The Instigator
YYW
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
WriterSelbe
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Governments ought to provide minimally adequate health care to citizens.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
YYW
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/19/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 765 times Debate No: 42642
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

YYW

Pro

This is part of BSh1's tournament. I think it's Round 1. A bit late, but we endure.

The structure is this:

Rd. 1) Acceptance/stipulations
Rd. 2) Opening Arguments
Rd. 3) Rebuttal/Reconstruction
Rd. 4) Closing.

Rules:

1) No new arguments after Rd. 1.
2) No party may violate character limits.
3) Forfeiture of any round results in total loss.
4) Acceptance of this debate implies acceptance of all rules and stipulations.

Before we begin, I want to posit the following observations about the resolution. The resolution states that "governments ought to provide minimally adequate health care to citizens."

The following are stipulated:

Semantic quibbling, that is to say, arguments over the definitions of words, are not permissible here.

This is a debate of moral principle and value more than it is a debate of whether or not it is practical for governments to provide minimally adequate health care to citizens.

The phrase minimally adequate, however ambiguous, is not something that may be quibbled over because the issue of defining what constitutes minimal adequacy if the government is going to provide health care as such to its citizens is secondary to the question of whether or not governments ought to provide health care to that extent to its citizens or not.

This is not a debate about whether or not health care is a right. It may be, it may not be... but the question of whether to not health care is a right is beyond the scope of the question of whether or not governments ought to provide health care to citizens because while a right to health care might imply and consequently impose a moral duty upon the government to provide health care, it is not the case that this question asks about the rights citizens have. Rather, the resolution asks what, if any, responsibilities to provide health care governments, generally, have to their citizens.
WriterSelbe

Con

Since the definitions of words were not provided prior, and you wish not to argue over such things, I'll provide the general definitions that I plan to adhere to in the round:

Definitions

Government: the group of people who control and make decisions for a country, state, etc. (Merriam-Webster)
Ought: since you said we would be debating the moral value, we believe ought to mean 'moral obligation.'
Provide: to supply. (Merriam-Webster)
Minimally: the least possible. (Merriam-Webster)
Adequate: of a quality that is acceptable but not better than acceptable. (Merriam-Webster)
Health Care: efforts made to maintain or restore health especially by trained and licensed professionals —usually hyphenated when used attributively. (Merriam-Webster)
Citizens: a member of a state. (Merriam-Webster)

Observation:

1. The affirmative must prove the truth value of the provided resolution.
A. Thus, the negative burden is to disprove the resolution through one or numerous ways.
i. For example, the negative can prove that government's have no obligation to provide health care,that the health care they do provide does not have to meet any standard, that the health carethey provide should be greater than minimally adequate, etc.
2. The affirmative must accept definitions of terms within the resolution for the sake of clarity within the round. If not, my opponent's first observation must be dropped and my opponent must offer alternative definitions.
3. Because it is a debate of morality rather than practicality, both sides must provide a value/criterion structure or a cohesive framework as a weighing mechanism for whether or not their presented morality is being fulfilled.

Response to Rules:

1) I'm assuming you mean after round 2, because by the logic of the round 1 rule, neither of us can win.
2) Concede.
3) Concede.
4) Also a concession. However, if we abide by rule one, we're forever tied.

Debate Round No. 1
YYW

Pro

It is my responsibility in this debate to persuade you that governments ought to provide minimally adequate health care to its citizens. Since this resolution requires only what "ought" to be provided, and not what is necessarily practical to provide, I will limit the scope of my argument only to examine the moral impetus behind government"s providing health care as such to citizens. Practically speaking, minimal adequacy in the context of health care means that all and only those health services which are necessary to preserve human life and to when possible prevent imminent or future negative health outcomes. Minimal adequacy does not include unnecessary medical care, such as procedures which serve only for aesthetic enhancement and nothing else.

Given that this is an LD tournament, I"ll outline as clearly as I can my value structure: my value is justice, and my criterion is fairness. However, because this is DDO, my structure will be a bit different. Even still, this is a debate of value, and we are discussing opinion, not fact. For example, it may be a fact that more 40,000,000 people in the United States lack access to sufficient medical care, and it is. But it is only my opinion that those 40,000,000 ought to be provided minimally adequate health care. So, it would be fairly absurd to argue that I had to prove an opinion -when opinions cannot be proven, they can only be more or less reasonably and persuasively argued.

Here"s a brief sketch of my argument:

(1) Justice requires that governments act in its citizen"s best interest. (2) It is in citizen"s best interest to be provided at least minimally adequate health care. (3) Therefore, justice requires that governments provide at least minimally adequate health care. Conversley, if justice requires that governments provide at least minimally adequate health care, and any government fails to provide at least minimally adequate health care, than those governments fall short of justice to the extent that they fail to act in all of their citizen"s best interest

Justice exists as a state of affairs where each are provided their due, which Socrates elucidated and Rawls would later describe as "fairness." Fairness, however, exists only in a state of total equality. Given that humans are born equal in worth and rights but unequal in aptitudes, skills and abilities it follows that when considering what "ought" to be, the best interests of those least endowed with the aptitudes, skills and abilities which function socially as the means to provide for oneself and play a productive role in society be given consideration if we are to consistently hold that all people are inherently equal, and born with equal rights. As such, we must reconcile the differences in human states of being with the universal principle of human equality.

In some countries, governments do not provide minimally adequate health care to citizens. In those countries which do not provide minimally adequate health care to citizens, citizens must purchase health care from private providers at prices dictated by sellers in markets. Ostensibly, this isn"t such a bad thing because innovation and efficiency are encouraged by competition. And yet, where health care is commoditized access to it is contingent upon one"s ability to pay. While there are various measures in place to render health insurance accessible to at least a majority of citizens like insurance plans, payment options and etc. it is also the case that even if a citizen receives a necessary treatment, the cost of that treatment may leave an enduring and inescapable financial burden on that individual and their family for years to come. Consequently, access to minimally adequate health care is limited in countries whose governments do not provide it.

Moreover, even if a particular individual does have access and receives necessary medical treatment, the cost of that treatment itself will likely impose an undue economic burden on that individual because of the disproportionate cost of medical treatment relative to average income in such countries. Both unfairly burden any such individual because of the cost disproportionality in resorting that individual to a state of normal functioning is bore by the individual him or herself in this case while all have equal worth and rights.

If we accept that all people are all entitled to equal rights, and among those rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then because of the equality of that claim, people also have equal claim to at least minimally adequate means to achieve and uphold those rights. Health care is itself the means to preserving and protecting human life from injury and illness, and likewise the means to restoring human life to a state of normal functioning where it has been injured or suffered illness. Health care, then, is the means to the right of life and consequently minimally adequate access to it is required by justice to the extent that human life is subject to harm.

So, if health care is the means to the right of life and access to it as such is required by justice to the extent that human life is precarious, then it must also be in citizens best interest to have access to health care. It must likewise be government"s obligation to provide minimally adequate health care where required because only by doing so do governments protect human life and thusly uphold the basic human right to life by providing the means to that right. Similarly, by providing the means to that right, governments ameliorate the burden disparity bore by individuals who must obtain their health care through private providers in open markets and ensure that all will have access to necessary care regardless of any individual"s ability to pay, which upholds fairness, and renders justice because governments actions as such are in citizen"s best interest.

Some things to be aware of, for now:

I didn"t really consult outside sources, other than my education. I will in the next round, though. Definitely going to have some empirical examples of what I"m talking about, to make this more concrete. I also think that wordy definitions are superfluous... almost as superfluous as semantic arguments over definitions of singular words which ignore how adjectives modify nouns in context. More to come later. Hope you all enjoyed this one.

Peace and love,

YYW
WriterSelbe

Con

WriterSelbe forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
YYW

Pro

Extend all arguments.
WriterSelbe

Con

WriterSelbe forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
YYW

Pro

This is why people who join tournaments should only be active site members, and should be screened before they are allowed to enter. I am extremely disappointed in my opponent for her conduct in this debate, and for her conduct in the tournament, generally. But, it is what it is.

Extend all arguments.
WriterSelbe

Con

WriterSelbe forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by TheAntidoter 3 years ago
TheAntidoter
Hmm, When will I advance into the Next round?

Is this tournament even still on?
Posted by YYW 3 years ago
YYW
You cannot prove or disprove a normative claim, goddamnit.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
YYWWriterSelbeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: F.
Vote Placed by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
YYWWriterSelbeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: FF