All Americans should be entitled to health care

Thanks, Pro. First, I never said that health care is not a right because of some people's irresponsibility. I pointed out how irresponsible people would abuse the system, therefore even if health care is an entitlement (which it isn't), they should lose this right because of their own choices -- thereby negating the resolution that ALL people should be entitled to care. Pro says that good people in society should not be punished for the irresponsibility of others, and that he doesn't want his "value" judged by a corporation. Both of these things can be thwarted by my description of exactly why health care was not a right in the last round. As I've explained, making a health care a right would require *force* upon health care providers to give you service. A health care provider should have the option of providing treatment and care regardless of whether they use money as the standard for their service or not. To say otherwise posits that other people MUST service you. This is non-sensical and immoral. Suppose you are alone on an island. You'd have the right to your life, your pursuit of happiness, etc. In other words you don't need anybody else for these things and nobody can infringe upon these things or take them away from you. That is what a right is. If you said you had the RIGHT to health care, who would treat you on the island? If you need someone else for something then it is not your right. I've explained this as the first and foremost reason of why Americans are not *entitled* to health care. Health care is a privilege. Pro gives an example of our education system, and challenges whether or not we have a right to education.I disagree with my opponent and his flawed example: education is NOT a right insofar as you do not have the RIGHT to have other people teach you. You do have every right to pursue an education (and usually that requires teachers) but you do not have a RIGHT to education. Pro simply saying "Of course you have this right" is not evidence in any way whatsoever that it's in fact a right. Rights are inherent to all human beings; there is nothing INHERENT about somebody else servicing you. -- REBUTTAL -- 1. Pro writes, "...All that the government has to do in the resolution is pay the medical bills. This imitates what the private sector does already, health care companies pay doctors for providing their practice. The medical industry would make just as much money if not more therefore creating a better world." First of all, "the government" does not exist. The government is merely comprised of a bunch of tax payers. Pro is saying all tax payers should be forced to pay for everyone else's medical bills, and I've argued ad nauseum throughout the debate why this is both impractical and immoral. Moreover it will make the medical sector more money because they will drive up medical costs to increase their own profit which will greatly hinder everybody else. I've explained that competition is a more effective way to drive down costs and benefit everybody. 2. In R1 Pro said that companies don't care about people's health. I explained that companies do care about people's health, because otherwise they'd get a bad reputation, lose customers and lose profit. Pro agrees that companies can care for people but says they need money for care. Yes, people need money for care... so? The point here is that his original contention of companies not caring has been negated. I've acknowledged that needing money for care is a harsh reality of the service industry, including medical services. 3. Pro said that poor children would suffer. I pointed out that even if children were insured by government, that this contention would be irrelevant because Pro must prove that ALL Americans are entitled to care - not just children. This is simply his appeal to emotion fallacy. 4. I pointed out that we don't know anything about the details of cases for those who went bankrupt with medical costs. Pro ignores this and responds by saying medical care companies only care about profit and that the government is not for profit. Government is absolutely out for profit; politicians earn a lot of money not only from tax payers but based on the political deals they make. Pro says that since the government is not out to profit, health care costs will go down. On the contrary, I've explained in the last round exactly why medical care costs are expected to skyrocket under new government policies. Pro never addressed any of those reasons so here I'll provide several sources to back my claim [1, 2]. 5. Pro again introduces the example of a possible pandemic. I said this could be addressed on an as-needed basis, because the likelihood of such an event is significantly low and far too low to affirm the resolution. Once again if this were to arise the government could choose to interfere for everyone's best interest, but it's completely non-sensical to base massive, expensive government overhaul on the unlikelihood of such an event. 6. I accept the dropped argument. -- Re: ARGUMENTS -- 1. I gave a plethora of examples of completely failed government systems. Pro says I must prove that the U.S. system could not imitate other "successful" systems. On the contrary he has the burden of proof, and moreover even if we COULD imitate these systems, that STILL would not make people *entitled* to care even if our system would be successful based on my aforementioned reasoning. 2. The laws of supply and demand are best evident in a competitive market. Competition causes businesses to try new ways to attract customers by lowering prices, improving quality and developing new products and services [3]. This is why market completion would drive the prices down; my opponent hasn't proven otherwise. He's also ignored my point about the government trying to legislate certain freedoms away (like smoking for instance) which they'd have the authority to do if they paid for care. 3/4. I pointed out that tax payers would be swamped and why. Pro simply says that taxes wouldn't necessarily have to increase, but since tax payers would burden the costs of this system and the prices are guaranteed to increase (see: previous arguments), then quite obviously we can expect a tax hike, which ultimately hurts the hard working middle class the most. This argument hasn't been negated; just cast aside. 5. Pro doesn't deny that the ER treats everyone. I've already acknowledged their follow-up bill and mentioned it's a more preferable and moral option. 6. Essentially I was saying that since doctors would be working for the government, sue-happy patients would be compelled and able to sue the government for a doctor's malpractice which would add yet another tax payer burden. We're both out of characters here -- the rest will be addressed in the final round. [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com...