• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should hospitals be forced to give emergency care to the poor?

Should hospitals be forced to give emergency care to the poor?


  • Total voters
    99
To see what other's opinions are and to have a discussion. Perhaps there is something that I could learn. Actually I did learn that the Supreme Court feels that the police are not necessarily obligated to protect someone from physical harm at another citizen's hand. That is a big surprise for me.

There is so much we don't understand and shouldn't judge unless we have first hand experience and know all the facts.
Hospitals/the administrative side, should not be allowed to turn anyone away, if in any way possible. I doubt that emergency and other medical personnel need to be told what is right.
 
Nothing disturbing about it.

It means no such thing.

It is rather disturbing to me. All of my life I have never owned a gun. To this day I have not purchased one, partly because I rely on police protection. If I am not guaranteed such protection that is disturbing, because it means that I must primarily rely on my own protection. If the police can merely use their own discretion at protecting citizens from physical harm that may be inflicted on them by other citizens, then citizens are left to their own to discriminate on when they feel that they are being threatened and when they can use deadly force. That is the wild west.

The government using private actors does not mean you have a right to them or to other private actors the government isn't using.

If the government forces hospitals to give emergency care to the poor, it is protecting their right to life.

Maybe you are not understanding the purpose of a government?
It is there to govern, not take care of you.

Although government is not there to babysit, giving people emergency medical gives people a CHANCE to live and be productive.
 
Last edited:
It is rather disturbing to me. All of my life I have never owned a gun. To this day I have not purchased one, partly because I rely on police protection. If I am not guaranteed such protection that is disturbing, because it means that I must primarily rely on my own protection. If the police can merely use their own discretion at protecting citizens from physical harm that may be inflicted on them by other citizens, then citizens are left to their own to discriminate on when they feel that they are being threatened and when they can use deadly force. That is the wild west.
That is your problem.
You should have known for a long time that if you call any emergency service they may not make it to you in time.
So of course you have to be prepared to take care of yourself.




If the government forces hospitals to give emergency care to the poor, it is protecting their right to life.
No, it is not protecting any such right.
 
There is so much we don't understand and shouldn't judge unless we have first hand experience and know all the facts.
Hospitals/the administrative side, should not be allowed to turn anyone away, if in any way possible. I doubt that emergency and other medical personnel need to be told what is right.

I have a friend whose son died from an asthma attack right after he left home to attend one of the most prestigious universities in the country. It is my understanding that he was turned away from one hospital and sent to another because they could not find proof that he had insurance on him. That is what the father said, as I recall. That boy was very smart. It was such a shame that he died in that way.
 
That is your problem.
You should have known for a long time that if you call any emergency service they may not make it to you in time.
So of course you have to be prepared to take care of yourself.

It is not only my problem, it is everyone's problem. I don't think that it is unreasonable to expect that in a civilized society that trained professionals, such as the police, are duty bound to protect citizens from such harm, and due to their better training are better able to judge when methods such as lethal force should be used. Leaving that up to citizens is the law of the west.

No, it is not protecting any such right.

I disagree. Citizens have a right to live. If a government forces a hospital to give emergency care to the poor, it is certainly enforcing that right to live. Now one might question is the government being unjust when it forces the hospital to give such care. But I would argue that it is not because the rights of the citizens to live, trump the rights of the hospital to refuse treatment.
 
Last edited:
By any chance did you notice that the 3 examples of alleged dumping were against the law. Again, we've provided a solution to a problem that didn't exist. And by the way, my doctor opted to form a concierge medical practice rather than get involved in the ACA. And they now longer take Medicare.

Ys I did know it was against the law and.... How long did the VA Hospital no other way of calling it but murder, stay below the radar.
 
Every now and then a topic comes up here at DP in which the responses leave me shaking my head in bewilderment at the human species. This is one of those threads.
 
It is not only my problem, it is everyone's problem.
No, that is your problem and those who think like you.


I don't think that it is unreasonable to expect that in a civilized society that trained professionals, such as the police are duty bound to protect citizens from such harm,
Apparently you missed my liability comment.
Civilized society? iLOL :doh Our society isn't any more civilized than it has been prior. People are still killing, raping, robbing and harming others. And society surely hasn't done much in regards to preventing those people from coming into existence.


and due to their better training are better able to judge when methods such as lethal force should be used.
Police training? A few hours in the use of force continuum? iLOL The rest is garnered on the streets.
They are trained to respond to perceived threats. With that training comes quicker reaction times.
You place too much trust in what you think their training is.
They, like any person, are able to judge for themselves what a threat is.


Leaving that up to citizens is the law of the west.
Lame argument.
Protecting your self from harm is not the wild west.
People today do it all the time. They are not living in the wild west.


I disagree. Citizens have a right to live.
A right to your natural life without government interference unless deprived by due process.
That is what you have.


If a government forces a hospital to give emergency care to the poor, it is certainly enforcing that right to live.
If that was the purpose of the legislation you would have a point. All that is, is you trying to attach meaning it doesn't have.



Every now and then a topic comes up here at DP in which the responses leave me shaking my head in bewilderment at the human species. This is one of those threads.
I know. People thinking they have a "right" to another's efforts is abhorrent.
 
Do you think the poor have a right to life, and therefore emergency medical care?

I think that in any advanced and civilized society, that yes even the poor deserve and should receive emergency medical care. They are human beings and we have the means and capacity to help them. And if we’re such a “Christian” nation, how could it be any other way? In general, I think we should have a for real universal healthcare system that is open to all citizens and provides some amount of basic medical care.
 
I don't think the terms "advanced" and "civilized" should be equated with "government-mandated business actions".
 
It depends on what you mean by emergency care. If it's life-saving care, then yes. They should be required to stabilize anyone who comes in but that is all. If the person who comes in is an illegal alien, they should be required to call DHS and get that person deported. Anything beyond life-saving measures or public safety concerns though, no, they should not be required.
 
I think that in any advanced and civilized society, that yes even the poor deserve and should receive emergency medical care. They are human beings and we have the means and capacity to help them. And if we’re such a “Christian” nation, how could it be any other way? In general, I think we should have a for real universal healthcare system that is open to all citizens and provides some amount of basic medical care.

Well now, hasn't it been your position we are not a Christian nation and that we should be fully secular? So, obviously appealing to an argument you rail against consistently isn't going to work. Under the current system we do not have the means. Unfortunately no one seems to have the means to do true universal healthcare (remember, you teeth are a part of your health profile).

Until we have a universal health care system and have figured out how to supply and pay for that, the current system works fine.
 
What do people mean... exactly... when they say "...only life-saving care, and that's it."?

For example, if someone gets hit by a car and their leg is mangled, do we apply a tourniquet to stop the bleeding and send them on their way?

Could you be a little more descriptive? Maybe provide an example of where the line would be?

Thank you very much.
 
I don't know ..
That word "forced" , bothers me .. if a hospital must be "forced" to do something, an investigation is in order. I'd NOT want any hospital or doctor in my neighborhood that must be 'forced" in order to be humanitarian .
And the poor , why do we have the "poor" in the first place ..
Things are NOT as they should be .
And, with an upgraded and improved national health care, this should not even be a topic for discussion ..
 
Sad, in so many ways .. The mother loved the baby K so much that she hated it ......I think that there should have been a court order to terminate the pregnancy, even if forced, even if the mother has to spend her life behind bars..
 
Most do this voluntarily - you might want to research first prior to posting.

"The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)[1] is an act of the United States Congress, passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals that accept payments from Medicare to provide emergency health care treatment to anyone needing it regardless of citizenship, legal status, or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. Participating hospitals may not transfer or discharge patients needing emergency treatment except with the informed consent or stabilization of the patient or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.[1]

EMTALA applies to "participating hospitals." The statute defines "participating hospitals" as those that accept payment from the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) under the Medicare program.[2] "Because there are very few hospitals that do not accept Medicare, the law applies to nearly all hospitals.[3]....."

Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Well now, hasn't it been your position we are not a Christian nation and that we should be fully secular? So, obviously appealing to an argument you rail against consistently isn't going to work. Under the current system we do not have the means. Unfortunately no one seems to have the means to do true universal healthcare (remember, you teeth are a part of your health profile).

Until we have a universal health care system and have figured out how to supply and pay for that, the current system works fine.

I was poking fun a bit. But our current system is rather broken, actually. America pays more for and has less access to healthcare than any other advanced country. So there's lots of room for improvement.
 
Providing health care to indigents via the emergency room is one of the most inefficient and expensive ways to provide care, especially because people tend to wait until their condition is severe before seeking treatment. That is why a properly designed universal health care system should save money in the long run.
 
1....government is not here to take care of people, its here to secure rights of people....

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare,and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
 
....It blows my mind that so called fiscal conservatives would advocate for a system that costs MORE.

Some people value their interpretation of the Constitution more than they value the lives of others, especially if those others are poor or immigrants.
 
Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel: Do you think the poor have a right to life, and therefore emergency medical care?

One has nothing to do with the other.

Really? Please explain.
 
Do you think the poor have a right to life, and therefore emergency medical care?

If a regular citizen can be charged for neglecting a human in distress then why not a hospital?
 
Do you think the poor have a right to life, and therefore emergency medical care?

Every human being has the right to life.

No one has a right to healthcare services.
 
you are saying if the government instituted a new program, it going to cost government less money then government is currently spending right now?

France spends 50% less than USA per capita when it comes to health care.
 
Back
Top Bottom