• 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
clownboy said:
Yes they can, if they are a private hospital or clinic not taking government payments.
Click to expand...

Well, I know about that. I'm in California and thems the rules.
 
MildSteel said:
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.
Click to expand...

The right to life has to do with other people acting to end your life, not getting services from other people. The very premise of your post is stupid to begin with since this entire subject is a violation of human rights as it makes hospital workers slaves.
 
PirateMk1 said:
That's not a reason to care.
Click to expand...

You're right it's not. Perhaps it's mean or insensitive to say, but I don't have to care that other people exist.
 
MildSteel said:
And as I have stated earlier, governments must constantly balance the sometimes competing interests of citizens in the exercise of their rights. In the case of providing emergency medical care to the poor, the right of the poor to live, trumps the right of the hospitals to deny such service.
Click to expand...

You should research the right to life before you continue to speak of it. Why would the right to life violate the right to body sovereignty by its very existence? Does that make any sense to you?
 
AmericanSpartan said:
Ever notice people always want to "balance" things with the wealth, rights, and future of others, never their own?
Click to expand...

The whole balance of rights rhetoric is just a cover for an action that violates human rights and protects a bogus right declaration that is both illogical and in opposition to everything rights stand for.
 
radcen said:
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.
Click to expand...
Why am I not surprised that NO ONE who espouses this point-of-view has the balls to back it up?
 
radcen said:
Why am I not surprised that NO ONE who espouses this point-of-view has the balls to back it up?
Click to expand...

life - threating would be a condition, which would be death will come from the injury soon, or it can mean because of the injury, complications can set in to cause death in a short amount of time.
 
ernst barkmann said:
life - threating would be a condition, which would be death will come from the injury soon, or it can mean because of the injury, complications can set in to cause death in a short amount of time.
Click to expand...
Even that is somewhat vague. The way many people make the statement I'm thinking they have something more definitive in mind.
 
radcen said:
Even that is somewhat vague. The way many people make the statement I'm thinking they have something more definitive in mind.
Click to expand...

how is it vague?

if you mangle a leg gangrene can set in and kill.

my wife works at a hospital, ...people have been known to come to the emergency room for the stupidest things......stubbing their toe, a cold, because they can't get an erection... among many other things.

emergency in my mind, means a person is going to die soon, or within a few days if treatment is not sought.
 
clownboy said:
Heh, yeah. But that last, not really true. Though there's always going to be room for improvement.

You know, for a system so expensive and as little access as you claim, there sure are a lot of hospitals and clinics in just about every area. And there are still folks who come here to avoid the waiting time in their own country.
Click to expand...

There are quite a few, but they are expensive and restrictive. Americans pay more for and have less access to healthcare than anyone else. We have all sorts of tech, but less you're rich you ain't really gonna get it. And guess who's "coming here to avoid the waiting time..."; it ain't the poor.

So yeah, there are places where there are long waits, you know why that is? Because people can use the medical services provided! Yeah, there are things to fix in those structures too, in order to ensure proper and timely service. But we shouldn't try to solve the problem by restricting people from care. If people can use medical care, if we can start catching problems early, it saves the entire system money. Waiting till it blows up and then people have to use the emergency room is expensive.

A true universal healthcare system helps us all and provides a necessary base level of healthcare for all citizens.
 
JayDubya said:
This is arguably the most ****ing retarded thing I have the misfortune to see every single time I read it, and yet I read it a lot around here.

I'm sorry you people don't understand the difference between killing someone in aggression and not giving someone a good or service they don't pay for, but that difference remains huge.
Click to expand...

If you die, it doesn't matter whether you were shot or denied medical care because you were poor. Either way, you're just as dead and someone else made that happen. Many countries have Duty to Rescue Laws which I think is a good idea (if applied judiciously).
 
Last edited:
Health insurance is little more than legalized extortion. If they can afford to treat me for 30 cents on the dollar if I have health insurance, they could afford to treat me for 30 cents on the dollar if I did not.
 
ernst barkmann said:
how is it vague?

if you mangle a leg gangrene can set in and kill.

my wife works at a hospital, ...people have been known to come to the emergency room for the stupidest things......stubbing their toe, a cold, because they can't get an erection... among many other things.

emergency in my mind, means a person is going to die soon, or within a few days if treatment is not sought.
Click to expand...

You had said "...complications can set in to cause death in a short amount of time.", and I suspect that some would take the "short amount of time" part and say it's not an emergency today, hence they're on their own. It still leaves room for interpretation.

Note that I am not necessarily disagreeing with you on this point, I'm just trying to focus in on what I believe some are saying, but not being willing to confirm.

I agree on the stubbed toe/cold stuff. We really should nip that in the bud.
 
Henrin said:
The right to life has to do with other people acting to end your life, not getting services from other people. The very premise of your post is stupid to begin with since this entire subject is a violation of human rights as it makes hospital workers slaves.
Click to expand...

Henrin said:
You should research the right to life before you continue to speak of it. Why would the right to life violate the right to body sovereignty by its very existence? Does that make any sense to you?
Click to expand...

You want to put forward the notion that the right to life has nothing to do with getting the goods and services of others. However, the flaw is that you do not appear to realize that the natural resources upon which those goods and services rest, and without which they would not exist, were not created by those people, and as such, in truth, do not belong to them. Such resources were there before those persons were born, and will be there after they die. As a result of this, in the ultimate sense, they are not the true proprietors of those resources, but are merely temporarily using them to sustain their existence.

Just as natural resources exist in nature without any need for help from those persons, humans beings exist in nature, IN THE GENERAL SENSE, without the help of such persons. Because no human being is responsible for bringing those resources into existence, they cannot be said to be the proprietors and therefore the resources are there for all to use to sustain their existence. The founders of the U.S. government recognized that governments come into existence so that men can secure their natural rights such as the right to life. Otherwise, as a result of greed, some might try to usurp the resources that are there in nature in such a way that prevents others from sustaining their existence by such resources and thus deprive them of right to live. Therefore we can see that the right to life does indeed entail more people acting to end life. Rather, it also entails the sustenance of the lives of citizens.

Because governments restrict access to the resources of nature by its citizens, those governments must in return guarantee that their lives can be sustained. If they do no do so, they are merely facilitating the theft of the resources that are in nature by thieves who did not create those resources. If a government requires that a hospital give emergency care to the poor, it is facilitating the sustenance of the lives of such citizens in return for denying them access to the resources of nature. Therefore, forcing hospitals to give such emergency care is indeed related to the right to life, and is not restricted to the conditions that you put forward.
 
MildSteel said:
Done with you. Good day.
Click to expand...
You were done as soon as you started making an absurd argument that was contrary to what the Court held.
 
Last edited:
MildSteel said:
You want to put forward the notion that the right to life has nothing to do with getting the goods and services of others. However, the flaw is that you do not appear to realize that the natural resources upon which those goods and services rest, and without which they would not exist, were not created by those people, and as such, in truth, do not belong to them. Such resources were there before those persons were born, and will be there after they die. As a result of this, in the ultimate sense, they are not the true proprietors of those resources, but are merely temporarily using them to sustain their existence.

Just as natural resources exist in nature without any need for help from those persons, humans beings exist in nature, IN THE GENERAL SENSE, without the help of such persons. Because no human being is responsible for bringing those resources into existence, they cannot be said to be the proprietors and therefore the resources are there for all to use to sustain their existence. The founders of the U.S. government recognized that governments come into existence so that men can secure their natural rights such as the right to life. Otherwise, as a result of greed, some might try to usurp the resources that are there in nature in such a way that prevents others from sustaining their existence by such resources and thus deprive them of right to live. Therefore we can see that the right to life does indeed entail more people acting to end life. Rather, it also entails the sustenance of the lives of citizens.

Because governments restrict access to the resources of nature by its citizens, those governments must in return guarantee that their lives can be sustained. If they do no do so, they are merely facilitating the theft of the resources that are in nature by thieves who did not create those resources. If a government requires that a hospital give emergency care to the poor, it is facilitating the sustenance of the lives of such citizens in return for denying them access to the resources of nature. Therefore, forcing hospitals to give such emergency care is indeed related to the right to life, and is not restricted to the conditions that you put forward.
Click to expand...

Oh god. :roll: That is just a bunch of entitled nonsense. The labor that is called upon to provide you goods and services is not a natural resource nor it is open for all to own and use whenever they want. People like animals do not own anything but themselves by their mere existence, but territories and resources can be claimed and owned by anyone after they are born if they have a means to do it. The labor of your body is your property which permits you the ability to obtain property of natural resources and those items made from natural resources. Due to the ability to own your labor you have the ability to choose who you will trade with, what exactly you will trade and in what amount. If another person was to force you into trade they would aggressing on your person and property and subjecting you to slavery.
 
Henrin said:
territories and resources can be claimed and owned by anyone after they are born if they have a means to do it.
Click to expand...

That's your problem right there. IF THEY HAVE THE MEANS TO DO IT. Humans simply don't have the horses to be proprietors the natural resources of nature. All such false claims of proprietorship will be rendered sterile in the due course of time.

Henrin said:
The labor of your body is your property which permits you the ability to obtain property of natural resources and those items made from natural resources.
Click to expand...

The labor of your body is made possible by taking the goods and resources of nature which you did not create. You did not make the air that you breath, you did not make the water that you drink, you did not make the sunshine. None of these things came into existence by your labor. Furthermore, you did not make the body, the brain, the heart, the hands, the feet nor the legs that you have. As such, in reality, you own nothing.
 
MildSteel said:
That's your problem right there. IF THEY HAVE THE MEANS TO DO IT. Humans simply don't have the horses to be proprietors the natural resources of nature. All such false claims of proprietorship will be rendered sterile in the due course of time.
Click to expand...

Of course they do. People can own natural resources or the products made from natural resources just fine. There is nothing about natural resources that makes them unable to be owned.

The labor of your body is made possible by taking the goods and resources of nature which you did not create. You did not make the air that you breath, you did not make the water that you drink, you did not make the sunshine. None of these things came into existence by your labor. Furthermore, you did not make the body, the brain, the heart, the hands, the feet nor the legs that you have. As such, in reality, you own nothing.
Click to expand...

The labor of your body is made possible by your facilities, which is a product of your body. You do not need to create something in order to own it, but simply have control over it, which is perfectly possible with natural resources such as water, coal, gold, iron, etc. Air can not owned since it can not be controlled.
 
Henrin said:
Of course they do. People can own natural resources or the products made from natural resources just fine. There is nothing about natural resources that makes them unable to be owned.

The labor of your body is made possible by your facilities, which is a product of your body. You do not need to create something in order to own it, but simply have control over it, which is perfectly possible with natural resources such as water, coal, gold, iron, etc. Air can not owned since it can not be controlled.
Click to expand...

You can huff and puff until you blue in the face, but that house is made of bricks. Such claims will be rendered sterile, of this, there is no doubt.
 
Hmmm... I wonder... if forcing someone to provide medical care against their wishes is wrong, what does this mean regarding taxes?

:popcorn:
 
Regarding taxes

During 1999 through 2001, Snipes avoided $7 million in taxes but I’ll bet he would have paid it willingly had he known what was coming. Whatever you may think of Mr. Snipes, it seems clear he was led astray. Snipes followed an accountant and an anti-tax advocate down a dangerous path, but it was still his responsibility.

The advisers claimed they did not legally have to pay taxes. One of Snipes’ original defenses was that he was relying on Eddie Ray Kahn and Douglas P. Rosile. They were convicted by the same jury of tax fraud and conspiracy and both got longer prison terms than Mr. Snipes. Still, Snipes must have been surprised by the trial, which was shorter than anticipated.

Snipes was such a well-known figure and high earner—about $40 million from 1999 to 2004—that not paying taxes was hard to fathom. The big victory for Snipes was that he was acquitted of felony tax fraud and conspiracy and only convicted of misdemeanor charges. See Wesley Snipes Turns 50 In Prison But Didn’t File False Tax Return. But that meant up to 3 years, which he got.

Snipes appealed, argued his sentence was unreasonable, and even claimed he couldn’t get a fair trial in Ocala, Florida because of his race. Even the U.S. Supreme Court turned him down. Post prison, I imagine Mr. Snipes might dispense the following advice, though these are my assumptions, not his words:

Don’t Argue Our Tax System is Voluntary. This is self-explanatory. Forget it.

Don’t Use Off-beat Definitions of Income. Don’t argue wages, tips, and other compensation received for personal services are not income. Avoid saying Federal Reserve Notes are not income or that only foreign-source income is taxable, making domestic income exempt. This has variations, but this is what ensnared Mr. Snipes.

Don’t Argue Over Terms in the Tax Code. Avoid arguing that a taxpayer is not a “citizen” of the U.S. and thus not subject to tax laws. Avoid claiming the U.S. consists only of the District of Columbia, federal territories, and federal enclaves. Don’t argue that only employees of the federal government are subject to federal income tax.

Steer Clear of Constitutional Claims. Arguments based on the First, Fifth, Thirteenth and Sixteenth Amendments to our Constitution include such “nice try” claims as: Taxpayers can refuse to pay income taxes on religious or moral grounds by invoking the First Amendment; Federal income taxes constitute a “taking” without due process; and compelled compliance with federal income tax laws is servitude violating the Thirteenth Amendment.

Don’t Assert Fictional Legal Theories. Avoid these “fictional” claims: The IRS is not an agency of the U.S. (You lose.) Taxpayers are not required to file a federal income tax return because the instructions to Form 1040 and tax regulations don’t display an OMB control number as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. (No again.) Don’t claim you’re a church. Don’t buy “untaxing” trusts or other deals that sound like infomercials.

Be Careful Relying on Others. This may be the most important lesson of all. If something sounds too good to be true, it may be. Stay free, Wesley.
Click to expand...

Legally don't have to pay taxes?????? Damn, that is stupid. How the hell could anyone fall for that? Amazing!

Wesley Snipes Freed--Tax Lessons Remain - Forbes
 
MildSteel said:
You can huff and puff until you blue in the face, but that house is made of bricks. Such claims will be rendered sterile, of this, there is no doubt.
Click to expand...

Yes, so what would make the claims sterile? I imagine it will be some sort of coercion that will bring this about, yes?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom