The Instigator
KJVPrewrather
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Surgeon
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Is healthcare 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...
Surgeon
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/4/2017 Category: Health
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 422 times Debate No: 105507
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

KJVPrewrather

Pro

Healthcare is services rendered to treat injuries or medical problems, or contraception.
Surgeon

Con

As the Debate owner has not offered an argument in R1, but definitions, I will restrict this Round to just acceptance and to state my position.

I do not agree with the proposition that "healthcare is a right".

It should be noted that this debate has been set up to answer the onotology and not the pragmatics of this question. I am not convinced by my opponents definition of healthcare, but I am prepared to work with it, given it should be fairly clear what Healthcare is. I noticed however that the definition of a "Right" was missing. I will therefore add it: A "Right" is a universal, inalieable moral or legal entitlement to have or do something.

I look forward to the opening argument.
Debate Round No. 1
KJVPrewrather

Pro

My main argement is this: This is my body. I have the right to prevent or treat suffering, or conception. I'm disabled with life threatening medical problems. I will die without healthcare. I have the right to live.
Surgeon

Con

I agree that you have the right to your life (it is an end in itself morally and legally) and the right to SEEK resources (the means) to sustain it. But that does not entitle you to claim resources at other peoples expense. What you have done is inverted the means-ends relationship and declared by fiat that "the means" to sustaining your life must also be rights if your life ("the ends") is a right. You would need to show an argument which established this, which you have not.

As well as healthcare; food, shelter, clothing etc are all essential means to sustain human life. Do you have the automatic right to these too? Or would you expect only the right to seek them freely and make voluntary transactions? I think the answer is clear and is also the case (philosophically) with healthcare. You do not have the right to steal my labour (taxes), doctors labour (enslaving them) to a system provided by a yet another party (the Government), simply because it benefits you.
Debate Round No. 2
KJVPrewrather

Pro

We have more in common than you think. I believe humans have the right to live. I agree that those who can pay for healthcare should. However, to pay for healthcare services rendered. I am disabled 6 times over, so I casn only work part time to earn my keep and contribute by paying my taxes. My preexisting conditions disqualify me from private insurance, and do to no full time job, cannot afford to pay for healthcare, should I go without? I guess I have more questions than answers. You don't have to be a liberal to support healthcare rights.
Surgeon

Con

Thank you for your response. You raised an ethical, and not a practical question. I have given you sound philosophical reasons to reject your proposition that helathcare is a "right". The points you raise are about the practicality of providing healthcare.

My practical perspective on this (which emerges from my ethical position). It is not the purpose of Govts to firstly secure those who cannot look after themselves, and then secondly secure the freedoms of all individuals. This inverts a relationship, where the able bodied are then enslaved by the disabled. We end up handicapping the able bodied (who are the very people who create the wealth we use to buy healthcare for everybody).

Where people are unable to look after themselves in a free market (through disability etc), they have to rely on the voluntary private charity, and not the forced theft of labour (tax) and the resulting ineffective Govt support (a form of compelled charity).
Debate Round No. 3
KJVPrewrather

Pro

Question: Does not the preample to the US Constitution say to provide for the general welfare of citizens? I'm opposed to socialism personally, but I believe in helping any soul that has need. I'm a social democrat: I support a centrist mixed economy.
Surgeon

Con

I have refuted your ethical proposition and provided you with an alternative practical perspective (something not required in this debate given your proposition is purely ethical).

I am not sure what your latest rejoinder has to do with the topic per se. I am no expert on the US constitution and have no comments on what it intends to say vs. what it actually says (which I think is admirable).

You state you are against Socialism (good, me too it is profundly anti-human and destructive). But then you appear to be in support of some form of Socialised healthcare. Socialisation of services (including healthcare) is still a form of Socialism (paid out of "progressive" taxation). Socialism is economic poison (proven time and time again). To be in favour of a mixed economy is merely to state you prefer to take a little less poison slowly, rather than a lot, quickly. Once the Socialisation process starts it doesn't tend to roll back Look at Govt spend now vs. say 100 years ago.
Debate Round No. 4
KJVPrewrather

Pro

Answer my question, please.
Surgeon

Con

Your question is irrelevant to your debate topic.

But no, I do not believe the US constitution contains a provision for the general welfare of citizens, but instead inculcates a duty on Govt to furnish an environment to allow its citizens to "pursue" life, liberty and happiness. It doesn"t say you are entitled to life, liberty and happiness, that is still your job to carve that out for yourself.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Ragnar 6 months ago
Ragnar
My own two cents: It's clearly not a right, but it should be. Which isn't to say it must be.
I personally enjoy the privileged of free health care, but I worked hard to earn that.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 6 months ago
Ragnar
KJVPrewratherSurgeonTied
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: Not a debate, so much as a series of questions pro had on the topic. Con won this with his simple analysis of people having the right to seek, but not the right to steal or enslave as suits them. Pro did a decent pathos appeal to pity (someone so disabled they can't care for themselves), but did not follow through and connect it.
Vote Placed by SupaDudz 6 months ago
SupaDudz
KJVPrewratherSurgeonTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes CON as well. PRO's definition is abroad and gives the CON nothing to work with, as it can all be proven wrong by the PRO. Due to violation here, I will have vote CON for conduct. Arguments go CON as well. You are basically giving up a R5 argument to a question that is irrelevant and untopical in R4. 1/2 of the time you didn't bring up the CON arguments made and just kept going to your ethical claims that have debunked plenty of times. I can not vote for you when you don't answer any of his claims and are off-topic for rounds 4 and 5. If I'm generous, it is a 5v3 arguments. It is a 5v1.5 arguments in this case if we are referring to judge claim. That is what leads me to my RFD. DM me for questions