• 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

MildSteel

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Messages
4,974
Reaction score
1,047
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Do you think the poor have a right to life, and therefore emergency medical care?
 
Do you think the poor have a right to life, and therefore emergency medical care?

Most do this voluntarily - you might want to research first prior to posting.
 
Do you think the poor have a right to life, and therefore emergency medical care?
A right to life does not include a right to outside interference to sustain it.
That said, sure, and they should be held accountable for the cost.
 
Do you think the poor have a right to life, and therefore emergency medical care?

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.

A hospital had to ****ing keep an anancephalic baby alive for as long as possible because the ****ing parents said so. People need to pay for their ****, I don't care what it is.

EDIT

Baby K - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

****ing bull**** if you ask me. I can care less who you are and the sanctity blah. Pay for the service you use, that is what responsible human beings should do.

If the hopsital wants to provide their service free of charge then fine, otherwise, pay up.
 
Last edited:
Of course. I thought hospitals could refuse no one?

They did not have to provide care beyond stabilizing a patient and transferring them to somewhere that would treat them if they would not and the federal government used to give hospitals a subsidy in exchange for that which was eliminated by the PPACA as part of its funding mechanism. The money was reallocated to cover costs of insurances.
 
Most do this voluntarily - you might want to research first prior to posting.

You might want to read with comprehension before making stupid posts. The question was not "do they" it was "should they."
 
A right to life does not include a right to outside interference to sustain it.
That said, sure, and they should be held accountable for the cost.

Using that logic the poor do not necessarily have the right to police protection from someone who is beating them up or about to shoot them.
 
You might want to read with comprehension before making stupid posts. The question was not "do they" it was "should they."

They already do this, so your point is moot.
 
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.

A hospital had to ****ing keep an anancephalic baby alive for as long as possible because the ****ing parents said so. People need to pay for their ****, I don't care what it is.

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."
 
Maybe but not unless the care providers are compensated (in full) by the government. People need food, clothing and shelter daily yet few would suggest that payment should simply be forgiven for "the poor" and eaten by the providers of those goods/services.
 
They did not have to provide care beyond stabilizing a patient and transferring them to somewhere that would treat them if they would not and the federal government used to give hospitals a subsidy in exchange for that which was eliminated by the PPACA as part of its funding mechanism. The money was reallocated to cover costs of insurances.

As long as they don't die, I figure that as taking care. Sure they deserve more than that, but business has to profit.
 
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.

Doesn't the government have the responsibility to protect the lives of its citizens? As such, forcing hospitals to give emergency care to the poor does not seem to be unreasonable.
 
Should hospitals be forced to give emergency care to the poor?

yes. we're lucky to live in a first world society, and not letting people die in the streets is one of the perks.
 
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.
 
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."

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.
 
As long as they don't die, I figure that as taking care. Sure they deserve more than that, but business has to profit.

It probably depends on where you live. My city has 1 hospital. Some cities have a lot more. In my city they either have to treat you (which they generally do if you are uninsured if they have the staff on hand) or wait until they can find another one to take you. If you are in a major trauma beyond their capabilities, they will stabilize and airlift, but they do not do that for stuff they could treat themselves.

I see both sides. I think they have a moral obligation to treat people if they can, but whether or not I think that should be written into stone, I am not sure on.
 
Do you think the poor have a right to life, and therefore emergency medical care?

Any hospital that rejects them should have a bus that delivers that ill person to the spectator Halls of Congress. Put those germs wher they can do the most good, don't ya' know?
 
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.
 
I'm glad I don't live in a country where this is even a consideration.
 
Any developed country with a humane society can and should provide emergency medical care to anyone who needs it. Exactly how that is achieved obviously varies. Where you have a system of first responders and receiving emergency departments, it is impractical (if not immoral) to assess their ability to pay before providing emergency care. There is a valid question of how that care is then paid for (especially with privatised providers) but that can only be a question of how, not if.
 
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."

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.
 
Doesn't the government have the responsibility to protect the lives of its citizens? As such, forcing hospitals to give emergency care to the poor does not seem to be unreasonable.

Then why have SNAP (food stamps) instead of simply forcing food providers to serve the poor at little or no cost?
 
Back
Top Bottom