SEELEY LAKE – The Seeley-Swan High School Writing 101 senior debate took place Dec. 18. They debated whether the United States Federal Government should ensure universal health coverage (UHC) in the United States.
Teacher Lori Messenger explained that the seniors chose the topic of UHC because many of them did not know much about the issue. They felt this was an opportunity to explore this national issue since they will be able to vote next year.
Students drew from a hat which side of the issue they would be required to debate. The SSHS student body and a panel of five judges voted on which side offered the best argument and won the debate.
The affirmative group included Blake Lindemer, Kara Good and Ella Batchelder. They argued that health care is a basic human right and it is the responsibility of the US government to provide a basic health care plan to all Americans. They pointed out that of the 33 most developed countries in the world, every country but the United States has some form of UHC. These other countries have proven that UHC works and can be funded successfully.
"The right to life, the right to liberty and the right to pursue happiness are not being protected under our current health care system," said Batchelder in the group's closing statement. "It is time we catch up to the developed world to reclaim our spot as the best nation by adopting a health care system that will benefit everyone."
The affirmative group identified three main UHC systems: single payer system used in Canada; insurance mandates that everyone purchase insurance like used in Germany; and a two-tier system with the option to purchase the basic government plan or purchase separate insurance similar to the current system in France.
The affirmative side advocated for the two-tier system. This would have an option for people to keep their current plan and provide a safety net for uninsured Americans while ensuring that everyone receives the care they want and need. Under the current system, people on Medicaid have no incentive to get out of poverty because if their income increases, they would lose their benefits.
Contrary to the affirmative group's argument that health care is a basic human right, the negative group including Terra Bertsch, Jayla Kauffman, Caleb Maughan and Ashly Alexander argued that it was not a right but a service that should be purchased by the citizens. UHC is a system that provides health care to all citizens and everyone is under the same insurance plan regardless of everyone's ability to pay. UHC would take away the freedom of choice, forcing people to be insured.
The negative group argued that taxes will be raised to pay for everyone and the country will spend more of the federal budget on health care. A University of Houston professor said that currently the average taxes paid for other counties with UHC is 37 percent of a person's gross income. The average in America is 15.3 percent of a person's gross income going to taxes. This increase in taxes would leave less spending money and negatively affect the economy. All citizens would not benefit equally from the tax since currently the sickest five percent of Americans account for 50 percent of the health care costs compared to the three percent of health care costs spent by the healthiest 50 percent.
The negative side also argued that even with the higher taxes, care will be lower quality. More people will have the opportunity to go to the doctor. This will have negative consequences including: physicians will spend less time with patients; there will be longer wait times; surgeries will be prioritized; doctors may have to work longer days increasing the potential for errors in treatment and diagnoses and salaries would decrease, reducing the incentive to become a doctor. In the long term this could create a shortage of doctors.
Kauffman in her clarification of the opening statement for the negative said that in the US doctors earn an annual salary of $299,000. The average annual salary for doctors is $256,000 in Canada and $148,000 in the UK. If the US implemented UHC, doctors would be required to see more patients for less money. The Association of Medical Colleges predicts a shortage of 105,000 doctors by the year 2030. This shortage could be worse if UHC is implemented with greater number of patients and less incentive for doctors.
"We should have the freedom to choose," said Alexander in the closing statement for the negative. "The Constitution states to promote the general welfare not provide it. There is not a right to services. Health care is not a right it is a service that should be paid for. UHC will lose freedom of choice in health care. Do you really want to give the government power over your health?"
While judges agreed that both sides of the debate made good points supporting their side, the affirmative group gave the strongest rebuttal addressing points made by the negative group regarding cost, funding, regulations and that money is not the only incentive for doctors to go into the field of medicine. They also pointed out that the negative group was focused on the drawbacks of a single payer system while they were advocating for a two-tier system.
The SSHS student body and the five judges agreed that the affirmative side won this year's senior debate on universal health care.
Reader Comments(0)