Access to affordable health care is a right, not a privilege.

Thank you for your welcome and for taking on this debate. 1. "As it stands your definitions arise to absurdity with your resolution, in essence transforming it into: Access to affordable health care is a right, not a right. As such your definitions fail to properly detail the positions on either side of your argument..." I see we have a problem with what the definitions are for ‘privilege' and ‘right'. You are saying that these two words mean the exact same thing. I disagree. There is a difference between a privilege and a right, and most people know it, even without written definitions (as were given at the top of the debate). A privilege refers to a benefit enjoyed by a person(s) beyond the advantages of most. It is granted to some and not 'most'. A right is a just claim (whether legal, prescriptive, OR moral) or title, and thus, belongs to all persons. The two words are not interchangeable. If they were, it would be absurd to discuss this proposition with anyone, which would lead me to question why anyone would agree to debate it. Also, the definition of a right includes those other than of a moral nature, thus the "moral" nature of rights is a trivial point and irrelevant. The primary inference of the proposition of fact, "Access to affordable health care is a right, not a privilege" is that access to affordable health care is a right belonging to all, not just to the privileged (some). Your definition of pro-state welfarist (that the government should intervene in regards to health care), and your assumption that this is what I am, are not topical to the proposition as stated. I am not arguing a policy claim. The argument concerns right versus privilege in regard to access to affordable health care. 2. "It inadequately captures the opposing stance of a welfare advocate (it does not adequately detail what rights are), so lets drop that from the discussion… your own definition of a privilege does not detail adequate demarcation of a concept of rights in opposition to your stance and the concept of rights in relation to privilege, is an equivocation if used in the same context as the moral concept of rights." Yes, let's drop that from the discussion because I don't even know what you are talking about. :-) Again, I deny that 1) the definition given for a privilege does not detail adequate demarcation of a concept of rights (see definitions above in 1.) and 2) that the concept of rights in relation to privilege, is an equivocation if used in the same context as the moral concept of a rights. The moral concept of a right is irrelevant to the proposition (see above in 1.). 3 "Since you evoke the founding fathers later (and to shortcut that argument), their concept of rights was based upon this same Aristotelian concept – …In other words, for a proper concept of rights, their implementation should give rise to no contradictions and this is where your argument fails." Please provide support for these claims, beginning with the founding fathers and the Aristotelian concept. I am aware that our founding fathers were influenced by enlightenment thinking, in particular, by John Locke's ideas. http://plato.stanford.edu... Also, please explain, in simple terms, why your definition of a right makes a difference to the proposition and what bearing that and "no contradictions" have on the proposition as stated. Again, I disagree that "a proper concept of rights" is the issue in the proposition. You are avoiding the central issue of the proposition which is about right versus privilege, two different words with two different meanings, and how they relate to access to affordable health care. 4. "A right to life, under your definition, is a positive right, it is a claim on something to someone. A right to this life, under your premises, is a cost to another's life, an automatic claim, that interferes and prohibits some aspect of another's life. Your position, is in contradiction with its implementation." My definition of a right to life is the same as the one given in the Declaration of Independence. Please provide support for your claim that the unalienable right to life, positive or not, as stated in the Declaration is a cost to another's life, an automatic claim, that interferes and prohibits some aspect of another's life and is easily in violation of article 4. 5. "Let's explore what you are really saying. A right to health care, is an admission that force is required to provide health care for others." So you say. Your conclusion that force is required is a hasty generalization, untrue, and not based on the proposition. We are talking about a right of access to affordable health care, not a right to health care. The proposition indicates that people will pay for the health care that they need; that health care is not free. How they will pay for it is the subject for a different argument. 6. "What sort of force? The government of course. … Should we enforce all those able to maintain this 'right' to life you seek? You have no viable 'cut-off,' no viable premise that maintains this position." Since there is no force required for professionals to provide health care for others (5. above), your argument here is irrelevant. 7. "Such a right exists in your premise, even taking the healthy kidney by force -… See by advocating a positive right to health care you are advocating the enslavement of others to provide it." You are appealing to fear, of trying to arouse concern over a potential, hypothetical consequence which is untrue, particularly since no force is required (5. above). Access to affordable health care is a right rather than a privilege, not a right to health care by any means available and the enslavement of others to provide it. 8. "Right to life means the freedom to pursue ones life as one wishes, not to be alive. A train runs me over it violated my right to life? Nature violates my rights via cell degradation? No. It's an absurd stance on rights to take." If one is not alive, then one is probably not concerned with the freedom to pursue one's life as one wishes. 9. "Fantastic; eat well, exercise properly, wear sunscreen etc. It is not the governments role, nor mine, to dictate how you should look after your body. If you value it, take the steps to maintain it." You've shifted ground here. Have you ever known anyone who has done all the right things to maintain their health and who still has gotten ill? How about someone injured in an accident, through no fault of their own? What about people with hereditary diseases or birth defects? How about pregnant women? Do they value their lives? How do they maintain their health and body? Taking steps to maintain their body and health include having the right of access to affordable health care. 10. "That is precisely what you are asking, you are pricing one life above another, ones freedom above another's, you cost it through the method of how you seek to achieve it, taxes." I do agree with you that the pricing mechanisms of health care is (more than) a bit beyond the scope of this debate because this debate is not about that or achieving it through taxes or that government intervention is precisely what raises this price. "Access to affordable to health care is a right, not a privilege" in no way prices one's life or freedom above another's. On the contrary, it values all life as equal and is a concern for others. The general welfare and common good of our society is the concern. Going Galt won't answer the issue of access to affordable health care.