The Instigator
ROwens
Con (against)
Tied
1 Points
The Contender
Wishing4Winter
Pro (for)
Tied
1 Points

The United States ought to guarantee universal healthcare for its citizens.

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...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/20/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,309 times Debate No: 28474
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

ROwens

Con

Definitions:
UHC: tax funded, government-provided medical services
ought to: has a moral obligation to
guarantee: provide a formal promise
US: the government
citizens: persons residing in a country that have legal status

We should look to the Constitution and respect people's rights.
Our government was created by the people for the people and must respect the rights granted to us the citizens as stated in the Constitution. By not respecting what is stated, the government has no agency. The Constitution is the only government doctrine determining what a government does and how they can act. By not abiding to it, the government loses their moral agency.

Contention 1. The government has no moral obligation to provide universal healthcare because it is not stated in our Constitution.
Universal healthcare, or even the term healthcare, is never mentioned in the Constitution; therefore government created did not feel it necessary or that a government should be responsible for its citizens welfare.

Kelley (http://www.atlassociety.org...) simply says the Supreme Court has not recognized a Constitutional basis for any welfare right including the right to medical care. He also says, "in our constitutional system, there is no requirement that the federal government provide healthcare." These movements would take the government beyond the original conception of its role.

Contention 2: Universal healthcare is coercive and goes against our rights.

Universal healthcare will interfere with freedom to religion and be coercive to hospitals. All hospitals will be forced to comply with the universla healthcare standard, even private religious hospitals. Under universal healthcare, they will be forced to provide services for all who go to their hospitals even if it goes against their religious views.

Relating to religious rights, some people may use religions as a way to continue using expensive medicine or medical technologies.

Fleck (Leonard M. Fleck, Ethics Professor, Michigan State University, 2009, Just Caring: Health Care Rationing and Democratic Deliberation, p. 346)
talks of a Helga Wanglie. "She was 85 years old and left in a vent-dependent state. Her physician tried to tell them this care was not working and could not save her. The husband was committed to a right-to-life perspective and her life was sustained in this state for 14 months at a cost (in 1990) of $800,000. Can taxpayers claim that they should not be coerced into paying for her care since religious reasons were the cause of the demand? Can individuals claim on the basis of religious commitments, unlimited accesss to costly life-prolonging medical technologies at the expense of others?"
Wishing4Winter

Pro

Hi ROwens! Well the first floor of my house flooded therfore I will be unable to do this debate anymore as I need to help my parents clean up the damage. However I would enjoy debating you sometime else. I sincerely apologize. Have a nice day.
Debate Round No. 1
ROwens

Con

I am very sorry to hear that. Hope you can get it fixed soon and repair the damage. Also, I hope you still have a merry Christmas!
Wishing4Winter

Pro

Wishing4Winter forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
ROwens

Con

As you can see, my opponent was unable to finish the round due to extreme circumstances. I do thank my opponent for accepting the challenge to this debate.
Wishing4Winter

Pro

Wishing4Winter forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by UltimateSkeptic 4 years ago
UltimateSkeptic
It's ok, good luck to you two!
Posted by ROwens 4 years ago
ROwens
Yes, I am an NFL LD debater. Sorry, UltimateSkeptic. I didn't check my email and didn't see your message. Maybe another time!
Posted by Wishing4Winter 4 years ago
Wishing4Winter
Are you an NFL LD debator?
Posted by UltimateSkeptic 4 years ago
UltimateSkeptic
I'm very interested in taking this debate, but it appears I do not meet your set standards. Challenge me?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by emj32 4 years ago
emj32
ROwensWishing4WinterTied
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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter 16k
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
ROwensWishing4WinterTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: FF