Online Medical Classes - Help my sister with her debate on Universal Healthcare?

Help my sister with her debate on Universal Healthcare?

My youngest sister is a sophomore in college taking a speech and debate class. She was given the side of "Why Universal Health Care is bad." This does not in any way represent our beliefs or thoughts, it is just a college course and she's looking for more ideas. So, unless you have a thoughtful contribution to give, don't reply. Captain Starkiller, your answer was neither true nor helpful. All you did was pair words together without an argument. People aren't going to "lie" about Universal Health Care. They are however, going to tell it how they see it, that is why this is for an Argument & Debate class. The point is that she must come up with ideas and support behind those ideas to refute the other side. And for the record, Wikipedia is not an accurate research website. None of my colleagues accept this and neither do I (I am a middle school teacher). Thanks. To others: Thank you all for the contributions that actually answered my question. I forwarded them to my sister this morning. I appreciate your thoughts and hopefully she can pull something from them.

Public Comments

If you want a window into UHC, look no further than medicare which is 40 billion dollars in debt. The government can't manage a smaller version of UHC...what makes you think they'll handle the program efficiently when it reaches full scale? Health Care isn't a right - -just like food's not a right. It's a service/product you can pay for just like every other free-market service/product. Too expensive? Get insurance...that's what it's for. Too expensive, get the basic catastrophic coverage @ $44/month and if you happen to get sick and don't go above your deductible (7500) -- then setup a payment plan w/ the hospital and make payments. Point to Canada's UHC and it's decline. They offer a basic health care system -- and if you need a specialist, there's a waiting list. Those that have money get the care the need as they'll likely go to another country to get it immediately. Everyone else waits for an opening. They're closing more hospitals than they're building b/c the costs are all out of whack now. I always like to throw this question out when people talk about big government programs: Name a program aside from the IRS (which collect their money) and the military that is run efficiently. Then follow up w/ a DMV question -- how long did you stand in line the last time you were at the DMV? Imagine your arm was broken...or you got stabbed in the stomach... http://www.amsa.org/uhc/uhc_counterarguments.pdf http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:u6YUfBGb9m4J:www.gamaliel.org/ABLE/powerpoints/UNIVERSALHEALTHCAREable.ppt+Arguments+against+UHC&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us&client=firefox-a (Scroll towards the bottom for bulleted reasons) I think that'll give you some foundation.
well...i loved the full moon and health care filtered through our government will cost a mint. see i mentioned a full moon and something with mint. it's very romantical!
It's a very difficult question to answer as in principle, universal health care is a very good idea. As someone who works in the NHS, it is very frustrating to see the government push targets and cut funding on areas that are crying out for help.
Take a look at some reports from those that have Universal Healthcare...like the UK... This is the opening of an old article in debates using trusted sources can bolster your arguments and might just change your own beliefs or thoughts: Healthcare To Die For in Britain? by Ralph R. Reiland (February 26, 2005) Article address: http://www.CapMag.com/article.asp?ID=4157 Summary: The downside of Britain's universal healthcare system. [CapMag.com]In "Die in Britain, survive in U.S.," the cover article of the February 2005 issue of The Spectator, a British magazine, James Bartholomew details the downside of Britain's universal healthcare system. Among women with breast cancer, for example, there's a 46 percent chance of dying from it in Britain, versus a 25 percent chance in the United States. "Britain has one of worst survival rates in the advanced world," writes Bartholomew, "and America has the best." If you're a man diagnosed with prostate cancer, you have a 57 percent chance of it killing you in Britain. In the United States, the chance of dying drops to 19 percent. Again, reports Bartholomew, "Britain is at the bottom of the class and America is at the top." Explains Bartolomew: "That is why those who are rich enough often go to America, leaving behind even private British healthcare." The reason isn't that we sue more in America, and scare doctors into efficiency, or that our medical schools are better. It's more simple than that. "In America, you are more likely to be treated," writes Bartholomew, "and going back a stage further, you are more likely to get the diagnostic tests which lead to better treatment."
Health care is not a right. As such, it is not the responsibility of government to provide health care. Universal health care would result in increased wait times, which could result in unnecessary deaths. Unequal access and health disparities still exist in universal health care systems. The performance of administrative duties by doctors results from medical centralization and over-regulation, and may reduce charitable provision of medical services by doctors. Many problems that universal health insurance is meant to solve are presumed caused by limitations on the free market. As such, free market solutions have greater potential to improve care and coverage. The widely quoted health care system ranking by the World Health Organization, in which the US system ranked below other countries' universal health care systems, used biased criteria, giving a false sense of those systems' superiority. Empirical evidence on the Medicare single payer-insurance program demonstrates that the cost exceeds the expectations of advocates. As an open-ended entitlement, Medicare does not weigh the benefits of technologies against their costs. Paying physicians on a fee-for-service basis also leads to spending increases. As a result, it is difficult to predict or control Medicare's spending. Large market-based public program such as the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and CalPERS can provide better coverage than Medicare while still controlling costs as well. 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.
UHC leads to rationed care (they have to spread the money around) Health care is NOT a right. For mandating that someone is entitled care means that other people are obligated to provide that care and pay for it. That conflicts with the concept of individual liberty. One has to be robbed or coerced for the other. Long wait times (since people will clog the clinic for so much as a stubbed toe when someone is paying for it) A bunch of bureaucrats decide whether you're economically viable for treatment (an old man with a small chance of survival would probably be denied treatment) Higher prices for care (no competition or shopping around thus clinics charge outrageous amounts because they can; hence why an aspirin is like $10) Higher taxes Subpar care from the doctors and nurses (they get paid less and are even more over worked so the level of attentive care goes down with everything else. And because there is so much bureaucratic red tape to cut through). Less innovation (the profit incentive being taken away stifles investment into new technology) You can use those points as spring boards for deeper research, but those are the main and some what simplistic reasons why UHC is bad.
If Universal health care is a federal initiative, which it is, where in the constitution does it fall under? I wouldn't say Universal health care is "bad", but it is not a RIGHT our forefathers granted. Some want to create it or will it without any constitutional nexus! Current health care is a private institution and has been the responsibility of individuals to provide for them and their families. NOT FOR FAMILIES TO BE FORCES TO PAY FOR OTHER FAMILIES. If the government provides free care, you will see more poor fatherless babies making it easier to access these services paid by working americans.
Sorry, but she is going to have to lie, or tell half truths. FACT - the USA spends more on healthcare PER PERSON than any other nation on the planet. FACT - the US has higher death rates for kids aged under five than western European countries with universal health coverage. That means that a dead American four year old would have had a better chance of life if they were born in Canada, France, Cuba, Germany, Japan etc, all of which have universal health coverage. All the arguments against universal healthcare are based on lies, or involve twisting facts, only telling part of the story and the like. The good news is that there are loads of stories like that here. An example is with cancer, and although they have not mentioned it above, high blood pressure. The survival rates in the USA are higher. The detection rates in the UK are more reflective of what the population have. Loads of people are not diagnosed with conditions in the USA as they do not have access to healthcare to diagnose problems. Instead, they just die without a diagnosis. As I said, there are loads of things that can be said against universal healthcare. None of them tell the whole truth though.
The only way your sister can do this report against what she feels or believes... Universal Health Care has only one Negative that seems too work against it! You ability in who too choose a Doctor or a Certain Hospital or Specialist! This is the only thing I can see as a Negative! Your Freedom of choice is now limited! Its like haveing a Doctor you have had for 20 years! Ok and lets just say, you get on a Goverment Health care Provider or policy... This Local Doctor is not apart of a Universal plan in your policy> So now your going to have too see someone new and loose someone you trust and knows your health issues... Personally I am for it America having a Universal Health plan!
It is important to remember that big government is not looking out for our best interest. People who support big government want more and more people to become dependent on the government for their basic needs because they want to be able to interfere with their lives. They think the mass majority of American citizens are too stupid to make decisions on their own so they have to make them for us in the way of laws or policy. For example, It is stupid to smoke. It is a harmful terrible habit but as free citizens of the U.S we have the right to smoke if we so choose. There are Alto of left wing liberals who want to save us from ourselves and outlaw tobacco but that would never make it through congress. However, it wouldn't be too extreme to but in a stipulation that if you smoke you are disqualified for socialized medicine. Lets face it, the majority of people who smoke are low income, blue collar workers who can barely afford to get insurance as it is, let alone pay the premiums once Washington runs the insurance companies in the ground. A lot of these people would be forced to quit smoking which is what the stipulation was designed to do. It might all sound fine and dandy because those people are better off not smoking but it won't stop there. The government will have the right put stipulations on anything it wants and we have to abide by the rules because we have no alternative. Government never makes anything better just bigger and more complicated. As a matter of fact healthcare didn't become such a mess until Government got their hands in it. I would suggest your sister read Ron Paul's book, I think it is called Revolution, there is a great chapter in it about healtcare.
ill try :) to make this short for you. but effective. Pros: Healthcare is free! Cons: Canada has socialized healthcare. It takes a lifetime to be seen. So what the Canadian government does is tell citizens to go to america for health issues and their government reimburses them for it If government pays every doctors salary one of two things will happen: Doctors wont be payed as much and because of that there will be less people wanting to be doctors. OR Doctors will still be payed the same by the government and we would just get taxed more for the governmnet paying the doctors their salary. the average Emergency room doctor gets payed $200,000 to $300,000 a year. Imagine how much taxes will go up if our government is paying their salarys. hope this helped :) And all 'n all. The revolutionary war was against such things as outstanding taxs such as that. (example: boston tea party) its just unamerican :)
So-called Universal Healthcare amplifies all problems: 1) Reduces patient incentives to find the best possible prices for the best possible services/products available. Patients in the U.S. who receive "free" (taxpayer-funded) health care have no incentive to conserve their health care dollars. Care is "free" so they visit the doctor's office several times a month or request "free" prescriptions for over-the-counter medication such as Tylenol. 2) Reduces physician incentives to provide competitive care and reduces drug companies' incentives to provide new drugs and treatments. With no incentive to provide quality care, physicians and nurses leave the government-monopolized area for better opportunities in a freer country. Shortages result. Drug companies are hindered by price controls and regulations and soon cease research and development of new medication. In the U.S., start-up drug companies cannot afford to run the FDA gauntlet, so the market is dominated by a few established corporations. 3) Steals from your wallet to pay for my health care. Yes, you do have a right to health care, just as you have a right to food, shelter and property. However, you have no "right" to force others to provide these things for you - All "free" medical care is subsidized through taxes stolen from other people. 4) The quality of "free" health care will deteriorate and the average citizen will get sicker. As the poor and middle-class wait in agony for simple procedures, those with resources can travel to other countries for treatment. 5) Destroys your privacy. Suddenly your problems are mine and mine are yours. If you eat unhealthy foods or drive a motorcycle without a helmet, I have a direct interest in your business - you are going to see a provider on my tax dollars. Your neighbors might support government bans on smoking, "unsafe" sex or other "risky" behaviors to reduce costs. Politicians will use the federal bureaucracy to force you and your family to comply with programs such as the "New Freedom Commission on Mental Health". 6) Destroys your liberty. When you blindly support a system that bestows power on politicians and bureaucrats, they will receive their orders from those with the most money - and this will not be you, your friends or your family. The power of government will be used against you as you are forced to use medicines or accept treatments from well-connected health care companies.
Here's a great article on universal healthcare: http://hubpages.com/hub/Is-Universal-Health-Care-the-Right-Answer