Thesis: The US should provide a medical plan.
PRO: US citizen would receive better health care.
PRO: Socialized medicine can be more cost effective for the middle, and lower class citizen.
CON: The opposition, (doctors), believes there would be a decrease in the medical profession.

Written by,

The U.S. should provide a centralized medical plan.
The number of uninsured U.S. residents has grown to over 45 million. Health care has become increasingly unaffordable for businesses and individuals. We can eliminate wasteful inefficiencies such as duplicate paper work, claim approval and insurance submission. We can develop a centralized national database which will make diagnosis and treatment easier for doctors. Medical professionals can concentrate on healing the patient rather than on insurance procedures. Free medical services would encourage patients to practice preventive medicine and inquire about problems early when treatment will be light. Patients often avoid physicals and other preventive measures because of the costs. People will have an easier time starting their own business or working part-time if health insurance is covered and patients with pre-existing conditions can still get health coverage. The US should provide a centralized medical plan.
US citizens would be provided with better health care. We can develop a centralized national database which makes diagnosis and treatment easier for doctors. A centralized national system would allow us to do data analysis that we never dreamed possible, leading to medical advances and increased diagnosis efficiency. The main argument against a centralized database is that certain insurance providers may deny coverage if they find certain past medical problems. However, if the government is paying for everything, it should never be a problem.
Socialized medicine would be more cost effective to the middle and lower class citizen. Free medical services would encourage people to practice preventive medicine. Currently, patients often avoid physicals and other preventive measures because of the costs. Because many people are uninsured and those that do have insurance face high deductibles, Americans often don’t go to doctor appointments for minor health problems or for preventive medicine. Health problems such as routine physicals, mammograms, and HIV tests could catch issues at an early stage from turning into major problems or prevented altogether with a different health care system. This not only affects the health of the patient but the overall cost of the system, since preventive medicine costs only a small fraction of a full blown disease. A government-provided system would remove the common fear of costly appointments.
The opposition, (doctors), believe there would be a decrease in the medical profession. Regardless of whether medical costs are paid for publicly or privately, the costs are extremely expensive and going higher every year. Rising costs of drugs, diagnostic tests, advanced treatments, physician & nurses' salaries, and so on all contribute to the skyrocketing overall cost. This could cause businesses from investing in new drugs or medical advances. As an example, new drugs often take over a decade to develop, test, and pass FDA standards. That means companies must spend sometimes millions of dollars over the developmental period without grossing any money. The only thing that keeps companies in the market at all is the potential payout. Drug price controls, or even the mere threat of price controls, will likely make many companies afraid from taking on the new investment. Consequently, medical advances are likely to curtail.
Overall, I believe the US should provide a substantially improved medical plan. Even though the opposition makes a good point the facts outweigh the opposition’s theory. Health care has become increasingly unaffordable for businesses and individuals. Businesses and individuals that choose to keep their health