communism is, (despite falsely defining it) (Baumann 2010). This illustrates a disproportionate view in economics and government if you exclude a particular theory for being considered immoral. Teaching evolution has also forever been a heated matter in education: many suggest integrating it with theocratic explanations of conception, while some school boards have vowed to fight mentioning scientific theories whatsoever (Kilkenny 2010).

This suppression of information ironically demonstrates the very government control we are fearful of. Real freedom entails the civilian possesses the right to truthful information about domestic and international concerns, and is allowed the access to health services based on need rather than wealth. The ability to criticize should exist, but protection against biased and misleading “facts” should also apply. It is both hypocritical and frightening that we have elected people who prefer an all omnipotent elite force who will permit “freedom” as long as you have money, support capitalism, and are patriotic. Figuratively speaking, we are fighting fire with fire. A perfect quote that can illustrate such a society some desire is, "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others".

Nice essay, I really think it showcases why we do need Universal Health Care