- Joined
- May 2, 2014
- Messages
- 10,761
- Reaction score
- 3,409
- Location
- CONNECTICUT
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Should they? Of course. Careful what you wish for. Peoples personal and financial situations can change at any minute. You might be poor one day and that could be your child/loved one that requires assistance.
Should we bankrupt the government in such a way?
Do you think the poor have a right to life, and therefore emergency medical care?
Of course. I thought hospitals could refuse no one?
As opposed to what??? Bankrupting it by starting and continuing wars? Bankrupting it by bailing out corporations and CEO's? Bankrupting it by supporting "foreign interests"? Bankrupting it by bailing out Wall Street?
I'd far rather spend money helping Americans, than spend money killing non-Americans or bailing out uber-rich Americans and/or corporations.
Emergency care like unconscious male delivered in from being run over? Of course. That could be you.
Or you mean drunk comes in with a fever? Then ask Obamacare for his insurance.
What if the person isn't dying f they do not receive immediate treatment but will die next week if they do not receive treatment today? What if that fever is the result of an infection that is about to become septic and potentially fatal? How would you know without doing all the expensive tests just to give them the antibiotic prescription? It can be more complicated a call in the less obvious cases.
Non of your examples were applicable in the USA prior to universal health care which proves its not necessary to achieve the OP's apparent goal. It was and is however a great argument that suggests a need that does not exist.
Yet, the next step with that argument is that someone (the "rich"?) must pay for that care whether they use that care or not so that whoever needs care need not pay. That system works only so long as the cost of care can be fixed, such as we now do via police and fire fighting budgets - the fixed funds then provide for a fixed number of (government paid?) care providers and thus establish the level of "universal" care. Note the rarity of private police and fire fighting providers.
Only real emergencies and even then, emergency rooms should not be a loophole for allowing these lazy dumbasses further care.
I guess, if it is Jane Doe, we will have to treat her till she wakes up. If that takes too long, you call the ACA people and ask how much they are willing to pay. But the hospital must be out of it, since ACA is in. You cannot have general insurance and free treatment. That would be schnookery.
Most do this voluntarily - you might want to research first prior to posting.
You realize he asked about emergency care, right? It's beyond ****ed up to argue that people's survival should be tied to how much money they have. That's such a sick way to think. Wow.If they can afford it. If not, it should be the hospital's call. This should be the same for every case, if they can't afford hilariously expensive treatment to stay alive they shouldn't get it.
Why? We still have more uninsured people than were newly insured by the PPACA?
What if the person was a mass murderer? What if it was hopeless case (anancephalic baby)? Should we bankrupt the government in such a way?
I think not, I don't care if it was one of my relatives who would die otherwise, exception making is weakness and unethical, and so is this.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Are you saying 'everyone is insured, thus no problem', or that 'you don't care, thus no problem'? Regardless of what side you're on, you have to admit that our system is incredibly ineffecient, expensive and many Americans are dying or going broke because of the astronomically and unnecessarily high cost of our health care.
That is completely incorrect. The other modern western countries in the world who all have healthcare systems where just about every citizen is covered have shown that this model is dramatically cheaper than ours. In Germany every single person is insured and the entire medical system costs less than half of what it does in the US. This isn't a zero sum game, it's possible for an entire country to benefit from changes.
Do you believe that everyone who doesn't have insurance is a lazy dumbass?
Then what good is ACA?
As I already pointed out to you, and you ignored, universal healthcare is dramatically cheaper than our system.
[1]
So the real question is, if providing universal care is cheaper for the country as a whole, why would you let people die to pay more? This really has to do with your hard line beliefs and not actual facts or economics.
It's easy for you to sit back on your parents insurance and whine about the "takers" when you've never worked a day in your life. Please grow up and mature.
Do you think the poor have a right to life, and therefore emergency medical care?
Fascinating. So you oppose universal healthcare, then when someone who can't afford the "hilariously expensive" treatment, you tell them they can just die, be it man, woman, or child. Your lack of empathy for your fellow human beings is absolutely mind-blowing.
"Oh, you've got a gunshot wound and we could easily help you? Sorry, you better bleed out on the ground bitch because you don't have the cash."
What could be dramatically cheaper than "free" Medicaid or ER care? Does a non-poor German pay more or less taxes than a non-poor American?
By that measure (alone) then Germany sucks when compared to Mexico.
If its a private institution uncompensated by anyone, I agree with Luftwaffe, its their call as to what they wish to do. As far as empathy goes if I don't know why should I care about you? Hell even if I did know you why should I care about you?
They already DO provide emergency care to the poor, it's been a requirement for decades. The problem is not in having to provide care for the poor, but that in so many cases, it's not a true emergency, so the hospitals are providing care based on liability fears, and to protect their own asses, and everyone else is absorbing the cost.
The answer to your poll question is obviously 'no.' And your post just represents bogus package dealing. Yes, the poor have a right to life, but medical care does not exist in nature nor grow on trees. It has to be provided by other humans. This may surprise you, but no one has a 'right' to another mans labor.
It's easy for you to sit back on your parents insurance and whine about the "takers" when you've never worked a day in your life. Please grow up and mature.
Do you think the poor have a right to life, and therefore emergency medical care?
The answer to your poll question is obviously 'no.' And your post just represents bogus package dealing. Yes, the poor have a right to life, but medical care does not exist in nature nor grow on trees. It has to be provided by other humans. This may surprise you, but no one has a 'right' to another mans labor.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?