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.
Yes I do, when we are referring to an immediate life threatening situation. In the case of general healthcare at no cost, I am in favor of help for the helpless and the truly needy. In the case of healthcare at no cost, for just anyone in any situation NO. In the broad sense Healthcare is not a right IMO.
Yes I do, when we are referring to an immediate life threatening situation. In the case of general healthcare at no cost, I am in favor of help for the helpless and the truly needy. In the case of healthcare at no cost, for just anyone in any situation NO.
Do you think that largely describes the current law in the U.S.? What changes are necessary?
IMO the problem is fundamentally the COST of almost any healthcare in the US is ridiculously over priced. No one has put enough focus on simply the cost. Obamacare for example, focuses on how to pay the costs of healthcare, while leaving nearly untouched, the causes of why it costs so much in the first place.
Yes, the cost of healthcare in the U.S. has long exceeded that of other countries and had been spiking in the years before the passage of the ACA.
I would point out though, that the ACA does target costs in some ways: driving early detection - no-deductible preventative tests, etc. and people who now have insurance seeking care before issues become catastrophic (see also), focusing on quality of care (penalties for high rate of hospital readmissions), establishing best practices through IPAB and better documentation of tests and outcomes, encouraging provider coordination, facilitating use of electronic medical records, more waste/fraud/abuse enforcement for Medicare and Medicaid, Partnership for Patients to develop better practices for preventing acquisition of illness in the hospital and reducing complications with transitions to home, nursing homes, etc. etc. etc.
Do you have suggestions on other cost savers that should have been included?
But that would end up being a bigger drain on resources. It would be cheaper, more efficient, and lead to better outcomes if primary healthcare was provided. One of the reasons why hospital costs so much right now is that people are waiting til the last minute so that they can use the emergency room, which increases the wait time, and hurts the people that would actually need it.
Yes reality does come into focus. There is no free anything. Governments like ours, operate primarily on tax revenue. It has nothing to do with caring about people an everything to do with financial reality. Services like healthcare are provided at a cost.
By federal law, no one can be refused emergency medical care. Additionally medicaid exists to provide medical care to people who can't afford it. Further that ACA mandates that everyone have insured access to healthcare.
Yes. Tax revenue is essential to support the necessary functions of government. The point upon which we differ is, what those "necessary functions" include. In the case of the US, the federal government has only a handful of responsibilities enumerated in a constitution. Providing free healthcare for all citizens is not among them. Protecting the right to live and freely pursue happiness is protected for each citizen. The right to live does not include a right to receive food, shelter or healthcare from the federal government.
"Protecting the right to live and freely pursue happiness is protected for each citizen. "
Not that I agree with the previous poster, because I don't, but what if someone is in a situation where they are unable to purchase food, or shelter? What if someone can not afford healthcare, and will die without it? In those cases, how is there right to live and pursue happiness protected?
I agree, but how do we determine who absolutely needs it? Does someone with cancer that is progressing slowly (but will certainly die for it) need it? Or do we only determine that they need emergency reactionary care when some of their symptoms are about to kill them?
When the US federal government was charged with protecting a certain right for individuals, the concern of our founders was in protecting that right from government infringement. Our founders were intent on establishing a government that protected our right to a life. They did not intend that the government provide a means to live.
However the social conscience of a generous nation has seen fit to create scores of federal government programs that provide for those who are unable to provide for themselves. These truly needy are not receiving their right, but rather their privilege to be assisted by a caring society. IMO
"Our founders were intent on establishing a government that protected our right to a life. They did not intend that the government provide a means to live."
But what happens when there are no means to live without providing one? I am no referring to the ramifications of the social safety net, by the way, simply the concept and principles of this conversation. If the government is to protect our right to life, does that not require some intervention when such a right to life is not attainable by an individual in question?
If the government is to protect our right to life, does that not require some intervention when such a right to life is not attainable by an individual in question
In a word -- NO
It is not required, but as I said a generous and caring society does try to identify and aid the truly needy among us. Which is exactly what is being done in the US.
A right implies a valid demand for healthcare that does not exist.
"If the government is to protect our right to life, does that not require some intervention when such a right to life is not attainable by an individual in question
In a word -- NO"
Then it would seem to me that the government is not bound to protect our right to life, or at least has incredibly limited protections regarding our right to life.
"It is not required, but as I said a generous and caring society does try to identify and aid the truly needy among us. Which is exactly what is being done in the US.
A right implies a valid demand for healthcare that does not exist."
I am a little confused about this. Surely there is a valid demand for healthcare, as people surely strongly desire the necessary treatment to maintain their health, well being and, ultimately, life. I don't believe that healthcare can be a civil, much less constitutional right due to the way our country is set up, so don't think I am arguing from that stand point, I am simply confused by that previous statement of yours.
I'm sorry. I can only restate the main point again.
The constitution protects our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness from the federal government. The founders were trying to prevent the same tyranny that they left behind in Europe.
I like the system we have in the UK everyone has access to "free" (you don't pay except for prescriptions when you receive the service but a portion of your taxes funds the health service, for those who may not know!!).
It may not be the best in the world but due to disability I have to use it regularly and I have had to use the emergency side as well and it is a bloody good service and I wouldn't change it for the another system.
We did a comparison of different healthcare systems, and one thing we found about the UK healthcare system is that by making healthcare a goverment provided service, it encouraged support of preventive healthcare programs, which are often overlooked in America.
From an moral standpoint, yes. I don't understand how anyone can claim to have the moral high ground and oppose universal health care. How is that not self-deluding?
I think the topic is referring to right as something you are entitled too. If we are to use your definition to a right, the argument will be almost impossible to discuses since it would even be more opinion based, not that the topic isn't already opinion based.
Entitlement and claim are not synonymous. Entitlement (noun)is the fact of having a right to something. Claim(verb)is making a statement or assert that something is the case, usually without evidence or proof. The definition of a right that i have been referring to is being entitled to something.
It may not be obvious, but the last part of my sentence was a link to the wiki which discusses rights.
Most basically, I would just define it as a valid legal claim (whether in the context of what is, or ought be). I don't claim that there are any "natural" rights.
Colloquially, it generally gets used (ambiguously) to refer to the subset of above that people strongly support.
First off you don't have to have healthcare insurance to go to the emergency room, your bill is just going to be much bigger. Second you can make any kind of claims you want, that doesn't mean there going to happen. Having the right to something and having the right to make a claim to something are very different. When you go to the emergency room the first thing they do, is analyze your symptoms, to see if your in a state of emergency, if you are not in a state of emergency and you just walk in there, they might tell you to leave.
First off you don't have to have healthcare insurance to go to the emergency room, your bill is just going to be much bigger.
I don't see how this is relevant.
Second you can make any kind of claims you want, that doesn't mean there going to happen.
From my definition before, it is that the claim itself is a legally valid one that is the right - not fulfillment by the other party. Generally you would be able to sue for non-compliance with the claim.
Having the right to something and having the right to make a claim to something are very different.
Not by the definition I gave. (nor the expounded upon definition that I linked to, nor the legal definition, etc.)
if you are not in a state of emergency and you just walk in there, they might tell you to leave.
This is more of a semantic issue regarding the meaning of healthcare in the debate. I don't believe any country has established a right to everything that could possibly be construed as healthcare, only some degree of healthcare. And, my contention is only that we have made "at least some healthcare" a right in the US.
Yes, I believe it should be considered a right. That being said, our current healthcare structure is not setup to support that. It would take a lot of effort and changes that both liberals and conservatives would not want to be a part of, but the result would be something that actually benefits everyone on both sides with the exception of a few lobby groups.
Free healthcare wouldn't benefit anyone, it's just another way for the government to spend money on something that won't work. The government is often bad at running businesses, government run healthcare would just be an unorganized mess. The best thing to do is to get government out of healthcare. This will either lower the prices of private insurance or at least keep them the same. It will also increase the amount of private charities. People that can't offered insurance can always look toward private charities, this will benefit people more then government run insurance could.
A better healthcare system would benefit us in a number of ways. The cost is not the problem, and it is not because of the government being inept either. The biggest problem in my opinion comes from private interest groups. The lobbyists they pay for shift new bills slightly in their favor, representives extend their influence to a number of physicians, and skilled PR teams help control the public's perception in ways most people do not recognize unless they are involved in public health careers.
I am looking at case studies that show how standard "supply/demand" economics do not work well with healthcare needs, especially in the oncology field where it has practically become blackmail. Patients are forced to choose between a beyond unreasonable price for medication or death in some circumstances.
As for your notion that charities can take over, it would not work. Aside from the fact that not all charities are as just as they make themselves out to be, people tend to be concerned with their immediate needs to support every charity that would be required to work at its maximum potential if we went the way you were suggesting.
It is difficult to argue with your statement because you apparently lack a fundamental understanding of what they healthcare industry is actually like.
What we need is better policies to prevent manipulation of private interest groups towards the public. After that, I think the steps towards changing out heathcare system will come a bit less difficulty.
I should clarify while I'm starting out here: I do believe that health care SHOULD be a right, but that in practice we cannot currently treat it as one.
Does everybody have a right to food? I mean, we need it to survive. We have sufficient food production and excess foodstuffs in the developed world to maintain food stamp programs and the like for those who aren't capable of providing for themselves (and an extreme minority of lazy individuals abusing these programs, unfortunately).
But food is relatively easy; in addition to being widely available in the developed world, preparation of most of it is well within the abilities of most people.
That said, when there are food shortages, some go without. This is almost always determined by wealth, with the poorest individuals being unable to purchase food at inflated prices during a shortage.
Health care, on the other hand? Not so much. Health care in general requires highly trained practitioners that are in short supply. Further, medical equipment and pharmaceuticals are expensive to develop (and sometimes expensive to manufacture) and in many cases do not lend themselves well to mass production.
In short, we don't have enough doctors, equipment, or medicine to give every single person the treatment that they need within a reasonable timeframe.
As such, as long as there is an issue with scarcity of supplies and personnel, there will always be some individuals who have to be left out, by necessity.
In a capitalist society, who can and cannot receive care tends to be determined by the gravity of their medical situation and their ability to pay for it- personally, or with insurance.
If we are to make healthcare available to everyone at no charge, how do we determined who does and does not receive a portion of the limited supplies, a portion of the limited man-hours that physicians and other medical professionals can actually work?
I would love to live in a post-scarcity society where this is a non issue- but as long as scarcity is an issue, some form of selection has to be made. How do we make those calls? When there isn't enough food to go around, we can't feed everyone- much less for free. Health care as a right uses the same logic as food as a right; neither is sustainable without a very large supply.
I should clarify while I'm starting out here: I do believe that health care SHOULD be a right, but that in practice we cannot currently treat it as one. Thank you. You win best argument. I do want to state that morality and legality are often in conflict. S;avery is wrong but it used to be legal. Thank you for being part of this debate.
I do not necessarily disagree with your premise at large, but I might push you a little on the scarcity claim. Is society actually incapable of providing for everyone, or is it a consequence of inefficiency and/or prioritization? (The same could be said for food; some research has suggested that there is not a food shortage but rather an issue of food allocation and equity.)
Regardless of whether or not the scarcity is legitimate, artificial, or incidental, there is certainly a measure of scarcity in play in practice, which is what I was rolling with.
As to whether or not society is actually capable of providing all the health care needed for everyone, I can't say for sure. Might be worth looking into. If I were to follow my gut (I typically don't) I'd say that there is legitimate scarcity affecting some resources (generally specific medicines and man-hours by medical personnel) in some locations, but that some of it is artificial, either by intentional artificial inflation or inefficiency and various logistical issues.
I believe I said before that if the scarcity issues could be resolved I'd be all for treating healthcare as a right.
Food is not widely available in the developed world. 1 in 5 US children go hungry. The US has the highest rate of childhood poverty in any developed nation.
Food is in fact widely available in the developed world, and almost every developed country has food stamp and similar social programs for those unable to feed themselves. The US has these, along with numerous organizations that feed others for free.
The US produces far more food than we consume, and while individual specific items are scarce at times, it has been a very long time since there was any kind of significant food shortage here.
If an adult individual goes hungry, he or she has not availed himself or herself of the help available. When it comes to children going hungry, that is predominately caused by neglect/abandonment on the part of their parent/guardian(s).
I am guessing you think that the only kids who go hungry must be doing it by choice or through poverty. There are welfare gaps just as there are healthcare gaps. Welfare programs cover the bottom. Almost 50% of Americans have CC debt with an average debt of $15,000+. When you include mortgage debt as well, middle class households, not just welfare class households, struggle to feed their family. Not to mention the recent economic recession effect on the middle class.
It is not because of neglect/abandonment. Why just assume bad parenting? Does it make it easier to ignore the issue?
You really like to compare apples to oranges, don't you?
A family struggling to feed itself is in fact feeding itself. Difficulty does not mean they are going hungry. A parent unable to feed his or her children due to having to pay credit card debt is being negligent in not filing for bankruptcy, and is effectively putting moderate-term goals ahead of both short term needs and long-term gains.
It's not necessarily bad parenting- the parent in question may be excellent overall- but may well be negligent in their handling of finances. They may be too proud to request aid.
It is never, in the US, about a lack of availability of food. We export more food per year than our entire nation eats, and waste nearly as much.
Show me kids starving in the US, and I'll show you something lacking in the parents. Does it make it easier for you to ignore the parenting problems rampant through our society by blaming the issues on the system?
A family struggling to feed itself is in fact feeding itself. Difficulty does not mean they are going hungry. A parent unable to feed his or her children due to having to pay credit card debt is being negligent in not filing for bankruptcy, and is effectively putting moderate-term goals ahead of both short term needs and long-term gains.
A family struggling to feed itself means a family that does not get the necessary meals they need. Since we were talking about people that do not get enough food, I am not sure why you changed the definition to people who get enough food but struggle to do so.
I am not sure if you understand how bankruptcies work. If every family that struggles with debt payment should file for bankruptcy, then half of American families would be bankrupt.
It is never, in the US, about a lack of availability of food. We export more food per year than our entire nation eats, and waste nearly as much.
Availability does not equate to production or export. Accessibility and cost are the primary factors that affect availability to an individual not the national production/export rate.
"These families face a never-ending treadmill of tough decisions. Do they use their income -- if they have one -- to pay their mortgage or feed themselves? Do they pay for a hospital visit or put dinner on the table?"
That is called struggling.
Your suggestion is to file for bankruptcy and default on loans. If all struggling households did this, the economy would go into a tailspin.
A family struggling to feed itself means a family that does not get the necessary meals they need.
No, a family that does not get the necessary meals they need is failing to feed itself, not struggling to do so.
Since we were talking about people that do not get enough food, I am not sure why you changed the definition to people who get enough food but struggle to do so.
I didn't change the definition, I disputed your attempt to do so. This was about children not getting enough food. Covering all the bills and keeping food on the table can be said to be a struggle for all but the upper middle class and wealthy, but that doesn't mean they go hungry. If a child is getting the food he or she needs every day, he or she does not satisfy your assertion, regardless of how much work his or her parents have to put in to do it. Only the children NOT getting enough food qualify.
I am not sure if you understand how bankruptcies work. If every family that struggles with debt payment should file for bankruptcy, then half of American families would be bankrupt.
I did not say that families that struggle with debt payment should all file for bankruptcy. I said that a parent who is unable to properly feed his or her family due to debt payments has a responsibility to place feeding his family first, even if that means filing for bankruptcy.
Availability does not equate to production or export. Accessibility and cost are the primary factors that affect availability to an individual not the national production/export rate.
This is not the 'availability' I was referring to, as I was directly contrasting it to the healthcare industry, as this entire debate is concerning. We have food production to feed ourselves many times over. We do NOT have medical personnel, equipment, and supplies to cover all health care needs of all of our citizens and aliens. Enough food is available for everyone, cost notwithstanding. But no amount of money can instantly generate a fully trained physician, for example.
Your suggestion is to file for bankruptcy and default on loans. If all struggling households did this, the economy would go into a tailspin.
Maybe the economy needs to go into a tailspin to give us all a reality check. We're all living on massive amounts of credit and debt, even the excessively wealthy. It's a broken system that needs to come down sometime.
That said, I never suggested bankruptcy was the only path for everyone. The family struggling to pay their mortgage, for example, should probably consider selling the house, moving into a smaller, cheaper rental, and putting any equity they had in the mortgage to work for them. The real suggestion inherent in what I was saying was that sacrifice is often needed in a struggling family, and that sacrifice should not be of the families basic needs, regardless of the circumstances. If that means a bunch of people declare bankruptcy and tank the economy, so be it. If our economy won't function without people starving their children, then it needs to be rebuilt from the ground up.
I will further add that a not-insignificant proportion of underfed individuals in the US are underfed due to various eating disorders.
Show me someone in the US who is insufficiently fed, and I'll show you what he or she or his or her parents/guardians are doing wrong.
No, a family that does not get the necessary meals they need is failing to feed itself, not struggling to do so.
You are arguing over semantics and ignoring the fact that these people (some in the middle class) are failing to feed themselves.
Only the children NOT getting enough food qualify.
Yeah. This is about children who do not get enough food.
I said that a parent who is unable to properly feed his or her family due to debt payments has a responsibility to place feeding his family first, even if that means filing for bankruptcy.
As I pointed out above, I have been talking about people who cannot go hungry. Still far too many to declare bankruptcy. Nothing has changed about my argument other than use of "failing" vs "struggling".
Enough food is available for everyone, cost notwithstanding. But no amount of money can instantly generate a fully trained physician, for example.
Cost is generally considered a factor in terms of availability of a product. I am not sure why you have removed it as a factor for food availability.
Maybe the economy needs to go into a tailspin to give us all a reality check. We're all living on massive amounts of credit and debt, even the excessively wealthy. It's a broken system that needs to come down sometime.
I agree with the broken system part, not on the tailspin part.
The real suggestion inherent in what I was saying was that sacrifice is often needed in a struggling family, and that sacrifice should not be of the families basic needs, regardless of the circumstances.
Sometimes, sacrifice is just not enough. There are also a lot of people too ignorant or proud to get welfare, especially with the negative connotations associated. Only 25% of people eligible for welfare programs sign up for them.
You are arguing over semantics and ignoring the fact that these people (some in the middle class) are failing to feed themselves.
I keep asking you for examples of individuals in this situation who truly do not have a way to get the food they need, and you keep failing to provide. Last time I'm asking.
As I pointed out above, I have been talking about people who cannot go hungry. Still far too many to declare bankruptcy. Nothing has changed about my argument other than use of "failing" vs "struggling".
Who says it's far too many to declare bankruptcy? What is the acceptable bankruptcy threshold?
Cost is generally considered a factor in terms of availability of a product. I am not sure why you have removed it as a factor for food availability.
You've got it backwards. Cost is determined by the availability of a product and the demand for said product.
Sometimes, sacrifice is just not enough. There are also a lot of people too ignorant or proud to get welfare, especially with the negative connotations associated. Only 25% of people eligible for welfare programs sign up for them.
And it is this ignorance and pride that is preventing them from feeding their children- NOT a lack of available food.
It depends on how you define middle class. The 2nd and 3rd quartile for median income cover the range 30k to 95k. A household of 3 with an annual gross of 30k qualifies for the common welfare programs like SNAP, WIC, TANF, etc.
Who says it's far too many to declare bankruptcy? What is the acceptable bankruptcy threshold?
There is no explicit standard. The logic behind my "too many" comment would be that if 17% (1 in 6 hunger stat) of the US files for bankruptcy, the economy would collapse. Bankruptcy rates have never even reached 2% of households. I am not sure how you could justify 17% of households filing for bankruptcy as a solution to food insecurity.
You've got it backwards. Cost is determined by the availability of a product and the demand for said product.
Economics is complicated as hell. I do not understand much about it.
Surplus production does not relate directly to accessibility. If it is more profitable to export surplus than to transport to remote markets, then the producer will export it. Accessibility depends on many factors including socioeconomic class, geography, market size, existing distribution network, demand, and so on. Just because there is demand does not mean the market will fill that demand. If the demand is stronger in another portion of the market, then producers will choose the most "economic" route. That is the point of capitalism.
And it is this ignorance and pride that is preventing them from feeding their children- NOT a lack of available food.
Food is not available. That is what lack of accessibility means. Economy is not as simple as demand leads to supply.
It depends on how you define middle class. The 2nd and 3rd quartile for median income cover the range 30k to 95k. A household of 3 with an annual gross of 30k qualifies for the common welfare programs like SNAP, WIC, TANF, etc.
Oh, that's simple enough. It's defined as being a middle-ground between the working class and the wealthy. The working class has to work extensive hours to support themselves and their families, and are left with little time and energy to devote to other things. The wealthy do not have to work to support themselves, and are able to devote the entirety of their time and energy to other things. The middle class lies between these, in that they are able to support themselves and their families with a nominal amount of work, with a significant amount of free time and energy to devote to other things.
It's not defined by median income- it's defined by standard of living. Many people consider themselves to be middle class, and should not. If you are struggling to feed your family despite your best efforts, you are not middle class. Simple as that.
There is no explicit standard. The logic behind my "too many" comment would be that if 17% (1 in 6 hunger stat) of the US files for bankruptcy, the economy would collapse. Bankruptcy rates have never even reached 2% of households. I am not sure how you could justify 17% of households filing for bankruptcy as a solution to food insecurity.
You should note here that I offered bankruptcy as a last-resort option that anyone drowning in debt (other than student debt for some reason) should theoretically be able to fall back on. Adjusting ones priorities, swallowing ones pride, making use of social programs available, making other sacrifices, etc should suffice for the majority of those going hungry. I never claimed that all of them SHOULD file for bankruptcy, merely that it is an option that goes unutilized by many.
Surplus production does not relate directly to accessibility. If it is more profitable to export surplus than to transport to remote markets, then the producer will export it. Accessibility depends on many factors including socioeconomic class, geography, market size, existing distribution network, demand, and so on. Just because there is demand does not mean the market will fill that demand. If the demand is stronger in another portion of the market, then producers will choose the most "economic" route. That is the point of capitalism.
I already acknowledged that we export more food than we consume ourselves. We also throw away more food than we consume ourselves. Food is in no way in short supply in the US.
Food is not available. That is what lack of accessibility means. Economy is not as simple as demand leads to supply.
Food is available. Refusing to get on food stamps because of pride does not mean that food is not available to you, it means you're prioritizing your pride above your basic needs. I'm still waiting for a single example of a hungry person in the US who is hungry due to a lack of available food after exhausting all options available. I'll refrain from replying further until you can provide such.
Food is available. Refusing to get on food stamps because of pride does not mean that food is not available to you, it means you're prioritizing your pride above your basic needs.
It is not about being on the program. Food availability differs by region. Many districts do not receive enough food to support all welfare individuals. That is why accessibility is an issue. Even with income, credit welfare programs, and food pantries, certain households are still unable to feed their families. This is due to how the US family handles debt.
Your definition for middle class is not the only one as there is no standard definition.
You mean the once-clear cut definition has been altered due to the fact that numerous working-class individuals want to consider themselves middle class. That doesn't change the definition. If you are struggling to feed your family despite your best efforts, you are not middle class. That's pretty much how it is. It is not defined by median income, it is defined by standard of living.
It is not about being on the program. Food availability differs by region. Many districts do not receive enough food to support all welfare individuals.
Welfare programs do not just hand out food to individuals in the US- they are provided with funds or stamps to purchase food with. Can you advise as to what region of the US has insufficient food in its grocery stores to feed the populace, or are you just dissembling here?
Even with income, credit welfare programs, and food pantries, certain households are still unable to feed their families. This is due to how the US family handles debt.
This is due to how the US family handles debt.
This is due to how the US family handles debt.
Exactly as I've been saying- NOT food availability, poor prioritization and planning and unwillingness to make the necessary sacrifices. Are we done here?
You mean the once-clear cut definition has been altered due to the fact that numerous working-class individuals want to consider themselves middle class. That doesn't change the definition.
There has never been a clear definition of middle class. This relates to our other debate. In both debates, you believe your personal connotations depict the standard definition.
Exactly as I've been saying- NOT food availability, poor prioritization and planning and unwillingness to make the necessary sacrifices. Are we done here?
I don't think you have fully considered what this means. Most US households handle finances in this way. The households with sufficient income are not punished for these habits, but the lower/middle class are. That means there is an inherent bias in the system that punishes poor people. At least you finally recognize people are unable to feed their kids. You chock it up to neglect or lack of discipline. That is a common misconception. The poor are more disciplined with their budget by necessity. They cook at home more and eat out less. As CPI increases without increases in welfare assistance or income, the lower income population cannot keep up, regardless of budget discipline.
We are not done here. You cite common misconceptions without doing any research. You brush off the systemic bias because it does not affect you personally.
We are, in fact, done here, even if we weren't at the time I posted last in this thread.
With all respect, I have noted elsewhere my lack of desire to continue discussion with you further. Your constant dissembling, biases, and misinformation, as well as your complete refusal to address points that may be inconvenient to your position are unacceptable to me in a debate partner. It is strikingly similar to the behavior of many of our biggest troll personas on here, though admittedly you are rather more eloquent than most of them so I do not currently suspect you as being a troll yet, much less one operated by any of the same users at this time, yet. Regardless, I will not be goaded into a further back and forth with you until the seemingly unlikely event that you get your act together. Good day.
Your constant dissembling, biases, and misinformation, as well as your complete refusal to address points that may be inconvenient to your position are unacceptable to me in a debate partner
I have responded to all your points. I even provided sources to refute your misconceptions. You have actually ignored all of my sources whenever they are inconvenient for you.
If anyone is a troll, it is you. I am not familiar with this site and you may have indeed trolled me completely. Or you are just blinded by your personal opinions.
Why is it every time one uses links to support their position, you act as if they are a troll? The troll is clearly the one that voices their opinion and I said their opinion, deeming it as fact. The troll is thousandin1. Those that you accuse of being trollish are those that provide evidence contrary to your biases.
The weakness of your argument is that you are not addressing healthcare specifically, but services generally. I think very few people would claim that there is any such general right to "services", but a considerable number would certainly support the claim that there is our ought to be a right to life. Healthcare is not comparable to internet access or buying a car because the latter have no direct bearing on vitality, whereas the latter absolutely does. Effectively, the argument would be that healthcare is a secondary right because it is an arguably necessary instrument for upholding the right to life.
Perhaps we ought not care about supporting the right to life through healthcare, but I would suggest that if that is the case then one needs defend that stance rather than relying on an inaccurate conflation with services that do not pertain to the right to life. For what reason should we consider the secondary right to healtcare invalid even though we derive laws such as the prohibition of homicide from the same exact rationale?
The only right anyone has is to a six foot hole in the ground when they die, and even that has to be paid for. Everything else is covered by the old adage, you get out of life what you put in. Lie in bed and fart all day and you're entitled to sweet fanny all. A straight and simple answer to a straight question.
We hold these truths to be self evident that all people are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Healthcare is a right because people need healthcare to be secure in their person, which is a right protected by the Fourth Amendment. People own their bodies.
While I agree with the general sentiment that healthcare should be a right, you argument is invalid. The fourth amendment protects citizens against unreasonable search and seizures, which I fail to see relating to the question of whether or not healthcare should be provided to them.
Secondly, while people do own their bodies, that is not what is being debated. Healthcare is a service provided from a second party to that individual. While an individual "owns their own body" they do not own the second party or the resources belonging to the second party.
While I appreciate the sentiment, I am a little frustrated because my response was not an opinion based one. The reference to defining the 4th amendment is purely objective since all one has to do it look it up to see the definition in black and white. While there is a range of interpretations it can be used for legally, it's focus is one unreasonable search and seizures, and does not even broach the topic of healthcare rights in anyway what so ever.
As for my second point about how as health care is provided by a second party making you statement about people owning their own bodies irrelevant, and may even hurt the arguments for healthcare as a right by extension.
I am not questioning you from any social "norms", I am using logic. You don't just shrug off logic as simply a different opinion.
Healthcare is a right because people need healthcare to be secure in their person,
No. Not necessarily, at least.
If we follow this line of logic, nearly anything that anyone could deem as necessary to "be secure in their person" could be called a right.
which is a right protected by the Fourth Amendment.
The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable/unwarranted searches into a person's home. I don't know where you got the idea that this has something to do with healthcare.
People own their bodies.
Yup. They don't own other peoples' money or resources though, which they need in order to get "free" healthcare.
I disagree with your OPINION. People own their bodies. Healthcare is a right for thisd reason. My body, my right, my choice. If I don't want to be sick or injured, I don't have to.
Yes. Their bodies and their property. Not the bodies or the property of other people (varying degrees of control over one of those, or both, is usually necessary for "free" healthcare to work)
If people own their bodies, they have the right to receive healthcare. My body, my right, my choice. If I don't want to be sick or injured, I don't have to.
People may own their bodies, but that does not mean we can simply "choose" not to get sick. Given enough time, we will ALL get cancer (unless technology advances enough). We do not have a choice, despite owning our bodies.
I was not saying that people choose to be sick or injured. I was saying that when people are sick or injured, they have the right to receive healthcare. You are guilty of the strawman fallacy.
I really don't think you know what the strawman logical fallacy is, given how you have employed it. Regardless, you said that you don't have to be sick if they don't want to be, which is untrue, and I demonstrated evidence of that.
Additionally, even if you believe healthcare SHOULD be a right, in this country one does not have a right to healthcare. I am not saying I disagree with the idea that healthcare should be a right, mind you.
How so? You said " My body, my right, my choice. If I don't want to be sick or injured, I don't have to." That very clearly implies that you have a choice to not be sick and injured if you "don't want to be". Where was the misrepresentation?
Strawman. You are twisting what I said. Me saying that it is my body does not equate to me saying that we choose to be sick. I was just saying that if someone is sick or injured, they have the right to receiver healthcare. I am tired of you strawmanning me.
"Strawman. You are twisting what I said. Me saying that it is my body does not equate to me saying that we choose to be sick. I was just saying that if someone is sick or injured, they have the right to receiver healthcare. I am tired of you strawmanning me."
Again, you do not understand what a strawman is. I DIRECTLY quoted you, then explained to you the ramifications of what you said. If you believe that the words YOU said do not accurately portray your opinions, then that is fine, but that isn't on me.
When you say "" My body, my right, my choice. If I don't want to be sick or injured, I don't have to."", you are saying you have a choice (again, you used the word choice) in regards to being sick or injured. When I am quoting the very words you say, there is no strawman. If you want to take back what you said because it isn't representative of what you mean, that's fine.
But seriously, don't go around using the word "choice" then get mad when people respond to the fact that you used the word "choice".
Except you haven't. You have claimed multiple times that I have employed a strawman logical fallacy when quoting the very words you have used, and I really don't understand why.
Theoretically I am in agreement with you, but there are a lot of variables at play. Should this cover all illness, both avoidable and unavoidable? Should it cover preventative as well as reactionary? Should it be covered by tax payers even if the individual could afford to cover it themselves?
it is a yes or no question, but for the sake of argument, I will assume that you have enough reason to agree that doctors are in fact people, and as people they "own their bodies", so that you can not force them to provide free labor in giving healthcare.
We hold these truths to be self evident that all people are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Sounds nice, but what about all of those people who put in a lot of work and still can't afford basic healthcare? There are people in America who work 2 or 3 jobs just to make ends meet with no money to spare for healthcare costs. And it's not because they deserve that life- a lot of the poor in this country were born that way and can't seem to climb out of the hole. So what, since they're born poor and unable to pay for medical attention they shouldn't receive it?
You mean to say it is to be free ,well that can't be;how would the government get the cash if you make 'it' a right;that's not possible for all nations;America,Norway,Luxemburg might make it a "right" but ask the government of Ghana,Ethiopia,PNG, they would simply laugh it off.
Strawman. You don't get to dictate what I mean or say. I only think healthcare should be free if someone is unable to pay. Otherwise, people of course should pay for their healthcare. Healthcare is a right because people own their bodies. If someone doesn't want to be sick or injured, they don't have to.
If they cannot afford it, then they cannot afford it. Now answer my question: What if no one wants to help the person who can't afford it? Should they be made to? If so, how does that fit with your idea that a persons body is their own?
If no one wants to help the person who can't afford it, should they be made to? If so, how does that fit with your idea that a persons body is their own?
Thank you. A doctor's place is to provide healthcare. If he does not want to provide healthcare, he is free to leave his practice. There is nothing wrong with expecting people to do their job.
A car dealership is there to provide people with essential transportation. If I go there wanting a car that I can't pay for, should the dealer quit because he didn't give me a car?
A right that must be provided by someone. You said that if they don't want to provide it (regardless of whether or not you can pay) they should quit. This is similar to the car dealer. What gives you the right to force a doctor to provide health care if you can't afford to pay for his service? If you make someone else pay so that the doctor isn't dorced, what gives you the right to take the fruit of another persons labor?
no one is forcing you to suffer by deciding not to help you. if health care was a right, people would be forced to help you, that contradicts your notion of rights
You conservatives only care about money. It is very fascist of you to say that poor people should not have healthcare. This is MY body. If I want healthcare, that is my right. The poor have the same right to healthcare as the rich.
In the US, we use democracy as a way to peacefully and (somewhat) equally approximate that might and create a government and laws based on the consent of the governed.
Even though people on all sides may disagree with certain actions of the government, the structure of government itself is still largely supported. That support provides the might of the government to govern the rights and responsibilities we have delegated to it.
The very same statement could be made for a car. Take everything you said and put "car" in place of "healthcare", and then tell me why your argument works for health care but not for a car.
It's not about cars, but why is healthcare a right, but transportation is not? My position is that a given thing cannot be a right if it requires some positive action from someone else. The required action from someone else infringes on their rights, making the stated right a contradiction. Healthcare cannot be a right for the same reason that cars cannot be a right. Someone else must provide it.
Rights are a concept that apply even when you are all alone. You don't have a right to your health when you are all alone.
Ok, fine. Healthcare is not a right. Rights that contradict their own concept cannot be considered rights. Since healthcare requires that someone else has to do something for you, it necessarily infringes on others' rights and thus cannot itself be a right. Healthcare is not a right.
Since healthcare requires that someone else has to do something for you, it necessarily infringes on others' rights and thus cannot itself be a right.
The only important assumption your making here is that infringing on each others rights is not itself a right. But if it were a right as well, there would of course effectively be no rights.
For atheists then, do agreed upon rights depend on this assumption being true. Hmmm
For atheists then, do agreed upon rights depend on this assumption being true. Hmmm
No. That actually isn't an assumption, that is necessary for the discussed right to exist. If you want the right to your body you can't have the right to infringe on someone else's body. One right can't exist with the other.
Many types of rights impose obligations on others. For me to have the right of way as a pedestrian in a crosswalk, there is an obligation imposed on others to not run me over, etc.
infringing on each others rights is not itself a right
It is not "infringing" if there is voluntary adherence. The rights and concomitant obligations of citizenship in the U.S. are voluntary. If a person would like to live obligation-free, they can certainly try their luck in Somalia, or some uninhabited isle.
----------------------
Tangentially, the libertarian utopia of isolated man is actually just physically impossible.
If we start with just a right to live, that necessitates the right to breathe, the right to feed myself, etc. which will have an impact on others. Will the crops I plant affect the stability of the soil and runoff? Will the fertilizer I use get in the water supply? Will the pesticides I use impact the local insects? Will my breathing, cutting down trees, raising cattle, etc. increase greenhouse gasses? If I am allowed to hunt freely, (and so are you, and so is everyone,) might the entire population of a given species (and its related ecosystem) be destroyed for not just our own use, but our posterity as well?
I think I might agree with people who think this unfortunate, but it is the reality nonetheless.
You own yourself. You can do as you wish with yourself. The same holds true for everyone else. If you as a medical professional, do not want to treat someone else, it is yourright to do so.
Your rights do NOT extend over or infringe upon the rights of others. As much as you would like for someone else to pay your way in life, it is most defiantly and most clearly not your right to be excused from reality at the expense of others.
Yes it is. My body, my right. If I want to receive healthcare, that is my right. If I don't want to be sick or injured, I have the right to receive healthcare to prevent that.
Strawman. I never said that I have the right to have slaves. It is NOT slavery to expect people to do their job. If a doctor does not want to do their job, they are free to leave their profession.
Commonly people do their jobs for remuneration. Why or how do you have the right to demand service without remuneration? Do not others have a right to be paid for their work?
Do you have a job? Are you willing to do it for nothing?
Go ahead. Exercise, eat healthy, avoid things that can harm your health, meditate, hell levitate if you want to, but repeating the same nonsense over and over in the face of reasoned rebuttal does not add a gram. of validity to your thoroughly discredited claim.
In the US you have the de facto right to emergency healthcare, most especially if your life is threatened by your illness or injury. You do not have the right to expect this emergency treatment for free. That's the way it is here. Where your island stands on this issue is yours to deal with. You have been offered numerous examples and explanations as to the invalid nature of your claim, which you have avoided addressing directly. You have taken a loosing argument, with no basis in reason except your continued reassertion of your baseless claim. If you persist in restating your claim with nothing to support it other than "its my right because its my body", you will only dig yourself deeper into an indefensible position.
OK
Your turn now, so repeat your pointless phrase again ...............
All together now "its my right becau----------------
Freedom of speech. I have the right to say and do whatever I want. Healthcare is a right because people own their bodies. My body, my right. I have the right to prevent illness or injury.
Absolutely correct. You do have the right to your opinion and you have the right to express it as well. You also have the right to be wrong, and when you are wrong about your rights, you have the right to expect your wrongness to be rightly challenged. Am I wrong?
Even if you aren't able to pay, a hospital must provide care. (In most circumstances they can't even check whether you would be able to pay before providing the service.)
There is an important distinction between a right and a privilege. A right is a moral concept that a person can be conceived of having in a state of nature. Government protects our rights and provides certain privileges. Arguing that healthcare should be a privilege provided by the government is an argument about the appropriate level of government in our lives. But arguing that healthcare is a right is a confusion that leads to more than just doctors keeping their Hippocratic oath. If healthcare is a right, that would mean you should exercise your right and just take the migraine medicine from the store. Doctors must just provided it to you, as a natural matter of course because it's your right, like your right to liberty.
No, healthcare is not a right. If you want to argue that healthcare should be provided by taxpayers or other patients, fine. But confusing concepts that are the foundation of modern political philosophy has always been a step in the wrong direction. I can explain all this to you, but LibProlifer wouldn't understand this argument.
There is an important distinction between a right and a privilege. A right is a moral concept that a person can be conceived of having in a state of nature. Government protects our rights and provides certain privileges.
On a technical note, a privilege is actually more qualified (applies only to a subset of the population). The right you are describing is referred to as a "natural right" - and, as I mention here, I am not claiming any natural rights (unless you consider this to qualify). The right that I contend exists (in the US), is a "legal right" (see here).
Doctors must just provided it to you, as a natural matter of course because it's your right, like your right to liberty.
Hospitals are required to provide you with emergency care regardless of ability to pay.
If someone is unable to afford healthcare, then you enslave the doctor and make them provide it. Just like when they had a right to cotton in the old south. After all, we don't want to put money before people.
If there is a localized abundance of medical personal and supplies, certainly.
If there is any kind of localized scarcity of either, those who are able to support the medical industry that is actually caring for these people should be prioritized, if only in the interest of saving as many people as quickly as possible.
Arbitrary numbers and scenario. The hospital has 100FRU (Fictional Resource Units). The total cost to treat each patient is 1FRU (including equipment, manpower, drugs, etc), and the hospital charges each patient 3FRU, 1 of which goes to the shareholders to keep the whole thing running, and the remaining two used to replace and increase the available supplies.
There are 1000 patients needing treatment, half of whom are able to pay the cost of their treatment, the other half of whom are unable to do so.
If the hospital initially prioritizes those able to pay, the situation works as follows:
100FRU initially.
100FRU spent treating the first 100 patients able to pay. 0FRU remains.
300FRU received from the patients able to pay, 100FRU deducted from this for shareholders. 200FRU remains for resupply.
200FRU spent treating the next 200 patients able to pay. 0FRU remains.
600FRU received from the patients able to pay, 200FRU deducted from this for shareholders. 400FRU remains for resupply.
200FRU spent treating the remaining 200 patients able to pay. 200FRU remains.
600FRU received from the patients able to pay, 200FRU deducted from this for shareholders. 600FRU remains for resupply.
500FRU of the remainder spent treating the patients unable to pay, leaving the hospital with the 100FRU it started with and in position to treat more patients. The hospital ran out of supplies only once during this process forcing an immediate resupply, all other resupplies did not require exhausting the hospitals resources previously. Three resupplies are used to treat all 1000 patients, but only one is necessitated by exhausted supplies.
But what if we give everybody equal priority? Suddenly the process gets more complicated.
100 FRU initially.
100 FRU spent to treat 50 paying and 50 non-paying patients. 0FRU remains.
150 FRU received from patients able to pay, 50 FRU deducted from this for shareholders. 100 FRU remains.
This cycle repeats 10 times, through 10 cycles of resupply, and in fact comes to the same end result as prioritizing the paying patients first, with 100FRU remaining after all patients have been treated.
But that's the kicker- the reduced income from treating patients means that each resupply is smaller, and the hospital has to exhaust its supplies and resupply 10 times to get the same number of patients treated. How many people died in that time? How many of the people who died in that time were able to pay for their care, and as such increase the hospitals assets and ability to care for more people more quickly? Did enough of the paying patients survive for the hospital to keep its supplies up for the remaining patients that are unable to pay?
I'm aware that this model oversimplifies many things, but that's the real kicker here. When there is any kind of limitation on supplies, supplies must be used where they will generate the most effect. The guy who will pay the hospital enough to cover his treatment and treat more patients is simply more valuable to everyone, including his fellow patients, than the individual who is not able to even cover the cost of his own treatment.
I worked IT for a hospital group for a while and picked up a lot there- not medical procedures themselves, obviously, but a lot of the logistical stuff. My wife also works in the medical field and I get bits and pieces of it there. A ton of stuff is going on 'under the hood' with the medical industry. Many of the criticisms against our medical industry are well-founded despite this, but I can't help but feel that a number of others are based on being ignorant of just how much is going on 'under the hood' to keep it all working.
- require doctors (, et al.) to provide the service and allow them to shift the cost of any portion of the care that goes uncompensated to other consumers, or
- death, of course.
This is also just more practical procedure in an emergency care situation where waiting to verify ability to pay may itself have deleterious impacts.
People from both sides tend to be far more focused on their ideal government than the pragmatic one.
Should they say "pay my fee or I wont help" to a person having a heart attack, or who is unconscious?
you fire them?
You sue the hospital (the hospital might fire the doctor.) The hospital would be civilly liable, be subject to fines, and the hospital and/or physician may loose their provider agreement with Medicare.
If healthcare is a right, the hospital would have to help you regardless of what your illness is. I hardly think you could sue a hospital who refused to give you some minor pain killer for some minor non-threatening injury if you refused to pay for the medicine. I guess I could be wrong about that, but it would be a frivolous lawsuit. Either way, I explain my position in my other reply to you.
The issue is whether "healthcare" in the debate means some healthcare or all healthcare. Since all healthcare would intrinsically be untenable, if not ambiguous to the point of meaninglessness, I think we are left with using some healthcare. Therefore, as I mention here and here, my claim is only that we have made some healthcare a legal right in the US.
He is off topic and creating a strawman. This debate is not about cars. It is about healthcare. STAY ON TOPIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The answer to one question is yes, and the answer to the other question is no. Why is that? People need to get places, people need to be healthy. The topic is about what essential things should be a right.
I think you should give your opinion on car rights in my debate. Plus, I think I am better able to dictate what you believe better than you since you change your mind so frequently.
Do pets have a right to healthcare too. Because if they do, you could put them in that free car and drive them to the free vet to exercise their rights, right?
He said: A car dealership is there to provide people with essential transportation. If I go there wanting a car that I can't pay for, should the dealer quit because he didn't give me a car?
Yes, none of that has to do with stealing. Below is why it isn't a strawman:
A hospital is there to provide people with essential healthcare. If I go there wanting healthcare that I can't pay for, should the doctor quit because he didn't give me healthcare?
No hard feelings mate,but as far as you are concerned ,let me ask you this if poor,unemployed blokes form the bulk of your locality and you are the administrator how would you provide the doctors their funds unless you draw someone from the injured?Certainly you are not going to give from your purse.
While you raise a valid point regarding the practicality of enforcing healthcare as a right, that argument may have limited application with regards to whether or not healthcare is our should be a right. This is particularly true under a universal or natural rights theory, whereby rights are effectively inherent to the existence of people regardless of whether or not they are protected or recognized by existing legal and social structures. There is a possibility that healthcare could be a right, that a given government does not secure that right for whatever reason, and even that the government may not be held to fault for not securing that right.
Well, the way the question is phrased, "Is it a right," not, "Should it be a right," I think we can come up with specific answers to certain societies. In America, it unfortunately is not a right but a privilege that is from the private sector, not the government. Would I love free health care? Sure, but where is that money going to come from? Want to increase taxes, that won't go well with people. Want to appropriate funds from a different program, well that won't go well with the people who put it there.
After all that though, if we did have free health care and everyone had access to it, will there be problems that arise? Well, it is a well known fact that a lot of doctors from out of the country move to America to do their job as they get paid more. Would the government even maintain those 6 figure salaries? That is a big reason why most doctors work here in America. If they did, how much would it cost us? Well to put it into perspective, there is about 970,000 doctors in the US. Lets say they all get paid on average around 100k. Just their salaries alone would cost the government 97 billion dollars, and I'm being generous on my average. Then you factor in maintaining and building hospital facilities, treatment, care, medicine, materials, and everything, then it comes to about 936 billion in healthcare spending per year, according to cms.gov National Health Expenditure report. That's more than our defense budget spent in 2014, which is about 614 billion.
So you have a lot of people saying that we spend too much on military, well we will be spending WAY too much on healthcare. Government run healthcare will reduce the quality immensely in order to cut down the cost, they just won't be able to provide the same stellar care as the private sector. Want the best health care in the world, then you will find it in America.
Oh, and I almost forgot about the wait list, but that is something I'm not sure I have a full understanding of. From what I have heard, in nations with socialized healthcare, people who need treatment are put on a waiting list that could last up to a few months. That is due to the amount of people that want to get healthcare. If any of that is true, I think that is incredibly stupid, because some of those people might be in need of some sort of care that their life is dependent on how soon they get it.
I have a new argument;this right has recently been guaranteed by Denmark and Norway;well they have done a real great job but I do wonder that even if it is made a right,whether the fruits of it would percolate in the deeper sections
Well it looks even stevens up here,let me break the tie,healthcare is a primary concern,even if you say it can be a right tell me how would you get the funds to run free healthcare service?Only the affluent-rich countries can make it.
