CreateDebate


Debate Info

59
58
yup nahh
Debate Score:117
Arguments:74
Total Votes:143
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 yup (34)
 
 nahh (40)

Debate Creator

zombieman(35) pic



Do Americans have the right to universal healthcare?

I honesty have no idea whether it should be or not, millions of americans went bankrupt and are still because they can't afford medical expences, but then again it's not the governments responsiblity to pay for your medical bills.  But in the declaration of independence it states that all men have the right to "life" which entails the health care provided to ensure life. In the preamble it states that it's purpose is to promote general welfare for it's people, but then it's saying to promote it, not to provide. but americans have the right to decide whether or not they want financial ruin, or paying to stay alive with medicines and treatments.do you think that's right? one or the other. either way your ruined. but allowing americans to have free healthcare would mean they are healtheir and can live longer meaning that they contribute more to their society. Free healthcare would promote equal oppertunity.by decreasing the number of people who are economically disadvantaged in society due to bad health and medically related financial trouble.
I don't know, I have to say yes. But if we did have free healthcare would healthcare lose it's stability. I mean with all americans with full coverage that means more doctors and clinics, and that means more people going to school for that profession. Would healthcare start to get careless? You can disregard that last statement, even im not sure if it's right. But if you understand what im trying to say in that last bit then post your replies pertaining to it.

yup

Side Score: 59
VS.

nahh

Side Score: 58
5 points

There is no constitutional right that guarantees universal health care, nor is there any constitutional amendment that forbid it. The question we should be asking ourselves is whether it would benefit more Americans than our current system of health care providers.

Certainly I think if applied properly a National health-care system could be very beneficial. I wouldn't be opposed to something along the lines of what the United Kingdom has. I am very skeptical of the plan Obama has proposed, I don't have very high expectations of it, but time will tell.

Side: Yup
Cicero(239) Disputed
2 points

The amendment that opposes federally run health care is the tenth amendment. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Whereas the Constitution does not give the Congress the authority to distribute healthcare, it cannot. The states or the people themselves can provide the people with healthcare. Now the government can clean things up to promote healthcare or healthful activity promoting to "promote the general welfare." But my concluding argument is it isn't a right if it's not God-given. If healthcare were a right we would all have a naturally strong immune system that can block all disease etc.

Side: Nahh
4 points

Yay for the elastic clause:

The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Honestly, I agree with you that healthcare clearly wasn't intended in the constitution as a right, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't still talk about it. The constitution also never mentioned a Federal bank, an environmental protection agency, a food and drug administration or really anything else specific like that. Things have changed since then however, and now our nation could feasibly afford to provide healthcare to all its citizens...the only question is if we should, and if so what would be the best way to do it.

Side: Yup
Bohemian(3861) Disputed
1 point

Touche' I had forgotten about that. I guess conceivably you could interpret a certain clause to include healthcare, but whatever the case may be should I presume you advocate a state-run healthcare?

Side: Yup
3 points

Americans have a right to anything that they say they have a right to, as long as its a majority of Americans that want it.

Side: Yup
1 point

Just a wee bit curious, some Americans are not privileged with money, what are they supposed to do when they can't afford health care? I think this is the problem, Most people say health care shouldn't be free because they would assume that most Americans can afford it, and for those who can't oh well, it's not my responsibility. I can see where this topic gets to a socialist stand point in a sense. Having everything handed to you.

This is a very touchy subject. This isn't a yes or a no for me. I'm undecided in the matter.

Side: touchytouchy
1 point

1. We already have it. A hospital is not allowed to not treat a dying person because they cannot afford it.

2. the argument is affordable healthcare. We currently pay the most, for one of the worst healthcare systems in the Western world. It's pathetic and we've all become insurance companies bitches.

3. The new laws do nothing more than ensure that ins. cannot rape us anymore, and that more of the people who pay 0 for healthcare are going to have options they can afford... turning 0 into $

4. This will lower costs for everyone including those already insured.

5. That this is even a conversation is more proof of big corporations strangle hold over the right wingers. You'll argue against your own self-interest so they can get even richer and continue raping you.

Side: Yup

Universal healthcare will take the worry about being sick. No one wants a medical bill from a long time in a hospital.

Side: yup

No one has a right to universal health care. Think about what that means. It means that someone else is forced to pay for your health care. Why should anyone be forced to do something they do not want to do? When you are born, the world doesn't owe you a damn thing. Why should you owe the world anything?

Side: Nahh
Hollowman24(6) Disputed
4 points

Because at the end of the day, everyone else is a person, just like you. Well, maybe not just like, but very similar to. Everyone else has feelings and emotions, hopes and dreams. Unfortunately, not everyone is privileged enough to be born rich. Not everyone is lucky enough to be born with the skills that allow them to move up in the world. Who are you to say who gets to live and who is to die? And this "someone else" that you speak of- how inconvenienced would they be to give a small amount of their daily earnings to the well being of everyone else? A national insurance system would spread the risk of a few sick people across the population of the entire United States.

Side: Yup
aveskde(1935) Disputed
3 points

No one has a right to universal health care. Think about what that means. It means that someone else is forced to pay for your health care. Why should anyone be forced to do something they do not want to do? When you are born, the world doesn't owe you a damn thing. Why should you owe the world anything?

So I guess your entire life you've lived in a shack in the mountains off the grid, otherwise you're a hypocrite for taking services paid for by us, but wanting to avoid giving back.

Side: Yup

What I want is to be given the option. Currently what happens is that my money is taken from me and I am NOT given a choice.

Side: Nahh

Americans have the right to affordable health care. ------------

Side: Nahh
2 points

No, It isn't in our constitution or bill of rights. We, as Americans, have no right to health care as much as we do not have rights to a job or a home. But, I am sure that is next on the liberal agenda no doubt.

Side: Nahh
1 point

You guys should see my other debates I have up, I think they are pretty good.

Side: Nahh
1 point

mudkipz stop posting stupid responses on my post.

and what I am saying is "do Americans have the right to universal health care" meaning the same health care Canada has. meaning basically free health care. You jackass. ( I believe Canada only has a small monthly fee depending on you're income, if you are not very wealthy they will work with you and you're health care will be cheaper, but for all those who can pay the original price it stays that way.)

Side: Nahh
1 point

But, take a look at Canada. You have to wait weeks for an appointment and the quality is just shitty.

As I said in my original post, with every American, (meaning everyone certified as an American mudkipz you jackass) with full coverage will it be the same way? will it lose it's foothold and eventually just start spiraling down the drain?

Is it really a good idea?

I have to disagree and say no, I don't think it would be a good thing for the American people, it's not that much, pay for you're health care people, it's not that bad. And no matter what you're going to be taken care of anyways.

Side: Nahh
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
2 points

But, take a look at Canada. You have to wait weeks for an appointment and the quality is just shitty.

Only when you make an appointment for things like a check-up. When you go into an emergency room because you are having a major problem, you see a doctor much faster. This is because those without insurance in the US all have to wait until the last moment to go to the emergency room. This is one of the many reasons this chart is so relevant link

Granted, Canada is not much better (ranked 30 compared to 37), but Canada's system if I'm not mistaken is closer to the one the US just signed than it is to those available in England and the Scandinavian countries.

As I said in my original post, with every American, (meaning everyone certified as an American mudkipz you jackass) with full coverage will it be the same way? will it lose it's foothold and eventually just start spiraling down the drain?

This is not a static problem. The US has steadily been falling behind, while prices have drastically been increasing each and every year. Our healthcare is already spiraling out of control.

I have to disagree and say no, I don't think it would be a good thing for the American people, it's not that much, pay for you're health care people, it's not that bad. And no matter what you're going to be taken care of anyways.

This is completely untrue. In fact, some people have policies that literally cost more than their mortgage right now in the US. Part of the bill recently signed guarantees insurance has to spend something like 90% of profits on actual healthcare. This will automatically lower costs because currently many companies spend less than 50% on actual care.

It is a misconception that a public option within the US would raise costs for some because 1. new laws ensure this won't happen by lowering profit margin instead of increasing costs 2. more will be paying into the system as those making over X amount will be paying a low rate, instead of 0.

Here is how much the US currently pays for the 37th best healthcare/ capita link The US spends almost twice as much as any other country as it is.

The entire debate is basically the third richest corporations in the land, the Health insurance providers, paying millions upon millions to misinform the populace so they can continue charging ridiculous amounts for crappy service. Everyone from Bill Gates to welfare mothers of 5 will be served better by this bill.

Side: Yup
1 point

Thanks david! ;)

Learned from that post, so now I can understand the situation a little bit more.

bah, I love this website. :D

Side: Yup
1 point

Nah they don't

But they should...

It would benefit the country and it's people.

But that's not what America wants is it?

Side: Nahh
0 points

First of all, no! Universal healthcare has never been a right and nor should it be. I ask all of you believers in this system, why is it beneficial? What makes it 'free?' Why should high earning taxpayers have to pay for a homeless man's surgery? Perhaps you will enlighten me though granted, you ae liberals. :)

Side: Nahh
Mahollinder(893) Disputed
4 points

Perhaps you will enlighten me though granted, you ae liberals. :)

Maybe. The Enlightenment is a part of the liberal legacy - as are many philosophical and institutional concepts that modern conservatives not only take for granted, but defend with great zeal.

Why should high earning taxpayers have to pay for a homeless man's surgery?

First, the qualification of "high earning tax payers" is unnecessary. I would even go so far as to suggest that it's disingenuous. Second, medical care is treated as a right in America. Hospitals aren't allowed to reject people: citizen or non-citizen, legal or illegal immigrant in emergency situations. So that homeless person receiving care is already funded by taxpayers, as the treatment is subsidized by public funds. But what's more important in, my opinion, is that its good citizenship. People living in the same society should treat each other well, out of a social obligation or a moral one.

I ask all of you believers in this system, why is it beneficial?

There are some obvious benefits: we can have a healthier population, which tends to be more creative and productive; there is also the very real potential for decreasing financial burden for paying for medical care.

What makes it 'free?'

It's free in the sense that roads are free. While tax money funds all public goods, you don't have to pay a toll every time you drive your car on a road, or pay a monthly due to any number of private companies for using different roads, or highways, thoroughfares or little side streets.

Side: Yup
Troy8(2431) Disputed
0 points

Hospitals aren't allowed to reject people: citizen or non-citizen, legal or illegal immigrant in emergency situations. So that homeless person receiving care is already funded by taxpayers, as the treatment is subsidized by public funds.

Okay, so this was a bad example. I am talking about a non-emergency situation.

There are some obvious benefits: we can have a healthier population, which tends to be more creative and productive; there is also the very real potential for decreasing financial burden for paying for medical care.

Of course these are ideal situations. I'm sure most would like a healthier population, but this will not happen without making someone unhealthy (in a metaphorical sense). It's just the nature of capitalism. If you don't have as much money as someone else, the quality of these types of things will naturally be a bit lower, and rightfully so. This communism ideal has been tryed before, the results much less than satisfactory.

It's free in the sense that roads are free. While tax money funds all public goods, you don't have to pay a toll every time you drive your car on a road, or pay a monthly due to any number of private companies for using different roads, or highways, thoroughfares or little side streets.

Yes, but it simply is adding taxes. That is like saying you can use someone else's credit card and it is completely free, no charge to you. No, this simply will not and cannot work.

Side: Nahh
0 points

If the government has a say over my right to live, then I lose my liberty to keep my life or I lose my life to keep my liberty. The results are slavery or death. With free market healthcare I give willingly give up my property to live, with universal healthcare I die or am bound by chains of servitude. To quote Henry, "Give me liberty or give me death." Many Americans feel that liberty is worth dying for. What good is healthcare where people die as a result from loss of liberty?

Side: Nahh
0 points

Well, no, considering how America was founded on capitalist ideals. It's unfair that those who work must pay for those who don't.

Side: Nahh
aveskde(1935) Disputed
2 points

Well, no, considering how America was founded on capitalist ideals. It's unfair that those who work must pay for those who don't.

Which isn't the question. The question is about providing healthcare that is available to all, because of a shared burden by everyone.

Side: Yup
-1 points

this question is as idiotic as asking if gay people have the right to look at rainbows. every one needs health care and a better argument would be if all humans have a born right to health care. but as said in our constitution that we all have the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness we can already see that Americans do have a right to health care. (face palm)

Side: retarted
zombieman(35) Disputed
2 points

First of all, the right for a gay person too look at rainbows, is nowhere near as important as universal health care issues. That is completely off topic and it does not pertain to what I am saying at all.

All humans? this is an American issue at hand right now, it does say that in the constitution but if you actually payed attention to what I had said It states that general welfare is promoted, not provided.

Side: Yup
zombieman(35) Disputed
2 points

another thing, your tag sir.

obviously says retarted.

now think about that. Did you get some red squiggly lines under that? or no?

Side: Yup
Cicero(239) Disputed
1 point

Are you kidding me?

but as said in our constitution that we all have the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness Really? Really? That is what the Declaration of Independence says. Nowhere in the Consitution does that phrase appear. If I could downvote you more than once I would. That is possibly the worst thing ever, making up words in the Consitution.

Side: Nahh
4 points

Nowhere in the Constitution does that phrase appear.

Well, you need to learn how to read?

14th Amendment to the United States of America

Section 1:

"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

Side: Nahh
mudkipz2(358) Disputed
0 points

same difference of where it came from. that quote is famous and is what America is principally built upon. as for the rest of your statement it is just babbling.

Side: Nahh