• 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
The right to life has absolutely nothing to do with your proposed "right to healthcare" which is not and never could be an actual right.

I disagree with you in the strongest terms. Giving the poor emergency health care allows them to sustain their life, and as such has everything to do with the right to life.
 
I disagree with you in the strongest terms.

That just means you don't understand the most basic concept about our human rights.

Giving the poor emergency health care allows them to sustain their life

So what? It's a service.

A right to life is the basis for laws against violating one's right to life; we largely do this through making it illegal to kill other humans in aggression, with crimes ranging from manslaughter to murder.

A right to life does not entitle you to the service of others. A right to life does not entitle you to the goods of others.

Healthcare services involve an exchange - their labor for your money.

If you refuse to pay, and they refuse to work for free, then there's no obligation and no responsibility on the part of anyone else to provide you with a service you won't pay for anymore than you are entitled to walk up to a fast food counter and demand a cheeseburger without paying for it.
 
I disagree in the strongest terms. If police protection is ambiguous, then citizens must rely on a wild west shoot em up for their protection. Again, such ideas put the burden of providing for the safety of individual citizens into the hands of those citizens themselves, some who may behave responsibly, and some who may not.
You are exaggerating, and exaggerating is a 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.
Personal safety has always been in your own hands. That isn't going to change.


the flawed thinking that you advocate.
The only flawed thinking on display here is yours.
You are arguing against what the court decided.
Citing a flawed jury decision does not help you at all.


Governments are established amongst men to interfere in their affairs.
No. That is not why they are established.
They are established to govern.


If a government did not interfere in the affairs of men, it would be useless. Moreover, philosophers such as Rousseau, and indeed even the founders of this country have acknowledged that men are endowed with natural rights, one of which is the right to life. And because such a right does indeed exist, the right of a person to live trumps the right of a hospital to not provide emergency treatment to the poor.
Their musings matter not one bit.
And the "right" is not what you think it is.


Regardless of the intent of any such legislation, or even the existence of such legislation, IF a government forces a hospital to provide emergency treatment to the poor, it is justified in doing so because of the patient's right to life.
There is that flaw reasoning again.
You have a right to your life without undue outside interference. That is all.
 
That just means you don't understand the most basic concept about our human rights.

No it means that we have a disagreement on the role of government in supporting the rights of citizens to live.

So what? It's a service.

A right to life is the basis for laws against violating one's right to life; we largely do this through making it illegal to kill other humans in aggression, with crimes ranging from manslaughter to murder.

A right to life does not entitle you to the service of others. A right to life does not entitle you to the goods of others.

Healthcare services involve an exchange - their labor for your money.

The so what is that you so callously value a service more than a life.
 
I disagree with you in the strongest terms. Giving the poor emergency health care allows them to sustain their life, and as such has everything to do with the right to life.

Why do only the poor have this right? Many become poor by incurring medical expenses - what about their rights?
 
No it means that we have a disagreement on the role of government in supporting the rights of citizens to live.

Yes. I want the government to support the natural human right to life.

You want the government to support your imaginary "right to healthcare" which violates the natural human right to property. You deliberately calling it the wrong thing doesn't change anything.
 
Why do only the poor have this right? Many become poor by incurring medical expenses - what about their rights?

I did not say that the whether or not right is exclusive to the poor. I am discussing the issue of the government forcing hospitals to provide emergency care for the poor.
 
Yes. I want the government to support the natural human right to life.

You want the government to support your imaginary "right to healthcare" which violates the natural human right to property. You deliberately calling it the wrong thing doesn't change anything.

Providing emergency health care to the poor allows them to sustain their life. Therefore requiring hospitals to provide such emergency care supports the right of the poor to live. The problem with your thinking is that it values the service of emergency care more than it values the life of the poor. Therefore you cannot acknowledge that forcing hospitals to provide emergency care to the poor supports the right of the poor to live.
 
Providing emergency health care to the poor allows them to sustain their life.

Irrelevant. A right to life does not entitle you to any goods or any services. It is the basis for laws against violating your right to life.

You need drinking water to live. You do not have a right to water.

You need food to live. You do not have a right to food.
 
I did not say that the whether or not right is exclusive to the poor. I am discussing the issue of the government forcing hospitals to provide emergency care for the poor.

I am discussing whether that right should only apply after you have no assets to seize. Why should some be forced to pay for what others get for free as a "right"? Rights apply to all not just some.
 
In this case there is the right to property, an actual right to be protected, versus the thing you want the government to do, which only violates the right to property.

There is nothing to balance.

Ever notice people always want to "balance" things with the wealth, rights, and future of others, never their own?
 
Irrelevant. A right to life does not entitle you to any goods or any services. It is the basis for laws against violating your right to life.

No it is relevant because the right to life does indeed entitle citizens to the goods and services of government that may use the goods and services of private actors to support the rights of citizens to live. Not only is the right to life the basis of laws against violating citizens right to live, but it is among the natural rights that form the basis of government itself. If these natural rights did not exist, there would be no justification for the formation of government. Indeed, the founders of the U.S. recognizing this, laid the foundation of their government on these natural rights.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

You need drinking water to live. You do not have a right to water.

You need food to live. You do not have a right to food.

Because of the right to live, all are entitled access to the resources that exist in nature, such as water, for their sustenance. Because you need water to live, a government can restrict your access to water only if it makes available practical means, that you have the ability to use, to get the water that you need to live. If it does not make such means available to you, it is indeed violating your right to life, and as such is not worthy of the name of government, but is merely a mechanism to facilitate the thief of the resources in nature. The same can be said of food.
 
I am discussing whether that right should only apply after you have no assets to seize. Why should some be forced to pay for what others get for free as a "right"? Rights apply to all not just some.

The point is that government can force hospitals to give emergency medical care to citizens regardless of their ability to pay. If they can pay for it, they should pay for it, if they cannot they should get it regardless. Furthermore the government should compensate hospitals that do so in some fashion for their services.
 
Last edited:
The government forces people to do things all the time. Believe me, I would certainly not pay taxes if the government did not force me to. Forcing hospitals to give emergency care for the poor supports the right of the poor to life, and a government that forces a hospital to provide such care is therefore just in doing so.

You wouldn't pay taxes if you weren't forced to, even though your taxes go to help the poor. BUT you want other people (hospital workers) to be forced into giving up their labor, their supplies, their time, their money, and so on, to help the poor.

Interesting.
 
The point is that government can force hospitals to give emergency medical care to citizens regardless of their ability to pay. If they can pay for it, they should pay for it, if they cannot they should get it regardless. Furthermore the government should compensate hospitals that do so in some fashion for there services.

I agree with your last statement which would make the first largely unnecessary. Maybe we should model health care after education - everyone gets free access to the public facilities and those that prefer (and can afford) a better option can do so at their own expense.
 
All American citizens should receive equal medical care and treatment at the hospital regardless of assets, income, or insurance.
With that being said, I am not opposed to also having private doctors that are not eligible to receive payment from the system, but can charge their own rate and method of payment.
So long as the system provides equal medical treatment for the majority of citizens.

I am fine with our current emergency room policy as it applies to illegal aliens. But for citizens of this nation, the current system is utterly unacceptable and repulsive.
 
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.

1... the preamble conveys no power....it not a clause but an introductory statement.

2..... the general welfare is not that which concerns the personal life's of the people, but that of the Union.

Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government --james Madison

I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”-- james madsion


federalist 45- The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
 
Last edited:
France spends 50% less than USA per capita when it comes to health care.


as i stated before show me a federal program, which goes down in cost every year.

our system of government and programs works in a simple aspect.....government budgets a program so much money a year, if the program does not spend all of its budget for the year and has money left over then they are not slated for an increase in next years spending, this is why in September all federal programs do a mad dash to spend as much money has they have left of their budget...which is why programs always increase. no government program wants to have its budget reduced......they want to be included in governments base line budgeting for the next fiscal year, getting additional spending money.

if a national healthcare system is created, the cost will continue to go up and up, these are facts by looking at our government history of spending

the federal government is already deep in debt, and it really has no source of new revenue that the people would approve of...accept those who do not share the federal tax burden.
 
Do you think the poor have a right to life, and therefore emergency medical care?

Hospitals cannot turn away people who need emergency care.
 
Do you think the poor have a right to life, and therefore emergency medical care?

seeking to be a doctor is a right.

being a doctor is not a right, its privilege, because you are a licensed professional, and you take an oath to help people.....when a person is licensed he must adhere to the the regulations of government.

a hospital is a business, not like any other business, where the usual business requires a license in the form of a tax i. d. only to operate...... a hospital requires more licensing to be in business, and which it has more then a license then for tax purposes, government has there authority to set regulatiosn on it when it comes medical care.
 
The point is that government can force hospitals to give emergency medical care to citizens regardless of their ability to pay. If they can pay for it, they should pay for it, if they cannot they should get it regardless. Furthermore the government should compensate hospitals that do so in some fashion for their services.

Actually, no, they cannot. EMTALA only applies to hospitals and clinics who accept government payments.
 
Hospitals cannot turn away people who need emergency care.

Yes they can, if they are a private hospital or clinic not taking government payments.
 
Back
Top Bottom