• 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
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.

Actually it's about the perp's entitlement to a free beating from the police.
 
everything government has created cost more......name programs for me which go down in cost every year

government is a creator of debt..it does not create wealth.

the last part of your statement, has no bearing on my post...and only you personal obsevation.

See, but you're arguing from the fundamentalist position that nothing the government can do can ever be cheaper. Our healthcare system isn't perfect, in fact, it has a lot of very large flaws. Why should we not be discussing about what we can do to make it better and cheaper? Do you think it would be a good thing if everyone had health insurance?

It is fact that many other countries have shown that they can provide universal coverage for cheaper than we provide coverage to only a fraction of the population. Do you think that's impossible here? Why do you refuse to even discuss the possibility?
 
See, but you're arguing from the fundamentalist position that nothing the government can do can ever be cheaper. Our healthcare system isn't perfect, in fact, it has a lot of very large flaws. Why should we not be discussing about what we can do to make it better and cheaper? Do you think it would be a good thing if everyone had health insurance?

It is fact that many other countries have shown that they can provide universal coverage for cheaper than we provide coverage to only a fraction of the population. Do you think that's impossible here? Why do you refuse to even discuss the possibility?

you argument for our healthcare system being bad was not part of the conversation i made, our system does have problems... however from the medicine, material side .....it is the best in the world.

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.
 
Last edited:
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.

No It isn't.
The police are Government actors.

And it is a failed argument at that.

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html

No such duty, no such "right".


On the other hand, a hospital is a private actor.

You are hiring the Hospital staff to be your actors to interfere with your natural life, just as you could hire body guards to protect you from harm.
But you are not entitled to them.


Which is all irrelevant to the point made. "A right to life does not include a right to outside interference to sustain it."
 
Interesting poll/thread.

2 points:

--In the US, most or many hospitals must treat non-citizens as well as citizens in life-threatening instances

--the use of 'right' affects my answer. Do I think that 'right to life' applies here? No. (But the OP may disagree). However I do think that as a civilized society, this is another 'safety net' that taxpayers should subsidize. Am I happy about it? No but I see little decent return on the taxes they take for public schools or other things as well.
 
I never understood the hatred people, especially people on the right, have for a universal health care in this country. They scream it's socialism, etc. The fact is that's what we have now, and have had for decades. Someone without health insurance or money shows up at a hospital they must be treated. Who pays? The taxpayers and the people with health insurance. Socialism.

Anyway I rather we use our money to treat people here in the US instead of spending trillions overseas to build up other people's countries and health care system. We spent trillions of tax payers money in Iraq, for nothing. Spend it here on Americans.
 
Do you think the poor have a right to life, and therefore emergency medical care?

Everyone has a right to life, and hospitals should care for everyone. They shouldn't have to eat the cost though. Everyone should help out with that.
 
Do you think the poor have a right to life, and therefore emergency medical care?

Yes. And they already do, and we already pay for it, which is one of the reasons we should implement a single-payer healthcare system.
 
Of course. I thought hospitals could refuse no one?

Private hospitals that do not accept government funding are not required to provide treatment...even emergency medical treatment. All facilities that receive federal funding or are granted non profit status must follow COBRA and EMTALA guidelines.
 
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."

Also, he forgot to mention he is on his parents health insurance plan.
 
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?

Its always a little disconcerting to see that facts are so different to different people. But I can say with confidence that for many years I've asked posters to provide examples of people who have been turned away from emergency rooms and no one has ever been able to do that. And I'm quite sure that if that happened we'd see big national headlines about it. I've never seen such headlines.
 
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.

Umm the US is bankrupt, over a 100 trillion in unfunded liabilities it's just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic at this point
 
Do you think the poor have a right to life, and therefore emergency medical care?

Not if they support abortion they don't....don't let them fool ya...

Neither is the reverse true.

Can't be pro life and not want to save one.

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

The current law is that hospitals must treat anyone that shows up in ER with an acute life threatening condition. The hospital must treat to the extent possible and/or transfer somewhere else. If it's not life threatening, like a broken arm on a healthy person, they don't have to treat. That seems appropriate to me.

BTW, it's not just poor who don't have insurance. Some middle class who are unemployed or let their private insurance lapse or don't want to buy Obamacare don't have insurance.
 
Most do this voluntarily - you might want to research first prior to posting.

The matter of voluntarily was removed. They are required by law and have been for some time.
Back when it was voluntary they also had discretion on how they would care fir them. That went away too.
 
I don't know about other states but here in the Columbus area there is a network of free clinics. I believe Ohio State University participates as well. I know doctors, dentists and nurses that dedicate hours each month to these facilities. Most hospitals I know accept Medicaid as payment. So what is the beef?
 
if the hospital has even 1 doctor who has sworn to the hippocratic oath, obviously it should.
 
Do you think the poor have a right to life, and therefore emergency medical care?

Yes but this is why I support the individual mandate, that great idea the Republicans came up with before it was more important for President Obama to fail, before anybody even knew who Obama was for that matter.

If someone shows up at an ER without federally mandated coverage, garner their wages and tax refunds until the debt is paid in full. In fact, anybody who doesn't have coverage on their own is given the lowest premium coverage automatically and the costs are deducted from their pay. If an illegal aliens shows up, they get deported after they're well again, banned from entering the country until their debt is paid and if not paid within 10 years, that amount to deducted from whatever their country would have otherwise revived in foreign-aid paid instead to the hospital where their citizen was treated.
 
Its always a little disconcerting to see that facts are so different to different people. But I can say with confidence that for many years I've asked posters to provide examples of people who have been turned away from emergency rooms and no one has ever been able to do that. And I'm quite sure that if that happened we'd see big national headlines about it. I've never seen such headlines.

https://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/enforcement/cmp/patient_dumping.asp

http://rt.com/usa/vegas-hospital-patients-dump-544/

VM -- Refusal of Emergency Care and Patient Dumping, Jan 09 ... Virtual Mentor
 
Love them "not for profit" tax breaks, hate treating patients that they can't profit off of.

Are hospitals passing off their low-profit patients?
Stroger pays for transfers from nonprofit hospitals getting tax breaks

Indigent and under-uninsured patients are turning to Cook County's Stroger Hospital after not getting fully treated at nonprofit hospitals, swamping the cash-strapped public facility while fueling the county's sky-high sales tax, a Tribune investigation found.

Some of these patients arrive at Stroger's emergency room bearing discharge slips, prescriptions, even Yahoo and Google maps from nonprofits hospitals, according to documents obtained by the Tribune.

"Go to Cook County Hospitals immediately," says a discharge slip for a man with a broken jaw.

"Go to Cook County ER to be evaluated for admission," reads a discharge slip for a man with a tumor.

"Follow up at Cook County Hospital for uterine tumor surgery," says another discharge slip brought into Stroger, which still is referred to by many as the county hospital.

Nonprofit hospitals, meanwhile, reap millions of dollars in property and sales tax breaks from the county, based largely on the promise that they'll help the uninsured.....

Read more here: Are hospitals passing off their low-profit patients? - tribunedigital-chicagotribune

:coffeepap
 
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.

The government engages other humans in protecting the right to life of its citizens all the time. That is a weak argument.
 
Then why have SNAP (food stamps) instead of simply forcing food providers to serve the poor at little or no cost?

I am not sure exactly how the accounting on that works, but at the very least it is a tax write off which means they recuperate some of the costs. Without looking it up, I would guess they get substantial tax breaks for that.
 
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 should give emergency care to people, regardless of their ability to pay.
 
Back
Top Bottom