Well I don't make money doing it, so that's most likely very accurate.
Yes I have the burden of proof, but not for the reason you stated. I've already stated, just because "the majority of developed countries believe that it is", does not make it a right. That's a fallacy known as argumentum ad populum.
Since I do have the burden of proof though, I laid out the following argument:
1) Fundamental human rights are not dependent on the actions of others.
2) Health care is dependent on the actions of others.
3) Therefore, health care is not a fundamental human right.
Of course I did, you just didn't read the thread. I made a distinction between fundamental human rights (or natural rights) as being negative rights, and health care as a positive right.
Negative and positive rights - Wikipedia
Well, I've never really had an actual objection other than "I disagree with the first premise". I mean... okay, that doesn't really make the initial premise wrong though.
Of course that's the purpose of argumentation. Don't know what your point is here though.
I'm sorry if I missed it, what follows is the privatization of health care.
Stating I don't know the answer to something means I'm trying to "weasel out of it"? Am I expected to be omniscient or something?