• 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 government engages other humans in protecting the right to life of its citizens all the time. That is a weak argument.

Apparently, don't understand what the right to life means.
 
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".

That is an interesting case. I was not aware of that. My understanding is that the majority in that opinion felt that because of precedence and a so called "well established" tradition of police discretion that there was no such duty to protect in that case. I would say that is very disturbing, because if the citizens cannot count on police protection from physical harm from other people, then that means that the law of the west is in place.

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."

I disagree. The government makes use of private actors all of the time. There is no good reason why it could not make use of hospitals to sustain a person's life.
 
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.

I agree. Although it has been put forward that the government is not duty bound to protect the lives of its citizens, I would disagree with that because if that is so, then citizens must rely primarily on their own means of protection, even from physical harm from other citizens. And if that is the case, then government is merely facilitating the usurping of the resources of nature by those with wealth. That is not government, that is robbery. Such a government is merely aiding thieves and is not worthy of the name "government."
 
OK, what is it that I don't understand?

Your right to life means you have a right to a life of your own, lived according to your own judgment and actions. You seem to think that a right to life means a guarantee of survival granted by your fellow man. Your right to life requires nothing of me, nor does my right to life impose any burden upon you.
 
Your right to life means you have a right to a life of your own, lived according to your own judgment and actions. You seem to think that a right to life means a guarantee of survival granted by your fellow man. Your right to life requires nothing of me, nor does my right to life impose any burden upon you.

No, that is not necessarily so. People get disease sometimes due to no fault of their own for one thing. The next thing is that even if it is their fault, because the government is placing restrictions on their behavior, they should expect something from the government in return. It is not a one way street where the government simply takes and gives nothing in return, except to the wealthy.
 
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.

Hmmm. That's interesting. I had not heard of that idea before. What happens if they are homeless or unemployed?
 
No, that is not necessarily so. People get disease sometimes due to no fault of their own for one thing.
So. The fact that you come down with an illness does not grant you some sort of power over a doctor.
The next thing is that even if it is their fault, because the government is placing restrictions on their behavior, they should expect something from the government in return. It is not a one way street where the government simply takes and gives nothing in return, except to the wealthy.
The government shouldn't be taking, demanding and placing restrictions on a free people.
 
So. The fact that you come down with an illness does not grant you some sort of power over a doctor.

That is true. But if you have a disease that requires emergency treatment, the government can require hospitals to give you that treatment in the name of protecting its citizens. Of course, the hospital should be compensated by the government for doing such, if the patient cannot pay.

The government shouldn't be taking, demanding and placing restrictions on a free people.

They should avoid such. However, that is essentially what governments do. They restrict people. Otherwise, they serve no practical purpose.
 
That is true. But if you have a disease that requires emergency treatment, the government can require hospitals to give you that treatment in the name of protecting its citizens. Of course, the hospital should be compensated by the government for doing such, if the patient cannot pay.
The government can require anything because they have a monopoly on the use of force. But the role of the government of a free society is to protect the rights of each citizen. And the fact is, doctors are citizens too and are equal in their rights. That means the decision on how when and where and upon whom they wish to perform that service is up to them, THAT is the doctors right. Lets say I invent a cure for cancer. Can the government force me to share it with the world? If so, what happened to my rights?
 
tumblr_n25yvffttK1rfizp5o1_500.jpg
 
This is kind of a stupid debate. I don't care what arguments one can put forth against the notion that everyone has a right to life saving emergency care, because unless you have a psychopath in charge of hospital admitting, if someone shows up needing life saving care, they are going to get it regardless of their ability to pay.

For crying out loud what kind of a fantasy world does someone live in if they think someone will get turned down for life saving care if they can't pay for it? If I am sitting there in charge of admitting and a someone is brought in just having been hit by a car, I am going to ensure they get lifesaving care even if they don't have a cent to their name because ultimately i have to be able to sleep at night.

So lets just accept the reality that hospitals are not going to staff a bunch of psychopaths in their emergency rooms. Thus the poor are going to get emergency care and we just need to accept that reality.
 
This is kind of a stupid debate. I don't care what arguments one can put forth against the notion that everyone has a right to life saving emergency care, because unless you have a psychopath in charge of hospital admitting, if someone shows up needing life saving care, they are going to get it regardless of their ability to pay.

For crying out loud what kind of a fantasy world does someone live in if they think someone will get turned down for life saving care if they can't pay for it? If I am sitting there in charge of admitting and a someone is brought in just having been hit by a car, I am going to ensure they get lifesaving care even if they don't have a cent to their name because ultimately i have to be able to sleep at night.

So lets just accept the reality that hospitals are not going to staff a bunch of psychopaths in their emergency rooms. Thus the poor are going to get emergency care and we just need to accept that reality.

Most of the time that is true but I have heard stories of people dying in ambulances in large cities because the hospitals refused to accept the patient and the EMT's were stuck driving around with a dying person trying to find a hospital who would take them, or people having to be transported past for-profit hospitals to get to the hospitals that take indigent patients.
 
Hmmm. That's interesting. I had not heard of that idea before. What happens if they are homeless or unemployed?

In those cases a safety net type coverage would apply. The alternative, as is presently the case (or recently the case,) is no coverage, they still get treated but pass the cost on to the rest of us in the form unreasonable hospital expenses like $10 a pill Tylenol, etc. as hospitals recoup costs. This is also usually at the hospital emergency room, the most expensive place to get treated and often long after a condition has so far progressed it requires very expensive treatment options because the patient put it off so long because they couldn't afford to see a do tired routinely back when it's was inexpensive to treat.
 

By any chance did you notice that the 3 examples of alleged dumping were against the law. Again, we've provided a solution to a problem that didn't exist. And by the way, my doctor opted to form a concierge medical practice rather than get involved in the ACA. And they now longer take Medicare.
 
I agree. Although it has been put forward that the government is not duty bound to protect the lives of its citizens, I would disagree with that because if that is so, then citizens must rely primarily on their own means of protection, even from physical harm from other citizens. And if that is the case, then government is merely facilitating the usurping of the resources of nature by those with wealth. That is not government, that is robbery. Such a government is merely aiding thieves and is not worthy of the name "government."

I find that very often when someone suggest that "Everyone should help out with that." they actually mean that those who work harder and smarter than I should help out more than me or help out instead of me. And then they claim that those "other's" are greedy when they suggest that everyone has an obligation to at least try to do for themselves.
 
Most of the time that is true but I have heard stories of people dying in ambulances in large cities because the hospitals refused to accept the patient and the EMT's were stuck driving around with a dying person trying to find a hospital who would take them, or people having to be transported past for-profit hospitals to get to the hospitals that take indigent patients.

Another reason to enact single payer
 
The government can require anything because they have a monopoly on the use of force. But the role of the government of a free society is to protect the rights of each citizen. And the fact is, doctors are citizens too and are equal in their rights. That means the decision on how when and where and upon whom they wish to perform that service is up to them, THAT is the doctors right. Lets say I invent a cure for cancer. Can the government force me to share it with the world? If so, what happened to my rights?

Although the role of the government in a "free" society is to protect the rights of each citizen, in practical terms that means that the government is forced to balance the competing interests of citizens in their attempt to exercise their rights. For example although I have the right to live, I cannot go and cultivate the land of another citizen in order to grow crops to sustain my existence. Furthermore although I have the right to free speech, I cannot use that free speech to incite someone else to use violence to take the right of another citizen. In a similar way, although a doctor has rights, the government can force that doctor to save the life of another citizen in order to protect that citizen's right to life. That doctor should certainly be compensated for his services. As such, forcing hospitals to give medical care to those who are poor is not necessarily a violation of the principles of a free society.
 
Do you think the poor have a right to life, and therefore emergency medical care?

I find this a very odd question and would like to know why you ask. If you don't mind.
 
I say all hospitals should have a lottery system for emergency. You take a number when you walk/crawl/are wheeled in. Every hour on the hour they have a draw. the winner gets first class, Cadillac-style care. The second gets very good care. The third gets emergency care only. Everyone else is shoved out the door.
But they are free to come in and try their luck again.

And every once in a while, someone gets the mega jackpot. That means they get whatever they have fixed and get free plastic surgery to fix any one part of their exterior they ain't gaga about. Plus, they get a massage every 8 hours for the length of their stay AND they get a new iPhone, iPad, Mac and an 'i'Watch.


Obviously the above is total bull ****.
 
I find that very often when someone suggest that "Everyone should help out with that." they actually mean that those who work harder and smarter than I should help out more than me or help out instead of me. And then they claim that those "other's" are greedy when they suggest that everyone has an obligation to at least try to do for themselves.

I would point out that it is not necessarily the case the one person is wealthier than another simply because one has worked smarter or harder.
 
I find this a very odd question and would like to know why you ask. If you don't mind.

To see what other's opinions are and to have a discussion. Perhaps there is something that I could learn. Actually I did learn that the Supreme Court feels that the police are not necessarily obligated to protect someone from physical harm at another citizen's hand. That is a big surprise for me.
 
I would say that is very disturbing,
Nothing disturbing about it.



then that means that the law of the west is in place.
:doh
It means no such thing.


Maybe you should view it from the spectrum of liability.
You can not say a citizen is entitled to such because circumstances always vary.
The police, fire, ambulance may not make it in time or be unavailable, detained etc..
To create a requirement would create a liability if they were unable to show up and perform.


I disagree. The government makes use of private actors all of the time. There is no good reason why it could not make use of hospitals to sustain a person's life.
The government using private actors does not mean you have a right to them or to other private actors the government isn't using.


I agree. Although it has been put forward that the government is not duty bound to protect the lives of its citizens, I would disagree with that because if that is so, then citizens must rely primarily on their own means of protection, even from physical harm from other citizens. And if that is the case, then government is merely facilitating the usurping of the resources of nature by those with wealth. That is not government, that is robbery. Such a government is merely aiding thieves and is not worthy of the name "government."
Maybe you are not understanding the purpose of a government?
It is there to govern, not take care of you.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom