universal health care

I will argue that my opponent has full burden of proof. Naturally, we, as individuals, have absolute natural freedom—except for aspects that the law takes away. Full burden of proof is always on the person who wishes to take away from an individual’s current state of natural freedom; my opponent’s position involves obligatory taxation for a public service (and this is, without a doubt, a restriction on absolute freedom. ) In order to claim victory in this debate, my opponent must meet his burden of proof, thereby justifying this restriction. Should all Americans have the right to health care? --- “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. ” [1] These recognizable words can be found in the Declaration of Independence. Let us take note of the Founding Fathers’ line referring to rights to "life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. " This is based on a part of John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government, in which he defended a case for the notion that the sole function of a political (i. e. , governmental) society is to defend human property, which he defined as "life, liberty, and estate. " [2] Locke elaborated on this notion by stating the following: “This freedom from absolute, arbitrary power, is so necessary to, and closely joined with a man's preservation, that he cannot part with it, but by what forfeits his preservation and life together: for a man, not having the power of his own life, cannot, by compact, or his own consent, enslave himself to any one, nor put himself under the absolute, arbitrary power of another, to take away his life, when he pleases. ” [3] Indeed, based on their Lockean roots, the guaranteed rights to “life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness” were not meant to impose obligations on others to work toward these ends for us; rather, they are meant to express people’s rights to their own life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. And by obligating others to offer us the fruits of their labor, we are obstructing their rights to their own life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness. The rights that the Founding Fathers guaranteed did not impose obligations on other people; in fact, they imply the negative obligation of leaving you alone. Hence, a right to health care, as a United States citizen, conflicts with the nature of the guaranteed rights the Founding Fathers noted and the Lockean principles on which they are founded. --- As my last argument explains, rights certainly don’t guarantee material goods at the expense of others. Aside from the infringement of other people’s rights, a problem arises from the fact that the “right” to material goods is ambiguous in nature. Here is an excerpt of the article “Health Care Is Not A Right”, by Leonard Peikoff, a libertarian philosopher and friend of the late Ayn Rand explained this best in his haircut analogy: “Haircuts are free, like the air we breathe, so some people show up every day for an expensive new styling, the government pays out more and more, barbers revel in their huge new incomes, and the profession starts to grow ravenously, bald men start to come in droves for free hair implantations, a school of fancy, specialized eyebrow pluckers develops—it's all free, the government pays. ” [4] Where do we set the limit? Do we set the limit at the cutting of head hair—or can we also allow eyebrow plucking and hair implantations? This arbitrary bound must also be set in the instance of health. What types of health care are “rights” and what types are not? Should one have a right to a free colonoscopy? Should one have a right to two consecutive colonoscopies? Should one have a right to massage therapy? Should one have a right to cosmetic surgery? If such a point were set arbitrarily, then it would be unfair to those left out. If people cannot get breast implants simply because the government set a random limit, then they would be rightly upset; it would be an utter injustice. I challenge my opponent to explain how a limit on the “right to health care” could be set by the government without it being arbitrary and unjust. --- In the figure above, we can see the differences between the two health care systems, especially in regards to wait time. The median wait time in Canada to see a special physician is a little over four weeks [5] The median wait time for diagnostic services such as MRI and CAT scans is two weeks [5] The median wait time for surgery is four weeks [5] The salary gap between physicians in the US and those in countries with universal health care is staggering. Those in the U. S. earned an average after expenses in 2008 of $186,582, versus $125,000 in Canada, $159,000 in Britain and just $92,000 in Australia. [6] Indeed, a system in which physicians are government employees and the use of government-provided health care is incentivizes, there is a lack of competition, a decrease in quality, and an increase in wait times. --- [1] . http://www.ushistory.org... [2] Locke, John (1988) [1689]. Laslett, Peter. ed. Two Treatises of Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sec. 87, 123, 209, 222. [3] . http://mongolianmind.com... (The text of Two Treatises of Government, see Chp. I, Sec. 23) [4] . http://www.aynrand.org... [5] . http://healthcoalition.ca... [6] . http://news.nationalpost.com...