The Instigator
ILoveSitarMusic
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
FlammableX
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Healthcare is a right.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
FlammableX
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/30/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 411 times Debate No: 85785
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

ILoveSitarMusic

Pro

Pro means you agree, and con means you disagree.
FlammableX

Con

I accept this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
ILoveSitarMusic

Pro

Thank you. Why is healthcare a right? People own their odies. I will use myself as an example: If I don't want to be sick or injured, I have the right to receive healthcare to treat my problems. Forcing someone to go without healthcare is cruel.
FlammableX

Con

Contention #1: The founding documents of the United States do not provide support for a right to health care.
Neither the constitution nor the Decleration of Independence mention that citizens are titled to healthcare as a right. Therefore, the constitution must first be ammended if healthcare is to be a right. The purpose of the US constitution is clearly stated that it "promotes the general welfare" - however, this does not mean it should provide it.

Rest in comments (500 char limit seriously).






Debate Round No. 2
ILoveSitarMusic

Pro

You have not addressed my point, so I will say it again: Healthcare is a right because people own their bodies. If someone does not want to be sick or injured, they do not have to. This is my body. If I want healthcare, that is my right. Whether a document mentions something is wholly irrelevant.
FlammableX

Con

I didn't address your point because you made the character limit so low, and usually rebuttals come in later rounds.
By saying that people "own" their bodies, that doesn't show why healthcare should be a right. There are numerous cons to having healthcare as a right, which I've stated in the comments etc. I hope you address my points. Just because someone owns their bodies, that doesn't mean they can just get access to medical services. You haven't addressed the monetary aspect of this issue.
Debate Round No. 3
ILoveSitarMusic

Pro

Yes it does show why healthcare is a right. Healthcare is a right because people own their bodies. My body, my right to choose. If I don't want to besick or injured, I don't have to.
FlammableX

Con

Extend all arguments... Pro seems to be more interested in stating his one contention than respond to mine. His only argument is that people own their bodies so they should be entitled to healthcare. This just does not make sense. If Healthcare is a right, then who is going to pay for it? No one would want to pay for someone else's healthcare - it shouldn't be a law that it should happen - it would be grossly unconstitutional.
Debate Round No. 4
ILoveSitarMusic

Pro

Con has not addressed the fact that people own their bodies. Con is not even reading my posts. Fact: Healthcare is a right because people own their bodies. Con has ignored several of my points.
FlammableX

Con

Pro has only made one point, so it baffles me why he thinks I "ignored several of his points." His only contention is that people own their own bodies and therefore if they are injured etc. should get healthcare. He didn't address the cost of such a treatment, the tax, the constitutionality. Therefore, I extend all contentions. Pro never stated why people should get healthcare if they're injured - just because "they own their own bodies" it doesn't mean they should get healthcare.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: FlamboGus// Mod action: Removed<

4 point to Pro (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro contended one point throughout, without explaining why "owning my own body" means a person should be entitled to healthcare. Con was limited by character length, but attempted to prove why health care is not a right.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain conduct. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. Merely stating what's problematic with Pro's argument isn't enough " the voter has to either explain how that affected their ability to meet their BoP, or point to specific arguments made by Con that were sufficient to negate.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: BrendanD19// Mod action: Removed<

1 point to Pro (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: The debate was very limited due to the 500 words only setting. Neither side really can claim victory

[*Reason for removal*] The voter doesn't justify conduct.
************************************************************************
Posted by FlamboGus 10 months ago
FlamboGus
I choose to have money. It's my right and I demand my money. In small and non-sequential bills, please.
Posted by FlammableX 10 months ago
FlammableX
Contention #1: The founding documents of the United States do not provide support for a right to health care.

Neither the constitution nor the Decleration of Independence mention that citizens are titled to healthcare as a right. Therefore, the constitution must first be ammended if healthcare is to be a right. The purpose of the US constitution is clearly stated that it "promotes the general welfare" - however, this does not mean it should provide it. The Bill of Rights states rights that the government cannot infringe upon, non of which are healthcare.

Contention #2: A right to health care could increase the US debt and deficit.
From 1985 to 2010, the percentage of the federal budget that programs such as Medicare and Medicaid took up went from 10% to 21%. Numerous surveys taken [3] have showed that expansion of insurance coverage under Obamacare increased the federal deficit by $340-$700 billion in 10 years.

Contention #3: A right to health care could increase the wait time for medical services.

According to a 2012 Government Accountability Office report, 9.4% of Medicaid beneficiaries had a lot of trouble obtaining care due to long wait times, versus 4.2% of people with private health insurance.This provides evidence that a right to health care could in fact increase the wait time for medical services.

Contention #4: Providing a right to health care could raise taxes.
In the UK and Europe, payroll taxes average 37% - higher than the 15.3% payroll taxes paid by the average US worker. This shows that having the "right" to health care could in fact raise taxes.

Sources: Emily Gosden, "UK Has Fewer Doctors Per Person than Bulgaria and Estonia," telegraph.co.uk, Jan. 3, 2014
Karen E. Lasser, MD, MPH, David U. Himmelstein, MD, a
nd Steffie Woolhandler, MD, MPH, "Access to Care, Health Status, and Health Disparities in the United States and Canada: Results of a Cross-National Population-Based Survey," American Journal of Public Health, July 2006
Posted by bballcrook21 10 months ago
bballcrook21
@Faustian For healthcare to be free, it places an obligation on another individual to be responsible for paying a portion of your healthcare. This is terribly immoral, as no one should be obligated to pay for anyone else, other than their children and parents, when they get old - and by obligated, I mean morally obligated in the case of your parents.
Posted by FaustianJustice 10 months ago
FaustianJustice
"For health care to be free to one person, another person must be enslaved though they have done no wrong. This is immoral." -- this does not follow. We have a right to own and bear firearms, too, but whom is oppressed and enslaved should we do so? Where in "healthcare is a right" does that state that "healthcare must be free"?
Posted by ViceRegent 10 months ago
ViceRegent
For health care to be free to one person, another person must be enslaved though they have done no wrong. This is immoral.
Posted by Troller808 10 months ago
Troller808
It is cruel to not provide someone with health care. But only to those who deserve it and earned it should get it. For example a wounded veteran, not like half of those druggys begging for health care so they don't have to work. For the people who actually earned their health care good for you! for those who did you should be ashamed of yourself. Medical attention should be a right but not nationalized health care. Nationalized health care is like stealing from hard earning taxpayers, how else would the government get money?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by hidude45454 9 months ago
hidude45454
ILoveSitarMusicFlammableXTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides did not make any statements that seemed rude, so conduct is a tie. Both sides also made no noticeable grammar mistakes that detracted from their arguments. No sources were used. Therefore, the only point to judge on is arguments. Throughout the debate, while pro continuously only argued one point, both pro and con failed to completely address the other side's points. Because pro failed to prove why owning one's body leads to a right and because con had more points, con wins the debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 10 months ago
lannan13
ILoveSitarMusicFlammableXTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments were dropped in this debate. Though he constantly states that Con dropped his argument, that does not mean that you should drop your opponent's arguments as well. Though the issue with Pro's argument is that Con had refuted his arguments, several times in fact. He stated that if it was a right then who would pay for it. This argument was also dropped by Pro, so I have to give the debate to Con due to the fact that every argument made by Con was dropped.