Personal tools
 
Views

Debate: Single-payer universal health care

From Debatepedia

Jump to: navigation, search


[Digg]
[reddit]
[Delicious]
[Facebook]

Is single-payer health care a good idea?

Background and context

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: See Wikipedia:Universal health care, See Wikipedia: Publicly-funded healthcare, Wikipedia: Single-payer health care, Canadian and American health care systems compared

Contents

[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]

Analogous services: Is universal health care analogous to other government services?

[Add New]

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?
  • Health is often out of an individual's control; like fires. You will see that the other side of this argument makes a distinction between things that an individual can control and those he/she cannot. The argument is that fire and police protection are things beyond the control of individuals, but that healthcare is not. This argument is seriously flawed. Many healthcare issues are very much out of the control of individuals. Consider a bus accident. Many accidents are out of the control of individuals. While many accidents are a result of an individual being stupid or not being careful, so are many fires. There is no real distinction here. Either you should be opposed to fire/police protection and universal healthcare, or should support both. Picking one is a logical inconsistency.


[Add New]

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.
  • Whether universal health care is analogous to other services is inconsequential. Whether universal health care is analogous or a legitimate burden on tax payers does not answer whether a universal system provides the results proponents argue.
[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Choice: Does universal health care deprive some choice? Is this OK?

[Add New]

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.


[Add New]

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."


[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Needy: Is free health care important for those in dire need?

[Add New]

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.
  • Unacceptable to leave health care of millions to rare charity orgs/docs. It is morally unacceptable to leave the health care of millions of American who cannot afford to pay insurance to the hands of the few rare doctors and charity health care services. Also, charity health services would not have enough equipment and funds to treat expensive, life-threatening diseases like cancers.


[Add New]

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.


[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Human rights: Is health care a human right?

[Add New]

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. Article 25 of 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.


[Add New]

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.
  • Whether health care is a right under i-law is inconsequential. The mere act that a UN body on Human Rights has added that to their charter is not definitive of anything. Using it as an argument fails as it's only an appeal to authority.
  • Whether universal health care is a legitimate "burden" on the tax payer should be considered inconsequential. Since health care is currently 1/7th of the US Economy, simply asking whether the tax payer can be burdened to help provide others with health care does nothing to ask whether allowing more government control will end with the results proponents predict.
  • Whether universal health care is a social good is inconsequential. Again, this question's answer has no bearing on whether a universal system can provide the level of service proponents claim.
  • It is impossible to answer whether universal health care fosters greater equality. Since the word equality necessitates a value judgment as to what is "equal" when it comes to health care and class status, a universal definition is not possible. For instance - would it be equal if no one had access to MRI's? If only 80% of those requiring an MRI could get it - what would determine how to define those individuals "equally"?


[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Uninsured: Do large numbers of uninsured give cause to universal health care?

[Add New]

Yes


[Add New]

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.
  • Do large numbers of uninsured give cause to universal health care? No, as it does nothing to answer how many would be without in a hypothetical universal system. For instance, what if we knew that instead of 50 million uninsured, we would end up with 60 million uninsured due to additional inefficiencies and failure to predict actual cost?
[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Socialized medicine: Is it wrong to call single-payer systems socialized medicine?

[Add New]

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.


[Add New]

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.
  • Government intrudes in medical decisions in a single-payer system. Government will involve itself in decisions between doctors and patients under a single-payer system.
  • "Is it wrong to call single-payer systems socialized medicine?" is another inconsequential question. It's answer is meaningless to which system provides the most benefits to the most people. It's a semantic argument which will hang more on specific definitions or words that anything resembling rational health care debate. Having said that - the answer is "yes". Socializing anything involves taking individual decisions and "socializing" any negative effects to the community instead of limiting it to the individual.
[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Physicians: Is free, universal health care fair to physicians?

[Add New]

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.


[Add New]

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.


[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Quality: Does free, universal health care provide superior care?

[Add New]

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.


[Add New]

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
  • IT investments do not require government intervention. Some have argued that IT enhancements in a universal system will provide efficiency improvements. Most technological advancements which includes universal IT standards for online financial transactions, messenger protocols, FTP protocols, and many, many others have been standardized within the industries without government intervention.
  • Lack of preventative care does not significantly contribute to life expectancy or quality of life. Most of what determines length and quality of life (excluding human issues such as traffic accidents, homicides...) is genetics and life style choices (eating/exercise). Early detection will certainly weigh heavily on life expectancy for certain diseases, but no amount of "prevention" will stop cancer if you genes are highly susceptible. As most people know, most doctor's visits end with "take this and call me if it doesn't get better" which should hardly be seen as "preventative" of anything.
[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Prevention: Is free universal health care important to preventive care?

[Add New]

Yes


[Add New]

No

  • Better technologies and treatments in private health care aids prevention. Private health care societies are known for having better innovation and higher investment in equipment and high-end treatments. These treatments can be a part of prevention or early treatment, and can have better results than what exists in universal health care systems.
  • Higher-end treatment is important; sometimes you can't prevent illness. With higher-end treatments in privatized health care societies, treatment is often superior. For those that will contract illnesses or cancers regardless of any preventative measures they take, such high-end treatment is welcome.


[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Innovation: Do single-payer systems support medical innovation?

[Add New]

Yes

  • Most investment in medical innovation does not come from companies Private companies make up a smaller portion of the total investment in medical innovation. This means that a single-payer health care system would not see a major reduction in funding for medical innovation. Depending on how the system is designed, it could even see an increase in such investment.
  • Profit interests corrupt investments in medical innovation Drug and medical companies are driven, in large part, by the bottom-line of profits. Their investments in new drugs and medical innovations are driven by these interests. But, what is likely to make the most money is often at odds with public and patient interests.


[Add New]

No

  • Single-payer health care hinders medical investment and innovation The primary cause of this is a reduction in economic incentives for innovation. In general, the only way that people will take the time, energy, and risks involved with innovation is if there are substantial returns for their investment. This notion underpins the markets and capitalism generally, but is undermined by universal health care. Universal health care, therefore, could be expected to see fewer innovations and medical advancements.
  • Under investment in single-payer system leads to capacity shortages A lack of willingness to invest in expensive technology leads to shortages in areas such as MRI scanning. Some would argue that only the price mechanism in free market health care can allocate resources efficiently and that political pressure often leads to shortages in socialized systems.


[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Standards: Would universal health care set a good standard of care?

[Add New]

Yes

[Add New]

No

[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Delays: Do universal health care systems address concerns of delays?

[Add New]

Yes

  • Single-payer health care reduces complexities faced by patients Insurance companies often make life as difficult as possible for patients through complicated rules and qualifications. Again, profit-interests motivate this because it makes it less likely that patients will seek a claim. This is all very stressful and time-consuming for patients. A single-payer system would simplify things.


[Add New]

No

John Goodman, president of the National Center for Policy Analysis, wrote, "rationing by waiting is pervasive, putting patients at risk and keeping them in pain."[2]
  • Frequent cancellations are a feature of universal health care systems. A function of "rationing", doctors sometimes have to cancel visits in a single-payer system.


[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Competition: Is competition a bad thing in health care?

[Add New]

Yes

  • Competition in health care is generally a bad idea While competition can make sense when it relates to the production of goods, it is not good when it relates to dealing with human life. The main problem is that a primary means of "cost-cutting" is by skimping on services to people in need.


[Add New]

No

  • Single-payer health care erodes competition in price and value The notion of the free markets as a source of efficiency dates back to Adam Smith. The health care industry is no exception to this rule. If it is open to the free-markets, consumers will shop for and purchase the best price and value. Pressure will be placed on insurance companies to cut costs and sell their surface at a lower price for greater value. Free universal health care would interrupt this, reduce efficiency, and increase costs.
  • Governments might attempt to control costs by gaining or enforcing monopsony power. For example, governments, such as Canada, have outlawed medical care if the service is paid for by private individual funds.


[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Economic efficiencies: Would universal health care be more economically efficient?

[Add New]

Yes

  • Universal health care makes people healthier so more productive.
  • Universal health care systems are more economically efficient. America spends a far higher percentage of GDP on health care than any other country, and has worse ratings on a variety of subjects such as quality of care, efficiency of care, access to care, safe care, equity, right care and wait times according to the commonwealth fund. New Zealand, which spends one third per capita what the US spends on health care beats the US on every marker of efficiency and care. Although not definitive, this does lend credence to the idea that universal health care is more efficient than our for profit health care system as the US was inferior to Germany, the UK, Australia, New Zealand and to a lesser degree Canada in nearly all health care quality issues. This despite the fact that the US system costs 2-3x more per capita than the systems in these other countries.
  • Single-payer health care gets rid of wasteful middlemen According to an estimate by Dr. Marcia Angell roughly 50% of healthcare dollars are spent on healthcare, the rest go to various middlemen and intermediates to providing healthcare. A streamlined, non-profit, universal system would increase the efficiency with which money spent on healthcare goes to healthcare.
  • Cost savings with universal health care will outweigh program costs It is important in this analysis to consider that, even if universal health care were to cost more now, that these costs could easily be outweighed by long-term cost-savings. In other words, the costs of not implementing universal health care would be greater than the costs of implementing it.
  • Costs are inconsequential if health care is considered a universal right. It may very well be true that universal health care increases costs. Yet, if we presume that health care is a right, then such added costs are insignificant; they must be born to secure the right of universal health care.


[Add New]

No

That is largely true of America's health care system. Government controls production and consumption by determining the number of physicians; what services medical professionals can offer and under what terms; where they can practice; who can open a hospital or purchase a new MRI; who can market a drug or medical device; and what kind of health insurance consumers may purchase.
Government bureaucrats even set the prices for half of our health care sector directly, and indirectly set prices for the other half. When you read about Medicare over-paying imaging centers and hospitals, or that it's impossible for Bostonians to get an appointment with a general practitioner, it's largely because the bureaucrats got the prices wrong, and those rigid prices do not automatically eliminate shortages and gluts like flexible market prices do."
  • Aging countries cannot afford universal health care. When a country's population ages, the strain of a universal health care program grows, with a larger percentage of the population reaching an age in which they require health care. Therefore, in countries where the population is aging, it may be important to avoid a universal health care program.


[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Administrative costs: Would it reduce administrative costs or add to them?

[Add New]

Yes

  • Universal health care reduces administrative costs (i.e. paper work) Medical professionals are often challenged with massive amounts of paperwork in private health care systems. A universal health care system will help coordinate and reduce paperwork, allowing doctors to concentrate on treating patients. A single payer system could save $286 billion a year in overhead and paperwork. Administrative costs in the US health care system are estimated to be substantially higher than in other countries and than in the public sector in the US: one estimate put the total administrative costs at 24 percent of US health care spending.


[Add New]

No

  • Universal health care creates a big, inefficient bureaucracy. The cause of this is greater bureaucratic oversight and more paperwork. This lowers the productivity of hospitals, and thus increases the costs for the same amount of work done.
  • The costs of transition to a universal health care program would be large: It would involve lost insurance industry jobs, business closures, and new patient record creation, among other things. Creating a new administrative framework and patient database would be a massive under-taking.


[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Price: Is the price to the individual taxpayer significantly lower?

[Add New]

Yes

  • Total costs for individuals would be reduced by universal health care: The current US system is already funded 64% by tax money with the remaining 36% split between private and employer spending. A universal healthcare system would merely replace private/employer spending with tax revenues. Total spending would go down for individuals and employers.


[Add New]

No

  • Universal health care is not free; people pay with their taxes. It is a myth that universal health care could somehow be free or lower the costs to the patient. People pay through their taxes instead of in direct payments to their health insurance providers.
  • Single-payer systems typically mean higher taxes. A country which adopts a totally tax funded socialized form of health care will have to increase the average tax rate by an amount equivalent to the cost of providing health care and administering the system.
  • Allowing for pooling of resources to force drugs to lower prices will reduce overall innovation. Reducing profit, reduces motive and the money necessary to get a drug through FDA trials. Without profit motive, drug companies will naturally move away from the rare and complex, yet fatal, diseases if they only affect a small percentage of people. Without the ability to set the price, their resources will naturally be moved almost exclusively into benign treatments which will have a larger percentage of the population as potential users.
[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Businesses: Would a universal health care system be good for businesses?

[Add New]

Yes


[Add New]

No

  • Free, universal health care would devastate the insurance industry "Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?" Balanced Politics.org - "A long, painful transition will have to take place involving lost insurance industry jobs, business closures, and new patient record creation. A universal health plan means the entire health insurance industry would be unnecessary. All companies in that area would have to go out of business, meaning all people employed in the industry would be out of work. A number of hospital record clerks that dealt with insurance would also be out of work. A number of these unemployed would be able to get jobs in the new government bureaucracy, but it would still be a long, painful transition. We'd also have to once again go through a whole new round of patient record creation and database construction, which would cost huge amounts of both time and money."
  • Universal health care risks monopsony: Universal health care systems, in an effort to control costs by gaining or enforcing monopsony power, sometimes outlaw medical care paid for by private, individual funds.



[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

World vs. US: What does a comparison between the US and world reveal?

[Add New]

Yes


[Add New]

No

  • US health care costs more because Americans are less healthy.
  • US health care costs more because Americans pay to avoid waiting.


[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Paying for it: Are there sound proposals for paying for added costs?

[Add New]

Yes

[Add New]

No

  • This puts government in the role of arbiter of what practices are healthy and unhealthy.
  • The collection and enforcement of these taxes is not free, but will entail additional bureaucracy.
  • Some controversial practices could be taxed. e.g. medical marijuana.
  • Such taxes are likely to be regressive, especially taxes on tobacco.
  • The healthfulness of some things is dependent on context, e.g. pain killers.
[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Mixed private-public: Is single-payer better than mixed private-public universal health?

[Add New]

Yes

  • Only the government can provide a coherent universal health care system. Such a system is important from the standpoint of providing quality care, in that only a standardized system and unified database can enable doctors to treat any patient that comes in front of them. Privatized systems often see doctors unable to access the history and files of patients that come before them. The main reasons include the cost and complexity of unifying and standardizing a system as well as the lack of a private-industry interest in seeing such a system emerge.


[Add New]

No

  • A mixed private-public system would preserve existing industries. Any proposal to shift to a single-payer universal health care program from a private health care system involves destroying the private health care industry. This is a highly disruptive act that would involve massive job loss. The advantage of a mixed private-public universal health care system is that it is not as destructive and damaging in this way. It acknowledges the existence of a private health care industry and the need to preserve at least some of the interests of such a massive, and important, industry.


[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Database: Would a centralized database be a good idea?

[Add New]

Yes

  • Government-control of databases better protect privacy than companies. It is important to recognize that this is not a choice between a government-controlled database and no database. The alternative to a government-controlled health care database is only a privately owned health care databases. With these choices in mind, it is better that health care information be held by the government than by less-regulated companies. The government is better able to protect the privacy of individuals.


[Add New]

No

  • Health care databases threaten to violate the privacy of patients.


[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Pro/con resources

[Add New]

Yes


[Add New]

No


[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section up]

Organizations and actors pro and con

[Add New]

Yes



[Add New]

No

Cato.org

See also

External links

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.