• 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
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.

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.
 
Should we bankrupt the government in such a way?

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

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.
 
Of course. I thought hospitals could refuse no one?

That law should no longer fly with ACA in place. Everyone is insured and so, they need to say who is paying. The hospital must check that it is true. You cannot just treat people that happen by anymore.
 
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.

Perhaps you should want to spend on neither?

Also, respond to my quote in full.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
Only real emergencies and even then, emergency rooms should not be a loophole for allowing these lazy dumbasses further care.
 
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.

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.

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.

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.

Only real emergencies and even then, emergency rooms should not be a loophole for allowing these lazy dumbasses further care.

Do you believe that everyone who doesn't have insurance is a lazy dumbass?
 
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.

Why? We still have more uninsured people than were newly insured by the PPACA?
 
Most do this voluntarily - you might want to research first prior to posting.

You think this is voluntarily? What do you think would happen if their were no legal ramifications to patient dumping?
 
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.
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.
 
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.

As I already pointed out to you, and you ignored, universal healthcare is dramatically cheaper than our system.

International_Comparison_-_Healthcare_spending_as_%25_GDP.png
[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.
 
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?

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?
 
As I already pointed out to you, and you ignored, universal healthcare is dramatically cheaper than our system.

International_Comparison_-_Healthcare_spending_as_%25_GDP.png
[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.

By that measure (alone) then Germany sucks when compared to Mexico.
 
Do you think the poor have a right to life, and therefore emergency medical care?

Since you specify "poor" in your OP and your poll, does that mean you place some distinction between poor and not poor? Do you allow a condition in which hospitals should not be forced to give emergency care to the not poor?
 
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.
 
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."

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?
 
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.

You've misunderstood. The healthcare system in Germany as a whole (hospitals, insurance, everything) costs dramatically less than the US, and the difference is that every citizen in Germany has health insurance and access to care, while we have tens of millions of Americans who have none whatsoever, and for the people who do have care, they can still be refused service or charged hundreds of thousands of dollars.

We're paying MORE for LESS compared to other countries and you people want to try to make an economic argument. It's absolutely absurd.

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?

That's why we as a society need to come up with a solution so that the lives of individuals don't fall down to the selfish decisions of private businesses. Just about every other first world country has universal coverage, and they're paying less than we are. I can also promise you that hospital owners in Europe aren't poor and enslaved by tyranny.

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.

Which was one of the spurring factors of Obamacare. We have the moral obligation not to turn someone in trouble away, but if they can't afford it the costs go to someone else. That's one of the major problems that healthcare reform is trying to fix.
 
Last edited:
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.

i agreed with you here to a point. BUT.

regulations are made to secure rights, states do have the power to regulate business, which is what a hospital is and in becoming a doctor someone in the field of health one takes an Hippocratic oath to care for those that need help, .......that being emergency care in this case.

no one should force to care for people when it is something which is not an emergency, not life treating.
 
Last edited:
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.

Same old same old ****. Try something new for your upstairs smack.

I painted my house and all of our rental houses. I installed the insulation in my house. I mulched our garden, I weeded our garden, I trimmed our hedges, I cleaned the septic back-ups that flooded the basements of our rental houses, I cleaned the water damage, and I've done so much more.

You don't know me.

Besides, this summer I'll be getting a part time job.

And you know what?

When I go into the work force full time my opinion is going to stay exactly the same. If you need health care, pay for it yourself instead of taking from others. That is because I don't believe in leeching like you do.
 
Do you think the poor have a right to life, and therefore emergency medical care?



The U.S. government thinks that those who can't afford to pay have a right to emergency medical care.

Hospitals have been providing this for a long time. :roll:

This is nothing new. This subject has been plowed more than Paris Hilton.
 
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.



Tell that to the government that can draft you and send you to war. :roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom