• 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
Yes, so what would make the claims sterile? I imagine it will be some sort of coercion that will bring this about, yes?

Oh, believe me, you will definitely find out.

There was an old Led Zeppelin song that had some lyrics

The train is at the station
Leaving for your destination
But the price you pay to nowhere
Has increased a dollar more
And if you walk you're gonna get there
Tho it takes a little longer
And when you see it in the distance
You will wring your hands and moan
 
Do you think the poor have a right to life, and therefore emergency medical care?

I do not believe they have the right to obtain or demand professional professional services of any type without compensating the service provider, however I do believe that the public at large should consent to paying through taxes the cost of emergency medical care for the indigent.
 
Do you think the poor have a right to life, and therefore emergency medical care?

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)[1] is an act of the United States Congress, passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals that accept payments from Medicare to provide emergency health care treatment to anyone needing it regardless of citizenship, legal status, or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions.
 
Do you think the poor have a right to life, and therefore emergency medical care?

Let's take this a little further:

The poor have a right to life, therefore:

They have a right to free medical care.

By that light they have a right to free food, clothing and shelter and the rest of us are forced to provide it.

No, there can be no right to medical care because it would mean other people are forced to provide that care, other people are stripped of their rights. What if the others refused to provide that care? Would they be thrown in jail? You can't enslave one group to provide for another.

In our society we often choose to care for poor people out of a sense of charity. We choose to do this through the democratic process in which our preferences are represented. But if that care is a right then there's no choice about whether to provide it. This is not sustainable.
 
I think that in any advanced and civilized society, that yes even the poor deserve and should receive emergency medical care. They are human beings and we have the means and capacity to help them. And if we’re such a “Christian” nation, how could it be any other way? In general, I think we should have a for real universal healthcare system that is open to all citizens and provides some amount of basic medical care.

Saying we should provide for such people and saying that they have a right to be provided for are two different things.
 
Let's take this a little further:

The poor have a right to life, therefore:

They have a right to free medical care.

By that light they have a right to free food, clothing and shelter and the rest of us are forced to provide it.

No, there can be no right to medical care because it would mean other people are forced to provide that care, other people are stripped of their rights. What if the others refused to provide that care? Would they be thrown in jail? You can't enslave one group to provide for another.

In our society we often choose to care for poor people out of a sense of charity. We choose to do this through the democratic process in which our preferences are represented. But if that care is a right then there's no choice about whether to provide it. This is not sustainable.

Comparing free food and clothing with emergency medical care is ridiculous.
 
Let's take this a little further:

The poor have a right to life, therefore:

They have a right to free medical care.

By that light they have a right to free food, clothing and shelter and the rest of us are forced to provide it.

No, there can be no right to medical care because it would mean other people are forced to provide that care, other people are stripped of their rights. What if the others refused to provide that care? Would they be thrown in jail? You can't enslave one group to provide for another.

In our society we often choose to care for poor people out of a sense of charity. We choose to do this through the democratic process in which our preferences are represented. But if that care is a right then there's no choice about whether to provide it. This is not sustainable.

Emergency care is a humanitarian given, it's also the law since the Reagan administration.
 
Hmmm... I wonder... if forcing someone to provide medical care against their wishes is wrong, what does this mean regarding taxes?

:popcorn:

Taxes are decided through the democratic process in which we are all represented. Of course, paying taxes is the law, but we get to help decide what the law is. Declaring medical care a right is totally different. In that case we the people would have no choice about whether or not to provide it. We do choose to help poor people out, but that's not because they have a right to that help.
 
Emergency care is a humanitarian given, it's also the law since the Reagan administration.

It's the law, but it's not a right. It's humanitarian, but not because it's a right.
 
Comparing free food and clothing with emergency medical care is ridiculous.

It's completely on point. In all three cases someone else is being forced to provide it because it's someone's "right" to have it because they have a "right to life" by your lights. It is an execrable concept.

You have a right to be free of unwarranted intrusion and harm. That's all.
 
Do you think the poor have a right to life, and therefore emergency medical care?

well right to life is not right to emergency care but with that side I do think hospitals should have to save lives and give emergency care.

This is based on the assumption we are talking immediate life threatening, critical care etc.

It should definitely not be legal for EMS/Hospitals to refuse to save lives based on insurance/money.

Again I'm talking emergency care.
 
It's completely on point. In all three cases someone else is being forced to provide it because it's someone's "right" to have it because they have a "right to life" by your lights.

No it is not on point. Emergency medical care and free food and clothes are COMPLETELY different things.
 
Comparing free food and clothing with emergency medical care is ridiculous.

agreed, while right to life doesn't mean a right to emergency medical care, making a comparison to that care to free food, clothing housing etc makes no logical sense whatsoever. Its one of the worse slipper slope fallacies i have ever seen.
 
No it is not on point. Emergency medical care and free food and clothes are COMPLETELY different things.

Concrete thinking. All three are things of value.
 
agreed, while right to life doesn't mean a right to emergency medical care, making a comparison to that care to free food, clothing housing etc makes no logical sense whatsoever. Its one of the worse slipper slope fallacies i have ever seen.

If you have a right to receive something of value from me then why stop at free medical care?
 
well right to life is not right to emergency care but with that side I do think hospitals should have to save lives and give emergency care.

This is based on the assumption we are talking immediate life threatening, critical care etc.

It should definitely not be legal for EMS/Hospitals to refuse to save lives based on insurance/money.

Again I'm talking emergency care.

Through the democratic process we have decided that emergency care must be provided. This could be withdrawn by an act of the legislature. If it's a right then the legislature can't do that. That's the rub.
 
It's the law, but it's not a right. It's humanitarian, but not because it's a right.

I didn't say it was a right. I said it is the right thing to do, and as the right thing to do, not doing it shouldn't be discussed, and it's the law, so both of those things trump your argument. Other than that, no person, group or country for that matter has any rights that they lack the power to force. Only by a measure of force, whether political, economic or violence/militarily can one hold a right.
 
Emergency care is a humanitarian given, it's also the law since the Reagan administration.

Why did you bold the word emergency as if it matters? Forcing someone to provide someone else care still violates their rights even in an emergency situation.
 
I didn't say it was a right. I said it is the right thing to do, and as the right thing to do, not doing it shouldn't be discussed, and it's the law, so both of those things trump your argument. Other than that, no person, group or country for that matter has any rights that they lack the power to force. Only by a measure of force, whether political, economic or violence/militarily can one hold a right.

Lol, so it being the right thing to do means people should be forced to do it? I love how people are lazy with their logic sometimes. :lamo
 
If you have a right to receive something of value from me then why stop at free medical care?

and thats where the failure and illogical part is since i never said i have the right to receive something from you. Try to stick to things that were actually said
 
Through the democratic process we have decided that emergency care must be provided. This could be withdrawn by an act of the legislature. If it's a right then the legislature can't do that. That's the rub.

again, where did i say anything regarding this topic was a right? I never did so theres the rub.
 
again, where did i say anything regarding this topic was a right? I never did so theres the rub.

If you don't have the right to receive care why should it be mandated?
 
Concrete thinking. All three are things of value.

doesnt make them the same in any regard to this topic and value is subjective :shrug:
The comparison makes no sense and is completely illogical. Its one of the worst slippery slope fallacies i have ever seen.
 
Do you think the poor have a right to life, and therefore emergency medical care?

I think you have mixed three wholly seperate arguments.

Should hospitals be forced to provide emergency medical care to the poor? No. I do think a responsible hospital should provide emergency care to the needy on a voluntary basis - it's their mission. "Making" them do it demeans their value of preserving life.

Do I think the poor have a right to life? Absolutely; if you kill a poor person you should be tried and convicted the same as if you murdered a rich person.

Do I think the poor have a right to emergency medical care? I don't think I do. I see emergency medical care as a gift and a priviledge. If you can afford it, it is a priviledge paid for. If you can't afford it, it is a gift given out of compassion by those who value your life.
 
If you don't have the right to receive care why should it be mandated?

correct you don't have the right to receive care nor do i want "receiving care" mandated
 
Back
Top Bottom