Do you think the poor have a right to life, and therefore emergency medical care?
Do you think the poor have a right to life, and therefore emergency medical care?
A right to life does not include a right to outside interference to sustain it.Do you think the poor have a right to life, and therefore emergency medical care?
Do you think the poor have a right to life, and therefore emergency medical care?
Of course. I thought hospitals could refuse no one?
Most do this voluntarily - you might want to research first prior to posting.
A right to life does not include a right to outside interference to sustain it.
That said, sure, and they should be held accountable for the cost.
You might want to read with comprehension before making stupid posts. The question was not "do they" it was "should they."
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.
A hospital had to ****ing keep an anancephalic baby alive for as long as possible because the ****ing parents said so. People need to pay for their ****, I don't care what it is.
They already do this, so your point is moot.
They did not have to provide care beyond stabilizing a patient and transferring them to somewhere that would treat them if they would not and the federal government used to give hospitals a subsidy in exchange for that which was eliminated by the PPACA as part of its funding mechanism. The money was reallocated to cover costs of insurances.
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.
Your point is stupid.
Should hospitals be forced to give emergency care to the poor?
Do you think the poor have a right to life, and therefore emergency medical care?
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."
As long as they don't die, I figure that as taking care. Sure they deserve more than that, but business has to profit.
Do you think the poor have a right to life, and therefore emergency medical care?
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."
Doesn't the government have the responsibility to protect the lives of its citizens? As such, forcing hospitals to give emergency care to the poor does not seem to be unreasonable.