CreateDebate


Debate Info

25
16
Commodity Right
Debate Score:41
Arguments:41
Total Votes:48
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Commodity (19)
 
 Right (13)

Debate Creator

zlUnreal(157) pic



Is Healthcare a Commodity or a Right?

Please explain why you believe Healthcare is a Commodity or a right.

Commodity

Side Score: 25
VS.

Right

Side Score: 16
4 points

There is no such thing as an automatic right to any social handout including health care.

The only right people have to public funded services are those who they have contributed towards such a facility for a specific period of time.

The Africans dying of starvation and disease do not have access to healthcare because they are, always have been and always will be totally incapable of fending for themselves.

If anyone tries to argue that everyone in the world has a right to healthcare then they must detail how such a 'right' could be funded.

To smugly claim the moral high ground by self-righteously stating that healthcare is a right without submitting their plan for fiscal funding is no more than sanctimonious hot air.

Side: Commodity
seanB(936) Disputed
1 point

Is a healthy population free of the worry of bankruptcy due to ill-health a priority political aspiration, or is it entirely acceptable and inevitable to see people die of cancer on the street when they're too sick to work to pay for their expensive treatment?

It's a matter of willpower and priorities.

Left up to the populace in a direct vote, I would wager that the outcome would be a landslide victory for universal comprehensive healthcare, free at the point of end-user contact. I don't think there is any substantial base among working class man or woman who would oppose such a precedent, at least not sufficient to stop it being passed into law.

And as you know, we live in democracies.

Side: Right
Cocopops(343) Disputed
1 point

People of substance and ability are able to recognize the necessity for making provision for all eventualities including ill health and hard economic times.

The weak and incapable will, as proven a million times over in such countries as the U.K, use the safety net of a national health service and other over generous benefits as a hammock and contribute little or nothing towards its funding.

This in turn leads to a two tier health service where the very rich can afford to pay for and commandeer the top medical people whilst everyone else has to wait for a secondary service.

No matter what sanctimonious bellowing you do about a free health service, it simply doesn't work in practice.

Because of it's inevitable misuse even people who have contributed to a, 'so called', free national health service have to wait for up to two years for the treatment of cancer and other life threatening diseases, in many cases, too many cases, they don't survive.

In numerous cases people have to wait for three months just for an initial assessment of their malady while the wealthy are diagnosed and have treatment commenced within one to two weeks.

On a recent B.B.C, programme one person who was permanently in extreme pain was quoted two years for a hip replacement operation and referred to a 'pain management' clinic. When the sufferer asked how long would it take if he went privately he was offered surgery within 'ONE WEEK'.

A national health service is an unsustainable drain on any nation's finances and encourages people to develop a more irresponsible attitude towards their own health as they reason, wrongly, ah to hell, I'll eat, drink and smoke shit and let the 'national health look after me.

Unfortunately life will always have winners and losers and providing a seemingly free health service won't change this.

Taking out appropriate insurance and/or putting a realistic % of one's earnings aside to deal with any health or economic crisis is the way the self reliant approach their lives.

Side: Commodity
1 point

Don't get me wrong, I believe in public services for the needy (within a budget), but I don't think healthcare is a right. You need food to live and that's not a right. You need sleep and water and clothes and none of those are rights. Shelter - not an automatic right. Even when you die, getting a ceremony or burial is not.

So basically, you want society to guarantee they'll fix your broken arm, but if afterward you're homeless, freezing and starving then that's your own problem.

Side: Commodity

You mean intrinsically?

Your only intrinsic rights are what you can defend.

It isn't strictly a commodity either.

Side: Commodity
Amarel(4984) Clarified
1 point

Your only intrinsic rights are what you can defend.

Can you defend the right to defend yourself?

Side: Commodity

Yes, I can.

But in case you mean whether we have an intrinsic right to our intrinsic rights, then yes, we do. If you can defend that right, then it's yours, else it disqualifies on both levels, just as it ought to.

Side: Commodity
1 point

In economic terms, healthcare is a commodity. It fits the category of goods and services and is a marketable item produced to satisfy wants or needs. Healthcare is not a right in the philosophical sense and can never be a right beyond the statutory sense.

Healthcare is just one of many supposed rights created by a political philosophical position that is anathema to rights as such. By dropping the philosophical foundations for the concept of rights, political thinkers are able to baselessly create as many "rights" as they want, thus inflating quantity and devaluing the concept.

This may also be the reason why the group most interested in ignoring basic gender will pretend there are 33 of them (a number sure to change).

Side: Commodity
0 points

com·mod·i·ty

a raw material or primary agricultural product that can be bought and sold, such as copper or coffee.

Healthcare is neither a commodity nor a right.

Side: Commodity
2 points

Did you finally use a dictionary correctly? Woah. Congratulations.

Side: Commodity
DBCooper(2194) Clarified
0 points

Let me make it clear healthcare is neither a commodity nor a right. That hard for you understand.

Side: Commodity
1 point

Hello:

Right wingers SAY that people can get treatment at the ER. Of course, they KNOW the taxpayer is PAYING for the ER visit, don't they?? Why would they tell someone that if they DIDN'T have a RIGHT to health care?? They'd be saying, DIE in the street poor people.. I OWE you NOTHING.. But, they DON'T say that, do they?? Consequently from this liberals standpoint, it LOOKS like right wingers actually do BELIEVE health care is a RIGHT.

So, if the taxpayer is going to be the hook for LOTS of peoples medical bills, shouldn't we DO it in the most CONSERVATIVE and EFFICIENT manner possible??? Sure, we should. That would be, of course, single payer.

excon

Side: Right
0 points

Well, this is moreso dependent on whether this question is asking what it is currently or what it should be. Either way, under the assumption that a commodity is something useful that can be bought or sold, I guess healthcare technically qualifiies as that, but that doesn't mean it should be something that exists purely to fuel the economy. Regardless of socioeconomic status, no one should suffer because they can't afford apt medical care.

Side: Right
DBCooper(2194) Clarified
1 point

No one goes without apt medical care to believe that is nonsense and a fallacy (a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound argument.) Community hospitals around the country can't refuse anyone medical care whether they can pay for the care or not. No one suffers due to the lack of medical care if they do so it is by personal choice.

Side: Commodity
camiheall(18) Disputed
1 point

If you're purely talking about emergency situations then no, people without the means to pay for medical care can't be turned away, and it'd be ridiculous to claim otherwise. That's one reason why those who aren't financially well off will often turn to the emergency room for more minor afflictions. But dental care, prescriptions, and other things that aren't usually thought of as urgent people can and do struggle to afford.

Side: Commodity