The Instigator
skunkrecords
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
sherlockmethod
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points

Universal Healthcare

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 3 votes the winner is...
sherlockmethod
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/22/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,857 times Debate No: 9017
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

skunkrecords

Con

Universal Healthcare should not be implemented in the United States. For this debate, I will define a Rights as being synonymous with entitlement.

The Ninth Amendment states "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.". Forcing citizens to be complicit with government's initiatives to provide Universal Healthcare is a direct violation of people's Right to the pursuit of happiness [2]. If the government will not allow me to seek private insurance, this is a direct violation of my Right to pursuit happiness - therefore it is unconstitutional. I have the Right to pursuit of happiness, not healthcare. I look forward to a healthy debate, and good luck!

[1]http://www.law.cornell.edu...
[2]http://www.ushistory.org...
sherlockmethod

Pro

I thank my opponent for offering this debate, and I welcome him to DDO. As with other new debaters, I offer a few remarks before presenting my argument. I will not pull semantics concerning your grammar errors. Some debaters will happily accept that nothing violates your, "Right to pursuit happiness" as a right to happiness is something you pursue not "pursuit". Sound silly? Not here. Please make sure your contentions are well written and precise; otherwise, you will lose the debate before you present your second round. I also suggest you present definitions as I can define universal healthcare however I see fit. I am going to grant lots of leeway here and formulate your argument in a manner I can rebut. Please note, we have a lot of active voters on this site that do not support the healthcare plan presented by President Obama, if they offer you advice I suggest you take it. But, in reality, the definition that must be used for this debate is not the healthcare plan floating around in Congress.

My opponent has presented arguments suggesting that universal healthcare violates the 9th amendment of the US Constitution. I will present the affirmative position that universal healthcare does not violate the 9th Amendment of the US Constitution.

Universal healthcare is a broadly defined. This wiki provides a decent definition [1], but as I will explain, we must limit the definition as my opponent claims it violates the 9th Amendment.

My opponent correctly quotes the 9th Amendment but applied it incorrectly. When examining any legislation we must read the entire piece, leaving nothing out.

"The enumeration in the Constitution…" In this context we can conclude that enumeration means to list off one after another [2] and the Constitution refers to the US Constitution. Universal healthcare is not enumerated in the Constitution. The only manner in which the universal healthcare proposal could be subject to 9th Amendment scrutiny is if it becomes enumerated in the US Constitution. Any definition for universal healthcare must be one that includes placement within the Constitution; otherwise, the resolution is affirmed and Con's position cannot stand.

For this debate, universal healthcare must mean a Constitutional amendment granting healthcare coverage or medical care to all US citizens.

I will leave my statement here. I do not wish to produce the historic construction of the 9th Amendment and the case law concerning the matter unless my opponent agrees that no healthcare plan can violate the 9th Amendment unless it enumerated in the Constitution. If my opponent does not agree, then I urge a vote for Pro. Also, I ask that he explain how universal healthcare precludes his ability to get private insurance. Good luck.

1.http://en.wikipedia.org...
2.http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 1
skunkrecords

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for the constructive criticism. I apologise for not being more careful when formulating my argument. I'm going to take my loss and re formulate my argument for a later debate.
sherlockmethod

Pro

I accept my opponents concession and look forward to a future debate on this issue. I am a southern democrat and I do support Barack Obama. If my opponent wants to reformulate this one and challenge me, I will take it. 9th Amendment jurisprudence is a tough one; he did have some rebuttal, but reformulation for a future debate is the best move.

Best move: reformulation
2nd Best: Attempting to use the SCOTUS opinions concerning the right to privacy, but I was ready to rebut those.
3rd Best: Telling me that I am a poor adjudicator of the Constitution.
4th Best: Pulling a sadolite and calling any argument using terms containing more than 10 letter "liberal".
Debate Round No. 2
skunkrecords

Con

skunkrecords forfeited this round.
sherlockmethod

Pro

My opponent conceded.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by skunkrecords 7 years ago
skunkrecords
Then please, by all means accept the debate :)
Posted by LB628 7 years ago
LB628
It's really not. It has no legal force, only rhetorical.
Posted by skunkrecords 7 years ago
skunkrecords
I've updated the response time to 72 hours. Thank you for taking this up.

LB628, I find it disturbing you think the Declaration of Independence is a non binding document. I think if you're American, it's as "binding" as it gets ;)
Posted by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
change to 72 hours for responses and I will take it.
Posted by LB628 7 years ago
LB628
There is no right to pursuit of happiness in the Constitution, or any other legally binding document. It is rhetorical fluff.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 7 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"ut, you have to take into account that not having universal healthcare violates the same rights"
No it does not.

No other person prevents you from pursuing happiness in the absence of universal health care.

They don't assist it either, of course.

But they sure don't forbid you from trying.

An authority who declares "Pursue their happiness, not yours, or we stick you in jail," on the other hand...

(though that isn't quite Con's argument...)
Posted by Volkov 7 years ago
Volkov
On the basis of what he is arguing, with the constitutional provision and etc., it almost makes sense. But, you have to take into account that not having universal healthcare violates the same rights for thousands of others of individuals, and that the current healthcare reform plan does not limit people from using private healthcare, if they so choose.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
skunkrecordssherlockmethodTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
skunkrecordssherlockmethodTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
skunkrecordssherlockmethodTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07