Week 4 - IC vs. Tastycles (Awesome!!!!)

[FromTheSouth]

This thread is for the debaters only. It will be open until Sunday next at 6 PM CST. Tastycles will be affirming the topic.

Resolved: The government is morally correct to protect the health of it's people at the expense of normal property rights.

 

[Tastycles]

I'd like to just apologise, I've had a huge research project in this week, and I have hardly had the time to string a coherent sentence together anywhere on the forum, let alone somewhere that requires research and the like.

Anyway, onto the matter at hand. Ladies and Gentlemen, I am here to argue that the government is morally correct to provide its people with healthcare at the expense of normal property rights.

The first thing I think I need to do is to clarify the idea of property rights in the context that I shall be using it. "Property rights" is basically the right of an individual to own something. The topic of this debate is so alien to someone who has grown up in a welfare state that its taken me a while to get my head around the whole thing. From what I gather, and I apologise for the poor debate if it isn't this, the basic premise is that you don't get what you pay for in a social healthcare system. It's pretty easy to see why that's a bullshit argument.

"Normal property rights" don't apply to governmental departments

You get what you can afford in so many passages of life, but it isn't as simple as that here. Everyone should be entitled to basic welfare provision, and the fact that isn't the case in a country as civilised as the USA is ridiculous. More on that later, but the fact of it is this: there are plenty of other social institutions that are not pay as you go, and it hasn't caused the fabric of capitalism to tear at the seams.

Take education. Everyone goes to school, and the poor pay less in tax then is required for a 12 year school education, and yet nobody seems to berate that situation. "But wait!", I don't hear you cry, "Rich people can get a better education for their children, so it isn't quite the same." Yes, you're right. But there's more where that came from. The fire brigade too. If "normal property rights" existed in these situations, then there would be thousands of poor people burning to death, because they haven't paid their way for the fire brigade. It may not be quite so sudden, but denying people healthcare is directly comparable with this.

The whole thing is based on a fallacy that tax is for certain things and you pay x amount for y, etc. etc, but that isn't the case. Tax is to improve society as a whole, and not so that you can pick and choose which services you want.

Private

Even if normal property rights did apply to these situations, they still wouldn't be compromised by a health welfare system. The American private healthcare system won't disappear overnight, so there is still the choice to get a bit of extra attention if you can afford it. Private healthcare in this country thrives, not because it has a higher success rate, but merely because it gives better external factors, such as one on one nursing etc.

The actual health care

Right, so let's say that there is such a thing as normal property rights, and that they will be lost, its worth it. Right now, the level of health care in poor people isn't very good. There are 16 million American citizens currently not entiled to medicaid that cannot afford it. This is 5% of the population that have been essentially neglected.

It is society's duty to provide the best possible care to its population, and this should be provided with tax where possible. The idea that 5% of the population could be diagnosed with cancer and then be left to die without treatment is repulsive in a civilised 21st century country. As a result, I think that healthcare reform should be made, even if it means a perceived losing out for the richer members of science.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

The challenging aspect of this debate is finding the conflict between property rights and health care. At first, the two seem very unrelated, and it can be difficult to find a situation where the two directly conflict. Yet, after some research, it appears as though that very issue is under fire with the current US Presidential Administration of one Barack Obama.

In the United States, there is a huge debate in the Senate currently over the state of the Health Care System in the US. The Obama Administration as well as staunch House and Senate democrats believe the system requires an overhaul and that no American should be without health coverage, irregardless of cost or circumstances. It seems clear that the adminitration will not rest until every American has access to health care.

Property rights aren't such a priority.

The best way I can bring the conflict between property rights and health care is through examples. To discuss property rights, take the example of New London, Connecticut.

On February 22nd, 2005, a landmark court decision stated that eminent domain allowed the city of New London to seize privately owned property for private economic development. Basically, they decided that tenants could be booted from homes and business shut down / moved so that other businesses could come in and use the space for their own development. The thought process was that the economic revenue produced by the new economic development outweighed the negatives.

The court held that if an economic project creates new jobs, increases tax and other city revenues, and revitalizes a depressed urban area (even if not blighted), then the project qualifies as a public use. The court also ruled constitutional the government delegation of its eminent domain power to a private entity.

So the property was seized, and in came Pfizer, the drug company. They were supposed to buy / lease the land, create a windfall of new jobs and economic development, and provide gobs of tax revenue to the city of New London.

Susette Kelo was outraged, and sued the city for trying to take her home. After months of rigorous testimony and litigation, her home was moved and the land sold to Pfizer.

As of September 2009, Kelo took the additional compensation she'd received from the case (she was compensated) and moved. Her home is now a vacant lot. Zero tax dollars.

Pfizer never brought 3,000+ jobs or $1.2+ million in annual revenue. Worse still, just last month, Pfizer made the decision to close the research facility. The private development project is a failure.

So while billions of dollars of tax revenue are on the table in health care reform, eminent domain continues to be a struggle, and the governemtn simply isn't doing enough to protect the basic right of an individual to own property.

In addition to this is the EPA issue. The Environmental Protection Agency has waged war on Carbon emissions, claiming health hazard. As a result, large business, small businesses, and even individual homes can have their property devalued or even seized if carbon emissions above a new, lower level are found. It's being done in the name of public protection of health, but in essence, it's another government led perversion of property rights. The killer is that the power of the EPA is such that they may act without consulting the legislature. It's another government agency with too much power to dictate and change property rights.

I could go on with a few more examples, but you get the point. The conflict stems from the fact that the government is routinely ignoring / disregarding property rights for its citizens, and yet is attempting to spend billions of tax dollars - many of which are derived from private property tax - in the name of taking health care away from private companies.

So when the governemtn takes your home away, at least you can go to the doctors and get a flu shot. Homelessness is a bitch, isn't it?

The government ignoring property rights while grandstanding for health care is morally wrong, and irresponsible.

 

[Tastycles]

Because of the nature of this debate, I think that rather than starting to make tangential points, I shall directly address those of my opponent.

In the United States, there is a huge debate in the Senate currently over the state of the Health Care System in the US. The Obama Administration as well as staunch House and Senate democrats believe the system requires an overhaul and that no American should be without health coverage, irregardless of cost or circumstances. It seems clear that the adminitration will not rest until every American has access to health care.

Property rights aren't such a priority.

And nor should they be. There's no point in worrying where you are going to live if you are going to die anyway.

The best way I can bring the conflict between property rights and health care is through examples. To discuss property rights, take the example of New London, Connecticut.

On February 22nd, 2005, a landmark court decision stated that eminent domain allowed the city of New London to seize privately owned property for private economic development. Basically, they decided that tenants could be booted from homes and business shut down / moved so that other businesses could come in and use the space for their own development. The thought process was that the economic revenue produced by the new economic development outweighed the negatives.



So the property was seized, and in came Pfizer, the drug company. They were supposed to buy / lease the land, create a windfall of new jobs and economic development, and provide gobs of tax revenue to the city of New London.

Susette Kelo was outraged, and sued the city for trying to take her home. After months of rigorous testimony and litigation, her home was moved and the land sold to Pfizer.

As of September 2009, Kelo took the additional compensation she'd received from the case (she was compensated) and moved. Her home is now a vacant lot. Zero tax dollars.

Pfizer never brought 3,000+ jobs or $1.2+ million in annual revenue. Worse still, just last month, Pfizer made the decision to close the research facility. The private development project is a failure.

The Suzanne Melo case is a rarity, and what happened there actually was reasonably fair. She was compensated for more than her house was worth. Moving is an inconvienience, not having medicine kills people. If the economic disaster hadn't have taken place and Pfizer had built the plant, then nobody would care about this. It is just the unlucky futility of it that people are upset about.

So while billions of dollars of tax revenue are on the table in health care reform, eminent domain continues to be a struggle, and the governemtn simply isn't doing enough to protect the basic right of an individual to own property.

Really? YOu're going with this. This argument is unbelievably weak. There are about 800,000 Americans homeless at any given time, most only temporarily. There are 16 million Americans without health provision. That is why the government are more worried by it, because it is a bigger problem. Nobody has to be homeless in the US, some people do have to live without healthcare. In an ideal world, the government would be perfect about everything, but right now health provision is the most important thing.

In addition to this is the EPA issue. The Environmental Protection Agency has waged war on Carbon emissions, claiming health hazard. As a result, large business, small businesses, and even individual homes can have their property devalued or even seized if carbon emissions above a new, lower level are found. It's being done in the name of public protection of health, but in essence, it's another government led perversion of property rights. The killer is that the power of the EPA is such that they may act without consulting the legislature. It's another government agency with too much power to dictate and change property rights.

The EPA has nothing to do with healthcare. Green initiatives are designed so that the world doesn't end up submerged under what used to be pack ice, it has absolutely nothing to with health provision and therefore this debate.

As you've brought it up though, I'd argue that saving the world and the people in it is probably more important than holding the value of a home that will be underwater if you don't.

I could go on with a few more examples, but you get the point. The conflict stems from the fact that the government is routinely ignoring / disregarding property rights for its citizens, and yet is attempting to spend billions of tax dollars - many of which are derived from private property tax - in the name of taking health care away from private companies.

It's not doing it very often at all actually. The government's initiative mostly centres on providing healthcare in existing facilities so few people will have their homes affected in anyway at all. The problem doesn't really exist, but where it does the expense of moving 100 people to different houses is easily worth the hospital that would be built in their space.

Governmental schemes are far more likely to help those displaced, rather than a corporation that has no moral guidelines in that respect.

So when the governemtn takes your home away, at least you can go to the doctors and get a flu shot. Homelessness is a bitch, isn't it?

I'd rather be homeless than dead. Which is the ultimate argument here. However, it doesn't come to that. Anybody who loses anything for health reform is compensated, and nobody in the modern western world needs to be homeless.

It is the government's responsibilty to care for its people, and hampering one person's lifestyle may save countless lives, and for that reason it is morally right for the government to prioritise healthcare.

 

[gd]

Tasty gets this for me here for sure. IC brought it some info, but it didn't really seem to relate that closely to the debate. I have no idea where I stand on the whole health care controversy that's currently going on, but Tasty was the better debator here.

Tasty - 44
IC - 36

 

[FromTheSouth]

I think IC may have missed the definition of property rights. Tasty even defined it contextually for him by saying the right to own something. IC focused on land, when in fact, the debate was basically structured around taxes. If you tax someone more, you restrict their right to own something. Tasty showed how taking away a little was a viable option when weighed against a human life.

Tasty wins with 46
IC gets 39.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

Yeah, I struggled a bit with the topic, no doubt, but that's part of the game with these types of debates. If you can't think your way through the topic, it's downhill from there. Def. not my best week.

I lost to Tasty in the wrestling league during the regular season, too. We all know how that turned out.

 

[Mr. TM]

Easy to pick the scores here, Tastycles, you nailed many of the points Id even agree with here, but looking against my own bias. Tasty had a good argument so I give him 38 points. He can use more, and I thought he would against IC, but he still wins.

I give IC 25 points. He apologized for his short comings, but I know how he feels, the topic was hard.