• 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
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

Actually yes. Because people are lazy and often fail to do the right thing. That's why we have LAWS. In fact, if men were angels, that is to say, if men were always to do the right thing, we wouldn't even have a constitution, as a couple of framers noted. We have the peoples bill of rights, which protects American citizens (well, it's suppose to anyway) from government excess, over reach, for the stated purpose above. The very fact that the 1986 law came into effect was because some hospitals were not doing the right thing.
 
Actually yes. Because people are lazy and often fail to do the right thing. That's why we have LAWS. In fact, if men were angels, that is to say, if men were always to do the right thing, we wouldn't even have a constitution, as a couple of framers noted. We have the peoples bill of rights, which protects American citizens (well, it's suppose to anyway) from government excess, over reach, for the stated purpose above. The very fact that the 1986 law came into effect was because some hospitals were not doing the right thing.

Well, that is just saying a bunch of nothing.
 
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.

Hospitals have a right to not receive Medicare benefits I suppose, and then turn people away. But governments first responsibility is to the general welfare of the people. What could be more beneficial to ones welfare then providing support during a health emergency. As the administrator of Medicare, the government provides funding to many hospitals, hospitals that they want to make sure are providing emergency care to all within our borders, even if they have no proof of citizenship.
 
Hospitals have a right to not receive Medicare benefits I suppose, and then turn people away. But governments first responsibility is to the general welfare of the people. What could be more beneficial to ones welfare then providing support during a health emergency. As the administrator of Medicare, the government provides funding to many hospitals, hospitals that they want to make sure are providing emergency care to all within our borders, even if they have no proof of citizenship.

So what, because they accept Medicare they must serve people? Is that it? Do you wish to define the term "general welfare" and what the founders meant by that term?
 
So what, because they accept Medicare they must serve people? Is that it? Do you wish to define the term "general welfare" and what the founders meant by that term?

Yes, they must. And there's a HUGE list of rules that doctors and hospitals must do if they take Medicare. Owning a medical billing company, I'm intimate with many of them.
 
Yes, they must. And there's a HUGE list of rules that doctors and hospitals must do if they take Medicare. Owning a medical billing company, I'm intimate with many of them.

Do you have anything besides the law to support your position? Sorry, but I consider what you're doing a fallacy and not worth my time to deal with.
 
what poll? can you link it?

The title of the thread is as follows, "Should hospitals be forced to give emergency care to the poor?". Do you perhaps realize that people are the ones that provide the care?
 
1.)The title of the thread is as follows, "Should hospitals be forced to give emergency care to the poor?".
2.) Do you perhaps realize that people are the ones that provide the care?

1.) yes correct that is the title
2.) i simply realize that what you stated and what the thread title is are factually not the same but now i see where you are making your mistake

hospitals having to give emergency care =/= mandating care

let me know if theres anything else i can help you out with you're welcome
 
1.) yes correct that is the title
2.) i simply realize that what you stated and what the thread title is are factually not the same but now i see where you are making your mistake

hospitals having to give emergency care =/= mandating care

let me know if theres anything else i can help you out with you're welcome

Exactly how does that make sense? :lamo
 
Exactly how does that make sense? :lamo
I agree 100% and it is hilarious you thought they were the same or what you said made any sense what so ever since facts, english and definitions of words all show otherwise.
You're welcome
 
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.

You really should wiki that and read the specifics. It's not an all access pass.
 
You really should wiki that and read the specifics. It's not an all access pass.

No, it's not an all access pass. Who suggested it was, hmm? It's for ****ing emergencies, not headaches and stubbed toes.
 
again, where did i say anything regarding this topic was a right? I never did so theres the rub.

Whether or not emergency medical care is a right is the topic of this thread.
 
Concrete thinking. All three are things of value.

Its distorted thinking. For one thing, the price of food and clothing are vastly different than emergency medical care. As an example, one of my kids was hit while riding a bike by a man who was about 80 years old that did not have on his glasses. It cost around $70,000 for a three or four day hospital stay. In contrast you could by a $3 bag of rice and a $3 bag of beans that would last you that long or maybe longer. So your thinking is distorted.
 
Whether or not emergency medical care is a right is the topic of this thread.

Ill ask you again, try not to dodge it, where did i say it was a right lol
 
It depends what kind of care. Are we talking about life-saving care? That is they are dying on spot if so yes otherwise no.
 
Do you have anything besides the law to support your position? Sorry, but I consider what you're doing a fallacy and not worth my time to deal with.

Lol. The laws not good enough for you huh? Dismissed.
 
I notice there are at least a couple who answered no, yet think the unborn should have the right to life. I guess it's true that right to life ends at birth, at least according to some, eh?
 
I notice there are at least a couple who answered no, yet think the unborn should have the right to life. I guess it's true that right to life ends at birth, at least according to some, eh?

Oh look, another person who doesn't understand that a right to life does not entitle you to the service or property of others. Not surprisingly, it's one of the pro-abort left-wingers.
 
Back
Top Bottom