The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Is universal healthcare a right in the United States of America?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 6/30/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 488 times Debate No: 77141
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)




This round will be mostly acceptance (meaning NO DEBATING)
Round 2 will be arguments
Round 3 will be counter arguments and new arguments
Round 4 will be counter arguments of arguments presented in round 3
Round 5 will be final statements (doesn't need backup)

1.ALL points MUST be backed with at least 3 agreeing sources
2.Wikipedia is not an acceptable source
3.Internet videos are acceptable sources AS LONG AS the source is verified (with the little checkbox that says verified on YouTube) AND you can only use ONE per argument.


Let's do this. Just make sure your sources are legit because I'll call them out if they aren't.
Debate Round No. 1


Ok. Let's do this

First of all, I'm only gonna do one round per day, clearing that up

My first argument is of a certain document called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed by the UN, applying worldwide, and enlisting, what is considered, "Human Rights". It states "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care...."
Article 25

My second argument is that without universal healthcare (ahem... the affordable care act) The USA was ranked dead last in terms of performance, despite being the most expensive. Yes, WE americans pay MORE money for WORSE services than all the other developed nations in the world! DEAD! LAST!

That's all the time I have right now, as I got other things to do.


What is equality and how does it affect everyone?

The true definition of socialism is "Each produces according to his ability and each receives according his deeds." this inherently voids the ideas of universal, socialism, and communism so it was changed to "needs". This definition can be seen below in a link titled "Socialism vs Communism".
By definition, Universal Healthcare, or Universal anything, is with no uncertainty impossible in human exis10ce; this is due to personalities and traits. More importantly is the inherent drop in productivity and advancement when equality is used. In order to understand this, one must first understand and come to terms with the fact that Universal Healthcare and any other equally distributed product or service is by definition socialism.

John being a 6"4" 225lb muscular male may be assigned the community farm, performing backbreaking, exhausting, and mundane work all day. His neighbor, Max, is a 5"2" 103lb man. Due to Max"s paltry stature, he is on seamstress duty.

While John is out all day in the sun sweating, performing backbreaking labor, Max is indoors in a comfortable climate, enjoying himself, commingling with the female population of the community, spending half the day working and the other half enjoying life and the irresistible feminine pleasures surrounding him all day. Each day, John drops off food for the community then lays on the ground to rest his deteriorating back before taking his share back to his empty house to eat alone; Max on the other hand comes out every day grinning from ear to ear, grabs his share, heads back, has dinner, followed by a fun evening with the women.

Max"s women have 5 children. Now Max"s family is taking another 5 shares of food. One day, John sees a new guy in town and finds the new guy Hank has been in the community as long as John. However, Hank realized early on that he didn"t have to do anything yet at the end of every day, there was John with his dinner. Hank was a lazy hermit only leaving his home to grab food once a day; this was satisfying for him as he still gets the same as John.

After a while, John starts to realize he got the short end of the stick because he did everything he was told to do in life; he worked out, stayed fit, & ate very healthy and now his body is breaking, he has no family and no time to court a female. John realizes he is working all day for the same amount of food as Max, but no family, the same amount of food as Hank but no relaxation. John starts slacking; only working half the day. This means food production drops by half. John"s newfound laziness causes a drought in food production until he decides to either keep the corn to himself as a reward for the hard work, the food production dies down and starvation sets in, or John just quits. Any choice John makes means horrible times ahead for the community. We didn"t even add in the travelers that will pass through requiring food. If you were John would you feel you were being treated equally? This is what happened to the Pilgrims; reference "The Pilgrims".
In America, we currently have a 10.8% unemployment rate link titled "Unemployment Rate". For those a bit confused at the 10.8%, the number that our President pushes to the public is the U-3 statistic. This discounts people out of work over 12 months or have given up looking. The TRUE unemployment rate is the U-6 statistic. So, we have a 10.8% unemployment rate or 40 million Americans out of work.
Look at taxes, the funding backbone of Universal Healthcare in America, the Affordable Care Act (ACA); links provided, 1 marked "Federal Income Tax Rate" and another named "Federal Payroll Taxes". Payroll Taxes everyone pays go to Social Security and to Medicare Part A. I mention these because they do NOT go to the ACA. What we focus on here is Federal Income Tax which funds the ACA. Using the link below, you will be focusing strictly on the graph named "Effective tax rates: individual income taxes alone", the remaining are inconsequential here. As you study the graph, you will notice that the lowest 2 quintiles or 40% of the population does NOT pay Federal Income Taxes; in fact, they receive a negative tax rate. If you do the math, you will find that it is actually higher than 40% due to tax exemptions, credits, how income was made, etc.

We have over 40% of the population not paying into the ACA pool, including around 40 million unemployed. So we have 60% of the nation subsidizing 40% of the nation"s healthcare; remember that small business and other regulations still have NOT come into effect. Do you think it is fair to be 1 of the 60%? Are we providing incentive for people to work harder?

Let"s change the numbers up a bit as once we get into millions, billions, trillions, etc. we start to lose concept of just how large 40% of the population is. Let us imagine that we live in a small community of 100 pilgrims; stay with me here because I am going to change this up on you a bit from the original Pilgrims to fit current America. Out of these 100 pilgrims, 60 of them break their backs working hard, being productive members of society; you are 1 of those 60 hard workers coming home every day with a sore back and tired legs. The other 40 pilgrims sit around doing nothing productive, enjoying the sun, relaxing, spending time with their families, no stress what-so-ever. You both receive the same housing, food, etc. Is that fair? Would you be happy with that? Reading this, the questions are; what is equality? What and who defines equality? Where does equality start and stop?

My second point will be a single word; adequate. What happens when resources being distributed are not adequate to fulfill the requirements of the society? Let"s use Universal Healthcare for example. Your community has a population of 100 individuals, it also has 5 doctors, each doctor having the ability to see, properly diagnose, and properly treat a maximum of 15 patients. That means only 75 citizens can be seen leaving 25 individuals without care. We can further this by including illness. Say the flu breaks out, there are only 30 vaccinations. Flu vaccines are not produced in abundance to supply the entire population and can be decreased even further by things like bird flu decreasing egg production; these facts are able to be seen below in the links named "Influenza Vaccine production" and "Influenza Vaccine Ingredients". Who gets approved to be a patient of the doctors? Who gets the flu vaccines? If all citizens vote for themselves what do you do?

Now let"s put this to practical review using Family/General Practice doctors and the current U.S. population. Currently, the number of doctors providing care to the population is 126,001 doctors see link below named "Doctors". The current U.S. population is 321,362,789 as report by the Census Bureau in the link below named "Population". Additionally, the CDC reports an average of 4 office visits per person annually as seen below under the link named "Visits". In order for the U.S. to fulfill the medical needs of everyone in the U.S., each doctor will be required to manage 2,551 patients at a time (321,362,789 / 126,001 = 2,551 rounded). Let"s assume the healthiest nation population possible with 0 illness, disease, injury, etc. leaving the purpose of the medical community preventive care. Let"s also assume a standard work schedule for each doctor and only Federal Holidays off; this means a total of 251 working days each year. This means if only 1 visit annually, each doctor would need to see 10 patients a day: 2,551 / 251 = 10. Assuming a standard 8 hour day each person would receive 48 minutes of attention per year: 8 / 10 = 0.8 : 60 x 0.8 = 48.

Seems reasonable, but now let"s be a bit more realistic by using the average of 4 visits per person annually. So each doctor will be required to see 40 patients per day or 12 minutes per visit 8 / 40 = 0.2 hrs.
Now let"s add annual sick and vacation time. The amount assuming 3-15 years of experience is 20 vacation and 13 sick days for a total of 33 more days off; see "Time Off" link below. So, 251 " 33 = 218 true working days. 2551 / 218 = 12 patients per day; 8 / 12 = 40 minutes per visit; remember to account for 4 visits per year, not just one; 40 / 4 = 10 minutes per visit. Now that we have calculated for the typical work habits of an average American, we see that Universal Healthcare would equate to each patient having 10 minutes per visit with the doctor.

In 10 minutes the doctor must review your symptoms, diagnose you, perform tests, update your file, and prescribe a resolution; seems a bit unrealistic right? Well it"s about to get worse; When calculating above, we never added time spent for the doctor to clean up, transition rooms, or time to review your patient files. Using a reasonable estimate, I would assume at least 10 minutes per patient file. This gives no time with doctor per visit.

Logistically and realistically, can we really provide equal healthcare to all citizens of the nation? Keep in mind we haven"t touched base on the illegal immigration population; an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants reside in the U.S. see the link below named "Illegal Population". We have also not addressed the issue of doctors retiring, even early due to the ACA and new regulations see link below named "Doctors". Finally, we have also not accounted for the ever increasing population of the U.S.


Socialism vs Communism:
Federal Income Tax Rate:
Federal Payroll Taxes:
Unemployment Rate:
The Pilgrims:
Influenza Vaccine production:
Influenza Vaccine Ingredients:
Time Off:
Illegal Population:
Debate Round No. 2


First off, the Socialist argument ignores the fact that the people in Socialist states are actually happier, more productive, and has a smaller unemployment rate than the USA. So your example of John, doesn't happen in any of these countries. (you can read the original article linked by the daily kos, if he doesn't satisfy you, I just really like this one better)

Your adequate argument makes sense, until you realise that almost every single developed country, except us, has universal healthcare, and they haven't reported on having these problems. Do they just have more doctors, are you still anti socialist all the way, and don't care about anything said about them, or, do you just not believe me? If your gonna try to refute this argument, I want you to start off by answering that question.

I actually don't have much time, I'm going to California to celebrate the 4th of July, and I have to spend the first day getting ready, and leave the next day, and by the time I return it will be too late.


1)The Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 25
a.As is CLEARLY stated in the history section of the U.N."s official page, this document was created in 1948 in response to the atrocities of WWII and the Nazi concentration camps see link History.
b.As can be seen in Human Rights Law tab of the same site, "It continues to be an inspiration to us all whether in addressing injustices, in times of conflicts, in societies suffering repression ["]"; again, this is to combat groups becoming like Nazi Germany
c.The first paragraph of the Preamble states "["]is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace." This again lends evidence to this document being created to combat future Nazi style groups
d.The second paragraph goes on to say "Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind["]" which references the contempt for human rights referring to Nazi Germany
e.The third paragraph is the MOST important here: "Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law."
i.This CLEARLY identifies the subject matter for the document which is "to rebellion against tyranny and oppression""
f.Directly addressing Article 25:
i."Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."
ii.Let"s break this down
1.This defines health as "food, clothing, housing, and medical care and necessary social services, security in sickness, disability ["]"
a.Food " U.S. has food stamp system
b.Clothing " U.S. has homeless shelters and donation centers that provide clothing
c.Housing " U.S. has homeless shelters and other systems setup for homeless to keep a roof over all heads at minimum during the night
d.Med Care " We offer donated doctor"s time and products to the homeless shelters for the homeless. We also don"t allow hospitals to deny care to anyone; cost picked up by hospital
e.Med Care 2 " We provide Medicaid (adults) and CHIP (children) which is free health insurance paid for by the tax payers
f.Social Services " U.S. provides a system called Social Services providing assistance programs, accessibility resources, senior services, schools and education, libraries, arts, youth and family services, and even outreach services
g.Unemployment " U.S. provides unemployment
h.Sickness " See above
i.Disability " U.S. has disability services for permanent and permanent partial disability
j.Widowhood and old age " U.S. has these services as well including a duplication of parts of this list specifically for senior citizens
g.This is another example of documents of goodwill being taken, words twisted, meaning and purpose tossed aside, and used for a selfish personal advancement by companies like Amnesty International. You must take documents at face value as well as taking into account the time and the cause that prompted the writing of said document; here it was WWII, mass genocide, and Nazi Germany.

2)USA ranked last in the world despite being the most expensive
a.The YouTube video
i.Uses a report released by the Commonwealth Fund see link CWF
1.After reading this report, 4 major things pop out at me:
a.This was NOT in any way a valid or trustworthy source of data. Instead, it was a survey questionnaire the authors requested people to fill out.
b.There is an underlying tone and a repeated theme that is not very subtle throughout this entire document which is: the U.S. does not have a nationalized healthcare system.
c.All of the supporting articles used for this study were from the U.K., I wonder why the U.K. ranked 1st in almost every category and 1st overall.
d.The Authors of this document and so-called research study have a common connection: they ALL support nationalized healthcare
i.Karen Davis and Kristof Stremikis collaborated on a document for the Commonwealth Fund in which they falsified data and created slanderous falsities in an attempt to sway national opinion on the ACA. See link Data Brief.
ii.David A. Squires appears to be in favor of nationalized healthcare as well, however to be fair, he does speak on more of a factual basis in his writings for the commonwealth fund as seen in link issues.
iii.Cathy Schoen is on the same plane, but again using some facts to back up some assertions see link blocks
2.This report CLEARLY states under the abstract that "The views presented are those of the authors and not necessarily those of The Commonwealth Fund or its directors, officers, or staff
a.This means it was an opinion piece, not a properly researched, vetted, reviewed, and agreed upon, scientific study accepted and promoted by the scientific community at large. Backing facts to come next.
b.There are only 4 authors which isn"t close to enough for an objective document to be created.
3.In order for a theory to be accepted as truth, it must follow the scientific method. Part of this is to compare apples to apples, not apples to whatever you can throw a dart at. The abstract compares the U.S. to Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK
a.Every nation in that list, with the exception of the U.S., has a nationalized healthcare system as opposed to the U.S. privatized healthcare system. There is no foundation for comparative research to base itself on.
b.Population of each (including senior citizens) was also not taken into account. Population of each nation, format for data (Nation " population (Rank in the world)):
i.U.S. " 316,438,601 (3)
ii.Australia " 22,262,501 (56)
iii.Canada " 34,568,211 (37)
iv.France " 65,951,611 (21)
v.Germany " 81,147,265 (16)
vi.Netherlands " 16,805,037 (64)
vii.New Zealand " 4,365,113 (125)
viii.Norway " 5,085,582 (119)
ix.Sweden " 9,647,386 (90)
x.Switzerland " 7,996,026 (95)
xi.UK " 63,395,574 (22)
1.See link Population Clock
c.The document uses multiple factors in overall grading of each nation. However, there seems to be very little if any true research and data to backup any statements. These seem to be based on opinion and belief rather than solid verifiable facts.
i.In the interest of space I will not address each category, but instead will give an overview.
ii.Quality seems to drive home the fact that the U.S. is the only nation on the list without nationalized healthcare; the only fact that seems to be present here.
iii.Access once again beats the dead horse of the U.S. not having a nationalized healthcare system.
iv.Efficiency factors are administrative cost and expenditures without defining the boundaries. Seeing how the U.S."s population is over 4x larger than Germany, the closest on list to the U.S. and 14x larger than Australia, the middle of the list; it is no wonder why these costs would be higher. The more people you have, the more facilities you need, the more administrative costs and expenditures you will have to operate these. Additionally, they use avoidable emergency room use as a category which is 100% personal belief and view, not fact; it also does not account for the 12 million illegal immigrants the U.S. that must use emergency room visits so they are not denied for lack of citizenship and identification, the other nations do not have this issue.
v.Equity surprise, surprise kicks the dead horse in the groin talking about nationalized healthcare
vi.Healthy Lives uses population to its advantage to once again manipulate the findings. Death rates for example listed America as having 50% higher death rates than Sweden and Australia. Upon investigation, one finds that the U.S. has 14x the population of Australia so having 1,400% the population compared to a 50% higher death toll is pretty darn good. That is a 1,350% difference in favor of the U.S. I"d buy that for a dollar.
b.The U.S. may spend the most on healthcare but that is because it is in the private sector which promotes innovation and advancement. Also as noted previously, the U.S. population is exponentially larger than any of these mentioned nations. Yes, we could decrease this spending but at what cost? Should we really cut our coverage down to match the populations of other nations?
c.For space sake I will stop here. However, I implore you to research this on your own and see for yourself that this publication is barely worthy of being called toilet paper let alone a research document.
d.The remaining two links just reword this same "study", using copy/paste with everything so see above.
3)There were better ways to decrease cost
a.Decrease regulations
i.Due to regulations it costs $4 - $11 Billion and 12 years to get a new medication or device to pharmacies & only 8% of drugs in R&D are approved by the FDA see FDA & FDA2
ii.Give incentive for insurance companies to allow patient review of procedures & meds not yet approved by FDA
iii.End illegal immigration to stop bleeding capitol
1.Illegal immigration costs California alone, more than $25 Billion annually
2.The state reports 3 million illegal immigrants plus their 1.1 million anchor babies
3.This calculates out to a payment of $2,370 annual price tag for each legal resident household of California see II link
iv.Allow insurance to be carried and purchased across states lines. This increased competition would inherently lower prices

Population Clock:
Data Brief:
Issues: http://tiny
Debate Round No. 3


Is it ok if I put my rebuttles in the comments? I look and it says I inly have 1 and a half minute left...


MakeSensePeopleDont forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


I think I'll chalk this up as you lost interest.... Don't worry about that.


I took time off for vacation. Thought you had vacation as well which is why I didnt respond. Restart a new debate we can copy/paste our previous arguments and continue from where we left off.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by retrogamer176 1 year ago
I actually lost interest in this. I have other things to worry about. Like the beginning of my sophomore year. In high school. As well as getting my first job. And saving up for the Oculus when it gets a consumer release. Maybe when I'm settled and have a stable schedule for sophomore year we can bring this up again.
Posted by retrogamer176 1 year ago
You can decide wether to give me, or deny me the permission in either the debate or the comments.
Posted by retrogamer176 1 year ago
You can post your round 4 rebuttles now, however late I am should not affect your arguments.
Posted by retrogamer176 1 year ago
You can post your round 4 rebuttles now, however late I am should not affect your arguments.
Posted by retrogamer176 1 year ago
you know what? Fine, 1 source minimum. Just no wikipedia.
Posted by retrogamer176 1 year ago
If your quoting from a legal doc, you only need to provide that document as a source. Just a clarification.
Posted by MakeSensePeopleDont 1 year ago
Careful with the sources.

Amnesty International is NOT a reputable source. The are a extremist group that attacks groups around the globe not conforming to their view of a perfect world. They regularly attack and post data based on their emotions and feelings rather than facts, ignoring culture, history, environment, norms, values, etc.

Additionally, pasting three links; 1 of an official website, 1 of a copy/paste of said website onto a word doc, and 1 of the word document being read allowed does not constitute three sources; it is one source following accessibility standards for the internet. However, I suggest we say 1 source minimum just to alleviate this issue.
Posted by retrogamer176 1 year ago
@MSPD Oh, and also, sure title change is fine.
Posted by retrogamer176 1 year ago
@MSPD If the title is editable, I haven't figured out how. And I joined back in march.
Posted by MakeSensePeopleDont 1 year ago

Hey bro, just reviewing things here and I noticed that the topic question is bad. Per the ACA, Universal Healthcare IS a legal right.

If you can, you should update the question to "Should Universal Healthcare be a right in the United States of America?"

It would make a bit more sense. If you can't edit it, don't worry about it.
No votes have been placed for this debate.