The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Accelerator
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

basic 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/21/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 336 times Debate No: 82909
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

everyone has a right to take what they need to survive from the earth, the resoures. food, healthcare, the basics. when we create property rights and exclude people from resources, we have to make up for it in our laws. people may or may not be able to afford healthcare under a free market. therefore, unless we're willing to give people land and property and a way to make ends meet, the government is obligated to ensure a basic to everyone.
Accelerator

Con

I will agree that is is a right of humanity to take what is needed to survive and that has become hard for people to do today due to population. Due to this population increase there are stories and markets that supply our needs to survive however healthcare should not be a basic right and if it were, it would be deadly to the society it was introduced.We see it right now in America where everyone is already or being forced to have healthcare, the average family pays about $16,000 a year.* The average family income falls in between $50,000-60,000.* This high healthcare cost is due to everyone being forced to have healthcare, even those who do not need it, the cost is high because completely healthy people are forced to pay for those who can't afford it. If healthcare were to be a basic right as it is becoming in America the cost of $16,000 per average family would go up drastically and due to the flood of immigrants, who are making a new life and can not be expected to pay anything, and the rise of poverty would add strain to the economy that would break it in the end.

Some would retort that the government is there to distribute money to help the poor and underprivileged, raising the income of a family, thereby reducing the strain on the healthcare cost. I put forth this question, "Where does this money come from?" If the government is giving money to the lower classes where does the money to do so come from? It comes from one of two sources, one source is that the government prints from the bank. That brings problems with itself in the form of inflation, the more a government prints money the more the value of the money goes down. An example would be Germany in 1921 After World War 1. Germany under war debts turned to printing money to pay it's debts off but the repercussions were traumatic to the country as at one point 1 US dollar equaled 800 German Marks. *

Of course the more favored way is to tax the upper echelon for the money needed to give to lower class. Although there lies the poison apple that many countries are biting today. If one's country puts a heavy tax on the class that is sustaining the economy such as Walmart, Target, Ford, Apple, Xbox, and the "1%" that make all the money and provide all our needs to survive than those businesses and people would be making an income equal to a middle class family but still trying to support their businesses and slowly but surely the business would die off. Plus those working hard in the middle class and being taxed to death for the sake of the poor at one point would say, "Screw this if I am working hard to make less than those who don't work than I would rather not work and get the benefits." This would led to a degenerate culture hellbent on playing the system to get more benefits and money till it breaks.

A culture who tries to make everyone have the same standard of living by causing others to fall no matter what it is, whether it is healthcare, income level, or by giving different tax rates for different class levels is doomed to fail miserably.

* http://www.ncsl.org...
*http://www.mybudget360.com...
*https://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

con says we have to be scare with healthcare because of a big popululation. the problem is other industricalized countries consider healthcare a right, and spend much less than we do per capita. so it doesn't have to be rationed. logic also predicts this... iwth a bigger population means more doctors out of that population, and most illnesses is just in need of knowledge, a doctor.

all con's ponits about taxing more are irrelvant because other countires tax less and have healthcare as a right to everyone. per the tax burden i dont thnk people would stop working to get welfare though, because all one is entitled to as a federal matter is food stamps. the idea of a runaway welfare nation is a myth. the only cash some people get is money for unsupported kids which only lasts a few years.. anything else welfare related is scatttered among the states and if you are lucky a federal program.
Accelerator

Con

You idea in the first paragraph would work in theory. However, the reason people want universal health care is because they can't afford the medicine needed to cure their illness. With good reason with the cost of medicine rising, faster than inflation, people are finding necessary and life-saving medicine out of reach. Giving them health care will not solve the answer. Why? who picks up the tab on the medicine because someone has to pay for it, right? the insurance companies, but when hundreds of family's need these life-saving and sometimes expensive medicine these insurers can't keep giving out of charity or they will go out of business.* due to this they hand the cost down to the people it insures, that can be compensated if the poverty rate was kept in check however poverty is on the rise (14.7% or 46.7 Million) and the cost of medicine is going up you can't sustain that sort of trend for very long. The average family that makes between $50,000-60,000 and the cost of the average cost to have health care for that average family is 16,000 a year, do you really think that family can provide with the profit of the money when you add taxes and necessary expenditures? But of course how selfish of that family to think of itself when other people are suffering because those that are suffering wasted their lives not making the most of it and getting a degree and a paying job to pay for their own private health care.

the reason other countries do not spend as much on their health care is because they do not offer health services only wait lists.* The reason we spend much more than any other country is because we have not yet realized the cost of having universal health care. We still believe that maintaining the same level and quality of health services will be available if we give it to all regardless of being able to pay it. Do you really believe that a country can maintain that level, that quality of health services; while still being able to pay it's doctors a livable salary (and one that can offset the cost of medical school) as well as maintain a premium that all citizens can pay and not have to sacrifice their family's true rights for the petty and immoral right of a universal health care? A universal health care is immoral, it feeds off of people who have worked hard and made a livable job that can pay for their families expenses; it forces families to give up the dream that America once embodied. The RIGHT to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; not the right to life, slavery, and the pursuit of handouts.

*http://www.latimes.com...
http://www.theatlantic.com...
http://www.forbes.com...
https://www.theobjectivestandard.com...
http://www.forbes.com...
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

medicine is cheaper in universal healthcare countires too. the main reason it's cheaper in those places along with healthcare in general is because the government negotiaties and sometimes regultaes the prices lower. and lower administrative costs getting rid of the insurance middleman.

that also rebuts your ideas for why you think it's cheaper... not because of rationed healthcare. though if you are poor, rationaed healthcare is better than none. and in those counties that have waitlines and such, you can buy supplemental insurance and get bettre faster care.

but single payer countires like france are rated better than the USA in terms of healthcare. countrary to myth, france for example has less wait times than we do, less paperwork, and better choice of doctors.
Accelerator

Con

I would like to know where you go that information or if you are just making the wind blow where you want. America does offer more services in their healthcare but that aside a major reason that it is less expensive is that the government takes care of the cost's. Of course this is not out of charity but comes in the form of a 75% income tax but you know everyone loves to get 25 cents out of every dollar they earn. That is how they are able to afford this way of health care. If you like having everything decided for you and have little to no freedom then universal healthcare is the way to go!
Once the system is put into the government's hands then what difference is there in that and a monopoly. If the government has control over the entire system and all insurers fall under their dominion what is stopping them from raising the price of the healthcare. However the government would never do that, right? If some of you are thinking that the government's control of everything would be good than why aren't monopolies good? If an entity has absolute control over an area of life or a good than people would throw a fit that the entity was corrupt and there needs to be something done about it. However when the government does it people are all more than happy to fall in line and celebrate because the people running the government are all "good and moral" citizens. There is no difference between a monopoly and a government gone rampant for power. Therefore the notion of universal health care can not and should not be a right in any sense of the form, people deserve what they work for not what they whine for.

http://www.theatlantic.com...
http://www.npr.org...
http://www.slate.com...
http://taxfoundation.org...
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by WaspStinger 1 year ago
WaspStinger
Correction: *people who legit cannot work. Disabled and retired people.
Posted by WaspStinger 1 year ago
WaspStinger
The government should be doing more to help provide people with jobs so that this won't be an issue for the majority of people-and we will have more money to cover those who legit cannot find work.
Posted by KingofEverything 1 year ago
KingofEverything
I don't think this is debatable. Of course it is a right. If this was a debate about whether it should be right or not, then it can be debated. But the resolution states that the current state is that basic health care is a human right, and since people are allowed to and have the privilege to use it, how could it not be a right?

The only way this can really be debated is via kritik.
No votes have been placed for this debate.