Resolved: That the United States government should implement universal health care modeled after the French system.
If you don't know already, I'm in speech and debate, and this is the Nov. resolution for public forum. Generally, after taking a look at a topic like this, I shoot myself. A.) Because I am a (MODERATE) conservative. B.) Because this debate will probably be one-sided towards the aff, and C.) Because I know JACK SHIT about this topic. This topic requires me to study not only the U.S.'s current health care situation, but France's, and a whole sleu of OTHER COUNTRIES because for the neg I might want to argue something better, like maybe the CANADIAN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM. Studying for this would take forever, and this debate is in about THREE WEEKS.

And then I realized that GW is host to a whole drove of flea-bitten, smelly LIBERALS who could help me out here. Not only that, but alot of them are strategically placed in different countries so they could give background on how their country's health care system work. And on top of this, our members are prone to being hospitalized (I think Atari has lung problems, Pulits was shot awhile back, and Steel raped cancer). Someone here's gotta have an opinion about their form of health care.

Seeing that this is probably my best place to start, this idea has culminated into the thread that you are reading right now. This thread will address the following things:
1.) How does your form of health care work?
2.) Do you like your form of health care?
3.) What are the government's civic duties involving health care?
4.) Does your form of health care adequately meet the needs of the people in general?

I urge you to respect the posts of others and keep the flamage to a minimum because you guys will seriously save my life and the progress of AMERICA because everyone knows that these high school debates influence executive and legislative decisions. That said, feel free to bite off each others' ears.

ALLEZ POSTING!

Geez does everyone at SA post like that? That was an excellent thread.

I need to back up a little though.

1. What, exactly, would UHC be paying for? (edit: sounds like a stupid question, but this is in terms of programs like medicaid etc.)
2. How do the prices of drugs in the pharmaceutical markets tie into the UHC (mentioned alot in the thread, but I'm not understanding it).

Heh. I have to debate both sides of the resolution. Thankfully, for the neg (side that negates res), the res allows me to debate for UHC, just as long as it's not French. This means that I don't need to go ALL OUT CONSERVATIVE and totally deny the existence of POOR PEOPLE and have people at GW flame my ass for being unprincipled and a 'horrible person'. Even so, I need a point of reference to base my arguments on.

The most obvious one is the moral one. Providing a service that is beneficial to all U.S. citizens. And at the upstanding value for that would be that we have a moral obligation to ensure the safety of our citizens.

Right now, I can only think of one argument against that, being the cost factor. If it costs too much to implement and sustain UHC, to the point that it detrimentally affects the quality and availability of medical aid, then supporting the UHC is counter-intuitive. For example, because UHC would put a huge strain on the United States' budget, social security would go to hell, and other services like Medicare and Medicaid would be far more limited (by the way, what's the difference between those two?). Furthermore, doctors would be paid less (in some countries with UHC, as low as $40,000 yearly [1]). The government would have to make med school virtually free -- another expense that the government is slated to carry. Finally, medical research takes huge hits -- so cheaper and money-making innovations will be nonexistent.

[1]http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/04/

EDIT:
If I were to take the above route, then I would have to argue that the majority of people would have to have decent coverage at the expense of a small minority of people who have none at all. I could probably argue that, but seeing as how Southern California judges are a bunch of liberals, I'd screwed over simply because of that bias. Even so, it's good to understand how money ties into all this. The debates will most likely reduce down into whether or not one health care system is better than another according to costs and benefits.

I think it might cost a lot less than sending a soldiers to a mid eastern country to find WMDs that don't exist

Mmf. Who's to say that Bush personifies conservative ideals?

I could easily just say that we should take our soldiers out of Iraq and then reallocate the money to where it's needed, like maybe social security or our slowly fucked-over education system. But I don't really want to mention the war to the judges.

Funny story. For one debate, I was forced to argue that the United States should view Russia as a threat because of its reaction towards Bush's proposed anti-ballistic missile system in Poland (in that Russia threatened to POINT NUKES AT EUROPE if we did so). I was saying that Russia's doing its best to destroy the United State's reputation, making europe hate on the U.S. (getting nukes pointed at you tends to do that). My opponent quickly retorts "AS IF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION ISN'T SCREWING UP THE U.S.'s REPUTATION ALREADY" and the judge laughs her ass off. Yeah, these judges are definitely biased -- unfortunately sometimes you can't tell. It's best to tread softly around them.

EDIT:
In retrospect, the judge was african-american, a woman, and a schoolteacher...I wonder who she voted for this year?

EDIT:

hahahahahaha... it's so true..

Heh. Isn't it?

Well this does sound pretty messed up now. Alot of you guys are without coverage. I'm pretty low-income (living in federally subsidized housing where rent is a mere $700 bucks), but both my parents work in a HOSPITAL so it's alright. As for myself, I've had okay coverage. But then again I've never seriously injured myself, so I wouldn't know the brunt of it.

But how would I tout UHC without screaming SOCIALISM?

And where could I find some budgeting information about countries with UHC vs. the US, -- evidence pointing to WHY UHC would be cheaper. Lots of it saying that it is, but none really explaining it.