Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

If there is a localized abundance of medical personal and supplies, certainly.If there is any kind of localized scarcity of either, those who are able to support the medical industry that is actually caring for these people should be prioritized, if only in the interest of saving as many people as quickly as possible.Arbitrary numbers and scenario. The hospital has 100FRU (Fictional Resource Units). The total cost to treat each patient is 1FRU (including equipment, manpower, drugs, etc), and the hospital charges each patient 3FRU, 1 of which goes to the shareholders to keep the whole thing running, and the remaining two used to replace and increase the available supplies.There are 1000 patients needing treatment, half of whom are able to pay the cost of their treatment, the other half of whom are unable to do so.If the hospital initially prioritizes those able to pay, the situation works as follows:100FRU initially.100FRU spent treating the first 100 patients able to pay. 0FRU remains.300FRU received from the patients able to pay, 100FRU deducted from this for shareholders. 200FRU remains for resupply.200FRU spent treating the next 200 patients able to pay. 0FRU remains.600FRU received from the patients able to pay, 200FRU deducted from this for shareholders. 400FRU remains for resupply.200FRU spent treating the remaining 200 patients able to pay. 200FRU remains.600FRU received from the patients able to pay, 200FRU deducted from this for shareholders. 600FRU remains for resupply.500FRU of the remainder spent treating the patients unable to pay, leaving the hospital with the 100FRU it started with and in position to treat more patients. The hospital ran out of supplies only once during this process forcing an immediate resupply, all other resupplies did not require exhausting the hospitals resources previously. Three resupplies are used to treat all 1000 patients, but only one is necessitated by exhausted supplies.But what if we give everybody equal priority? Suddenly the process gets more complicated.100 FRU initially.100 FRU spent to treat 50 paying and 50 non-paying patients. 0FRU remains.150 FRU received from patients able to pay, 50 FRU deducted from this for shareholders. 100 FRU remains.This cycle repeats 10 times, through 10 cycles of resupply, and in fact comes to the same end result as prioritizing the paying patients first, with 100FRU remaining after all patients have been treated.But that's the kicker- the reduced income from treating patients means that each resupply is smaller, and the hospital has to exhaust its supplies and resupply 10 times to get the same number of patients treated. How many people died in that time? How many of the people who died in that time were able to pay for their care, and as such increase the hospitals assets and ability to care for more people more quickly? Did enough of the paying patients survive for the hospital to keep its supplies up for the remaining patients that are unable to pay?I'm aware that this model oversimplifies many things, but that's the real kicker here. When there is any kind of limitation on supplies, supplies must be used where they will generate the most effect. The guy who will pay the hospital enough to cover his treatment and treat more patients is simply more valuable to everyone, including his fellow patients, than the individual who is not able to even cover the cost of his own treatment.