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

"You are saying that these two words mean the exact same thing. I disagree." Apparently not. Read your posted definition: "Privilege: noun; a right" "A privilege refers to a benefit enjoyed by a person(s) beyond the advantages of most. It is granted to some and not 'most'." If that was the case then the debate would simply be about statistics. You however placed it in the realm of rights, ethics, and in ethics a privilege refers to those actions one can perform without any opposing claim e.g. the privilege, right, to tie my shoelaces if untied, provided no opposing claim can be made to that action. If you want me to take the side of privilege, easily done, it's the freedom to spend one's money as one wishes, from those willing and free to accept it. In 2006, the percentage of Americans without health insurance was 15.8% - US census bureau. That does *not* make it a right. Even then 'granted to' fails; health care is a tradeable value which people purchase, or allow the government purchase it for them. "A right is a just claim (whether legal, prescriptive, OR moral) or title, and thus, belongs to all persons." Rights (moral) are derived from the nature of being man, yes universal as such, no not a claim, which is positive. Legal rights refers to mainly contractual issues (not health care unless we all sign), prescriptive rights relate to property claims and have absolutely nothing to do with health care. "The two words are not interchangeable." Don't blame me for your definition of privilege, which lists right under it. :) I took the debate to challenge 'health care is a right' which is your stance. "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." Ya wouldn't have made a spiel about the DoI if that was so - moral is under your definition. Any other definition of rights in this context is an equivocation on what a 'right' is. A legal right is contractual based for example, not dealing with the ethical concerns of which health care belongs and which you put it. See your own definition. "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" I am also not arguing policy, or I would have actually argued it. You however equivocate legal with moral, policy by necessity legal based. :) What I did do was specifically argue ethics, more specifically what rights *are* and why a 'right to' health care is an erroneous stance. "Again, I deny that the definition given for a privilege does not detail adequate demarcation of a concept of rights 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." You oppose two stances, rights vs. privilege. Under your definition of privilege, you include right. Under rights you include moral (ethics). Privilege in regards to a concept of rights is an end concept, synonymous with freedom of action, to say a privilege is opposed to a concept of rights (moral - your definition) is incorrect, as privilege belongs in the concept hierarchy of rights itself, namely the freedom to act. To say a privilege is removed from the concept of rights would be committing the fallacy of the stolen concept. "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." Because your stance is that health care IS A RIGHT. Therefore what rights are is the key to the discussion. As it stands, a positive definition of rights, and its resultant implementation results in a contradiction. Contradictions are bad in reality, and highlight the incorrect epistemological and ethical stance you hold, or at least advocate, that rights are positive, and what that details in regards to a 'right to' health care. "You are avoiding the central issue of the proposition which is about right versus privilege" Sure, see the stat if that's all you want to argue. However saying it's a right, therefore it's a right so it's a right, doesn't get you very far. "My definition of a right to life is the same as the one given in the Declaration of Independence." No definition; "Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" - founding fathers were largely based on the Enlightenment era of philosophy of which Aristotle was popular, and their concept of rights was founded on such. See Jefferson's, Paine's writings for examples. "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" Not cost per se, simply you can't claim on others. A negative concept of rights, that they detail freedom *from* not *to* actions, is all that is necessary to conclude that means, a right to life, ones own life as ones own, means I, anyone cannot claim on another to provide for me, including the necessary requirements for health care. Article 4: "No one shall be held in slavery or servitude" - a positive concept of rights requires in its enactment the use of force, and in the context of health care, 1. collection of taxes. 2. Forced service by medical practitioners to it (as is the current situation). To say you don't want that is irrelevant to the reality of what positive claims mean on others. "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." Nope. If you hold that they have a right *to* it, hence one cannot *deny* another access to it. It by necessity involves force to ensure it. If you are simply arguing, if its available, and I can afford it, then I should be able to buy it - still doesn't equal to being a right. 6."Since there is no force required for professionals to provide health care for others" Then your position that anyone has a claim, right to it, is false. If you hold they will all do it on some form of goodwill, also false. "You are appealing to fear." Any other concept of a 'right to' is meaningless unless contractually based, which was clearly not your sole contention, nor have I signed. I merely extrapolated your premises, it's not about fear at all, simply the extension of what you propose, whether you realise it or not. :) "If one is not alive, then one is probably not concerned with the freedom to pursue one's life as one wishes." You are trying to include negative and positive definition of rights in the one - freedom to pursue one's life =/= a claim on others to keep you alive. "Have you ever known anyone who has done all the right things to maintain their health and who still has gotten ill?" Straw man. Clearly people get sick, and if they want to pay for medical care, that's fine. If they want insurance for unforeseen circumstances, also fine. That =/= a right. "Access to affordable to health care is a right, not a privilege" in no way prices one's life or freedom above another's." Sure it does, it's why certain conditions cost more to treat. Health care is a tradeable asset produced by some, valued by many. Those who produce it are in no way morally bound to make it available to everyone or costing it so that it is. It is a tradeable value no different to any other tradeable value. "The general welfare and common good of our society is the concern." There is good for individuals, what is good for me, is not necessarily good for another. Want affordable health care, sure, get the government out of it. It still doesn't make it an equivocated right.