CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
If healthcare is a right, should having a car be one?
Some people think that healthcare is a right that should be guaranteed by the government. Being healthy is part of living a happy life. But, you can't be too happy if you can't get to places. So, shouldn't having a car be a right if healthcare is a right?
Note: If you don't stay on topic you will be banned.
To me it seems obvious that a car should not be a right, though I do think our society needs to make far greater efforts at ensuring accessible transportation for everyone, especially in this day and age where a lack of sufficient transportation can lead to an inability to get a job. A lack of sufficient public transportation, coupled with an inability to afford private transportation, can lead one to have substantial fiscal difficulties.
Yeah but, see if you can't get no job, cause you can't get around, and consequently ya ain't got no food, so y'all get sick, least you got that right ta demand somebody give ya free healthcare ............................. its a right, right?
So, Dana says that healthcare is a right because you have a right to your body, and if you go to a doctor and can't afford it, the doctor should quit if they don't want to help you. Amarel brought up a great point: If you go to the car dealership and can't afford a car, should the dealer quit if you can't buy the car?
It was a great question, but we couldn't get an answer since it was "off topic". Now it is part of the topic and I am accepting answers to the question.
It is unethical for anyone to sell anything to someone who cannot afford it, that is why people and countries go bankrupt because of way too much credit and debt. You only have to look at the housing market crash during the GFC to understand that principle.
It is unethical for anyone to sell anything to someone who cannot afford it, that is why people and countries go bankrupt because of way too much credit debt.
That isn't the issue, quit his job, not quit selling it to you. If it is unethical for the car dealer to sell the car, should he quit or tell the person they can't have it or give it to them for free?
I would argue that there is a lot of difference between the rights of healthcare and buying a car. Sure buy a car if you "need" one however if public transport was more efficient it would be a luxury item for a lot more people.
I believe there are three rights that all governments should uphold for the public. The right to free health care, education and public transport.
All we have to do is have bi-partisan agreement on how we provide it. There is a huge amount of wastage in most government departments so there are funds out there that can pay for it.
I would argue that there is a lot of difference between the rights of healthcare and buying a car.
You can argue it, but the argument is the same for cars, so they aren't different.
I believe there are three rights that all governments should uphold for the public. The right to free health care, education and public transport.
Yeah, screw free speech and due process, people need to get places. You can believe in those as rights all you want, but not all governments can provide those things. It shouldn't be considered a right if the government can't really provide it. We should have it, but using the word "right" seems silly.
All we have to do is have bi-partisan agreement on how we provide it.
Oh no, bi-partisan today. That's not going to happen.
There is a huge amount of wastage in most government departments so there are funds out there that can pay for it.
Adding more government to handle healthcare won't help use up the "wastage", but create more.
I think public transportation should be an inherent right of a developed society.
Hong Kong, the most densely populated metropolitan area in the world (not city proper), has one of the most efficient and cheap public transportation systems in the world. That means it is possible.
My argument has nothing to do with healthcare. I am just arguing for quality public transportation.
The question is obviously loaded. If you wanted a serious debate you should either focus on transportation or healthcare rights. You can include similarities in your actual argument. By associating the two in your question, you forced the debater to choose both or none.
If you wanted a serious debate you should either focus on transportation or healthcare rights.
Sometimes we have to compromise. I am sorry.
By associating the two in your question, you forced the debater to choose both or none.
Maybe that choice has already been made. Why is healthcare a right and not transportation? This debate is a result of the healthcare only debate sounding like it supported free cars as well.
A compromise is between two parties. You wrote the question yourself. There was no compromise. You chose to conflate a free car with universal healthcare.
For the US, public transportation is an implicit right just like healthcare. There are many laws and regulations regarding public transportation/healthcare, but nothing explicit like Free Speech in the First Amendment.
This debate is a result of the healthcare only debate sounding like it supported free cars as well.
A free car is different from free healthcare or public transportation. The latter two are infrastructures. I am not sure why you believe universal healthcare has anything to do with free cars.
Yeah, you don't know the context. I had to create the debate this way to get someone else to discuss the possibility of cars as a right.
You chose to conflate a free car with universal healthcare.
We have other debates about healthcare. I wanted to add an aspect.
For the US, public transportation is an implicit right just like healthcare. There are many laws and regulations regarding public transportation/healthcare, but nothing explicit like Free Speech in the First Amendment.
Wouldn't that make them privileges?
A free car is different from free healthcare or public transportation. The latter two are infrastructures. I am not sure why you believe universal healthcare has anything to do with free cars.
I was not allowed to discuss that in the other debate because it didn't talk about cars. Free cars are part of the discussion because the road system is also an infrastructure. I can't use the roadways without a car. In the healthcare debate the reasoning for free healthcare was that the person is allowed to control their own body. Well, if I can control my own body I should be allowed to put my body in a car.
What does the country need to guarantee that people get from the public transportation and healthcare infrastructure?
Certain infrastructure are privileges, certain ones are basic rights according to my understanding of the DOI. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness requires basic infrastructure like law enforcement, military, roads, public transportation, etc.
A free car does not sound like infrastructure. Public transportation is not the same thing as a free car since that car would be private use. If they provided free taxi services, then that would be considered public transportation. Although if everyone rode buses/rails instead of personal cars/taxis, it would improve traffic congestion.
I have no idea what your argument with the other person is, so I will stop commenting on that portion.
You are allowed to control your body. That is basically your life. You can use the roadways through public transportation. If I follow your logic, then I need a personal plane as well so that I can use the airspace. Putting your body inside a personal conveyance is different. Now if the country did not provide any form of public transportation then supplying everyone with a personal conveyance would count as a form of public transportation.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness requires basic infrastructure like law enforcement, military, roads, public transportation, etc.
We have had those rights throughout American history. That infrastructure hasn't always existed. Therefore, anything that comes from that infrastructure is a privilege.
The rest of your post is details on how to give transportation to people. I don't think public transportation is a right (as well as healthcare) because you only get those things in developed parts of the country.
Of course we would not have all of the same infrastructure throughout history. The requirements for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness change. People change. Everything changes. Countries and governments should adapt to change, at least that is what I believe.
I don't think public transportation is a right (as well as healthcare) because you only get those things in developed parts of the country.
You only get three meals a day in developed countries too (well way more than undeveloped). You don't have to worry about choosing between dying from thirst to dying from drinking dirty water in a developed country.
People that worry about food and water don't really give a crap at all about any of the problems on sites like these. The rights you argue for are privileges to those people, and the ones you identify as privileges are treated as basic rights for those people.
I think public transportation should be an inherent right of a developed society.
So, we start getting more rights when we become more developed? Does that really make sense? It makes sense for it to be a goal, but not so much for a right.
Thank you for your assessment. It is good, keep it coming.
Yes. People get more rights as they become more developed. First world problems.
Public transportation is a basic infrastructure much like sewage, garbage, potable water, law enforcement, etc.. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is not just about civil rights like freedom of speech.
Those are really all privileges. If you live in a big city those services will be better.
The problem with all of your examples is that they have been built up over the years. We didn't put in sewers yesterday. Healthcare is something we can strive for. Maybe it will be built in the future.
There is already this right in the USA, it's called being on welfare. If you want a new car, just apply for food stamps. People on government assistance often live better than those without it.
That depends. For two families with the same income, the one who applies for more welfare will live better. That does not mean the people on welfare often live better than those not on welfare. I am not sure if you have ever used food stamps, but they do not get you much.
There are a lot of different welfare programs and many poor people who are usually uneducated do not apply for all the programs. Only the people who abuse the system get a lot.
For example, if you have ever worked at Caucasian, Latino, and Chinese "affairs" centers, you would know that Chinese people are much craftier when it comes to abusing welfare. They share techniques with one another. I am sure many people have heard of fake marriages, but I am pretty sure most of you have never heard of fake divorces.
Honestly, the pundits and media don't understand much about abusing welfare if they think the average poor person is great at it.
It all depends on where you live, where you work etc etc.
We have friends in France and Italy who have never needed to own a car and there are millions of people around the world in the same position who live in places where they don't need a car.
They are places where public transport is good and available so that a car is an unnecessary luxury and in some places parking / garaging is limited so public transport is a far simpler choice.
Ok, you have healthcare rights. I have a separate question though. If you go to the car dealership and can't afford a car, should the dealer quit if you can't buy the car?
Health providers in that case would do what every other business that has uncompensated costs would do - e.g. shoplifting, credited consumers that file bankruptcies or die before paying without enough estate to cover all their debt, etc. etc. - factor that into the price.
You did not answer the question about whether the doctor should feel good or bad. Or if you go to the car dealership and can't afford a car, should the dealer quit if you can't buy the car?
Just because they are different issues doesn't mean you can't do the same thing in certain circumstances. Healthcare and cars are different, but we still charge money for both. Since you say they are different it sounds like since we charge money for healthcare and cars are different than healthcare we shouldn't charge money for cars. So, you do want free cars.
Is the reason you won't admit that you should do something different is because you have figured out how stupid the argument was to begin with?
When you say you have a right to healthcare, some people think you mean that healthcare should be free to you. But that's not what you mean is it. I think you are saying that you should pay for healthcare if you have money, or if you have no money, you still should get healthcare anyway because it's your right.
Strawman. I am not saying that healthcare should be free. I am saying that it shouldbe affordable> The only time I support free healthcare is when someone can't afford it.
A strawman is where someone gives a different argument. He just said that you believe that people who can afford it should pay and those that can't shouldn't pay and still get it. That is your argument.
Yes. Now go look up the word misrepresent. If someone writes your exact argument it isn't a misrepresentation. If it isn't a misrepresentation, it isn't a strawman.
In countries with universal healthcare no one pays when using their healthcare. You are not arguing for that system. Since you aren't arguing that system we can eliminate some of the opposition to your position. That's the opposite of a strawman.
Excellent. We all should pay for healthcare if we have money. I completely agree.
In the US emergency healthcare is, by law provided to anyone regardless of whether they can pay or not. So that's good.
In the US, healthcare and medicine are so expensive that nobody can afford to pay the full cost alone, without insurance. You are correct that healthcare is not affordable to most people, and for some the cost of health insurance is also too expensive.
I am confused at how that hasn't been answered. If you can't afford healthcare that means you don't have the money. I just told you that people who don't have the money don't have to pay. They get the service for free.
No one claimed it was your position. They claimed that the same line of thinking can be used. You completely avoided the topic before anyone can use your weak argument as a strawman.
You want one to be a right because you want it to be a right. I want the other to be a right because I want it to be a right. How are they different? You have made a claim. I disagree. Please provide how they are different.
Why aren't cars a right? People own their cars. Cars aren't a right because they are different from healthcare. It is different from healthcare because it isn't a right and healthcare is. Circular reasoning at its finest. What part of my argument is a strawman?
Because it is super expensive. Healthcare involves making healthcare providers do work. You need infrastructure for healthcare to work. That's not how rights work. You have a right to speech and speaking doesn't require anyone else to do anything. You have a right to religion and practicing your religion doesn't require anyone else. You have a right to assembly which you don't need anyone else for. You can't guarantee something that takes resources.
Man. I finally stop trolling and give you a real answer. What part of my answer was trolling? The facts I listed about already guaranteed rights? Or was it the fact that something that requires resources can't be guaranteed? That is a fact by the way. Tell me. You actually asked a question that I truthfully answered and you dare call me a troll? Really?
Thus proving you have no understanding of what an analogy is. You are incapable of debating. This why you were banned. Please take your catchphrases elsewhere.
You do not have the right to take my money and use it at a hospital. This is the argument you need to address but you can't can you. All you can do is copy and paste different ways of saying 'I'm right'. This is one of the many reasons you shouldn't be here.
Is that really what it sounds like? No one values money over people. They just want to spend the money on themselves. He values himself over you. You can't really fault him for that.
The federal government is taking your money, not the individual.
If you do not wish to pay taxes or disagree with the concept, you should probably avoid countries like the US. If you feel like the government using your money to pay for things that does not benefit you directly is wrong, then you should probably avoid countries like the US.
At this point, the only thing that should be up for discussion in terms of healthcare is whether or not it is a necessary infrastructure.
We already have public transportation. And owning a car is a right. When has anyone said "you can't own this car"? Should cars be paid for by the government, no.
In my opinion, No. I don't choose to own a car. I ride my bike every day. I don't believe the Government should provide anyone a car, however, health insurance I do believe that the Government should help the unfortunate ones.
