A human's right to life is not a valid argument for universal healthcare

1. Your argument here is that a doctor may not refuse treatment once a relationship has been established, but they are able to refuse treatment before this relationship is established. While this is true, you fail to realize that a relationship goes both ways. Doctor treats patient, patient pays doctor. If the doctor treats the patient, but the patient refuses to pay, there is no relationship in the sense that we are using it in. The same thing goes if the patient pays the doctor for treatment but the doctor does not treat the patient. In your view, if a patient was no longer able to pay the doctor, the relationship would still exist, and the doctor would still have to continue treating the patient. Also, it is worth noting that it may just be in the doctor's best interest to continue treating the patient. Pretend you have a disease, and a choice of two doctors to treat you. Both have the same qualifications and skill level, with one difference. Doctor 1 has a history of rejecting patients who cannot pay, while Doctor 2 has a history of treating his patients even if he makes less than he hopes. You would of course choose Doctor 2, because you want your healer to be invested in your health. Continuing, you say that in a universal system, the doctor would have less reasons not to treat you. I don't understand why, so please elaborate on this in your next argument. 2. You cannot say that something should be a right. Rights ARE. The Declaration of Independence uses the words 'self-evident' and 'unalienable' to describe rights. The 'right' to healthcare does not meet these criteria. The rights you have from birth are the same until your death, and have been for all people; past, present, and future. Those living in the past did not have the same kind of healthcare we do now, and for a long time they didn't have any at all. But they still had rights. Would you say that the people of the past had the right to something that didn't even exist yet? No. So neither do we. I am fairly certain you don't think people are entitled to every single service or product that gets created, but if you think that once modern healthcare came to be, people somehow had the right to it, how do you decide which services people are entitled to? At first it might just be things like food, shelter, and clothing. Then it may evolve into 5 star meals, private mansions, and custom-tailored suits. These things can and will go out of control very easily, so it is best to not start at all. 3. Here, you say that if the government ran healthcare, they could focus on the welfare of their people. But what about the downsides to the welfare of the people? Think of the raised taxes to pay for something this huge. Think of doctors, whose services are worth so much less now that people are entitled to them. Think of the insurance companies, whose services are reduced to almost nothing, now that the government is in charge. And don't disregard this with claims that the insurance companies are just major corporations with too much money. It isn't just the executives. It's the employees, who are likely in the middle class. Many of them will now be out of a job, since the chances of their employers failing has now greatly increased. And even if the company doesn't fail, it will still lay off many employees just so that in can survive. And all of these people are now unemployed because the government took control of healthcare. That isn't looking out for the welfare of the people. That is destroying their welfare. Also, since our structure fell apart early on, I propose that you rebuttal my points in your next argument, and in the last round we do our closing statements by summarizing our points that we have made throughout the debate.