All Americans should be entitled to health care

Many thanks to my opponent for beginning this debate. Pro begins by saying many Americans are unable to pay for their health insurance through no fault of their own. While that may be true, indeed there probably are people who are unable to pay through absolute fault of their own (eg. their own irresponsibility). Because the resolution is inclusive and states that ALL Americans be entitled to health care, we must assume that this includes those who could probably afford health care but through their own choices can or do not. In that case, I posit that these people - therefore not ALL people - are not entitled to health care. Let's also consider what makes someone "entitled" to health care. Pro says having more money does not entitle one any more than another to health care and to that we can agree. In fact nobody is *entitled* to health care because that would require FORCE upon another individual (the health care provider) to give care whether they want to or not. Now, one being wealthy is not anymore entitled than a poor person to health care under this standard. That's because the health care provider may choose to care for someone regardless of their ability to pay or not - that's their choice (though admittedly most use money as a standard for service). Should doctors be frowned upon for wanting to profit off their hard work, skilled labor and to pay back school costs? Most people work not only to make ends meet but to profit. In this debate, I will prove that nobody is *entitled* to health care, let alone ALL Americans. Health care is a service; not a right. -- REBUTTAL -- 1. Essentially Pro is saying that doctors should be forced to give everyone service whether they have the ability to pay or not. Now, suppose through government aid money was not an issue and anyone could "afford" care. Should doctors be forced to care for someone even without money being a factor? That's what all Americans being "entitled" to health care implies. Nevertheless, government run health care has a bunch of problems I will continue to establish throughout the debate... 2. A company becomes successful by having a lot of people purchase insurance from that provider (otherwise they would have no money). If these companies did not provide a good product or service -- i.e. not take care of their customers the way they should -- then these customers would leave, and the company would get a bad reputation meaning they'd lose customers and no longer be successful. It is contrary to their best interest to not care about their customers' health. 3. First, let's point out that the resolution refers to ALL Americans - meaning I can say that all children should get health care, and this contention would fail to sustain the resolution. Second, regardless of how unfortunate this circumstance may be, I don't know if it's fair to force people to give care (see: previous arguments). 4. Pro points out that 62% of bankruptcies have arisen due to medical expenses. While many of these people had health insurance (though we don't know how minuscule their policies might have been) a quarter of them did not. Once again, we're delving into the area of people who choose not to have health insurance but say choose to have a cell phone or cable television instead. Additionally, saying health care costs are unaffordable is a generalization -- we don't know the individual circumstances of these individuals to determine whether or not this statement is accurate to all costs in general. 5. Drastic situations like caring for possible pandemics could be considered on an as-needed basis. 6. The meanings of words change over time. An 1828 edition of Noah Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language defines 'welfare' as: WELï¿½FARE, n. [well and fare, a good going; G. wohlfahrt; D. welvaard; Sw. valfart; Dan. velfï¿½rd.] 1. Exemption from misfortune, sickness, calamity or evil; the enjoyment of health and the common blessings of life; prosperity; happiness; applied to persons. 2. Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applies to states. A clear distinction is made with respect to welfare as applied to persons and states. In the Constitution the word "welfare" is used in the context of states and not persons. The "welfare of the United States" is not congruous with the welfare of individuals, people, or citizens [1]. -- ARGUMENTS -- 1. Government agencies are not efficient and tend to be greatly unsuccessful. Examples include Social Security and Medicare. Why suppose the government can do something right in this instance when government has always greatly failed us in the past? Even "successful" examples of government programs like the army, I'd argue, are completely inefficient and have problems of their own (Military Industrial Complex, imperialism, DADT, etc.). 2. Market competition would be more effective at price reduction and protecting personal freedoms. The government could use this as a platform to ban smoking, for instance. 3. Just because some rich people can afford increased taxes doesn't mean the hard working middle class deserves this extra burden, and/or that spending in other areas (like defense and education) should be cut for everybody. It's not only impractical but unjust to force responsible and healthy innocent parties to care for *everyone.* 4. Tax payers will be swamped with costs because *far* more people would seek treatment, care, medication, etc. over-burdening the whole system. This would not only devastate the American economy but subsequently many lives and livelihoods while profiting only a certain class. 5. Emergency rooms MUST treat people. That means even the uninsured still receive care; they just have to somehow eventually pay back the costs. That option is more fair than forcing socialized costs to everyone. 6. The government (tax payers) will likely bear the costs of malpractice lawsuits, once again burdening irrelevant and innocent parties. 7. Political ideological differences will divide people and become problematic in the future. For instance, should this care provide money for abortion? Is that fair to pro-life tax payers? 8. I'd like to expand on my notion that health care is not a "right." Pro hasn't proven that it IS a right; that is, something that one is 100% guaranteed and must be given to them simply for being human. 9. We already have a shortage of doctors this country [2]. This policy could (a) dissuade people from becoming doctors if their profit incentives are limited; (b) create long waits for treatment; (c) create an inefficient and expensive bureaucracy to "oversee" things; (d) all of the above. That's all I have room for, for now :) [1] http://www.reasontofreedom.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com...