Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
She's not actually receiving medical care anymore, I believe. But, yes, I consider it a non-issue because hospitals should be able to use their money as they deem fit if it doesn't hurt anyone.
You make up things about "overcharging" other patients despite having no evidence at all, but what you really care about is the fact that ANYONE is treating an illegal immigrant with some amount of dignity. IT COULD HAVE BEEN A CITIZEN BEING TREATED WITH DIGNITY WHAT A WASTE!
Does this hospital receive fed, or state dollars to subsidize its operation? If it does then it has no right to pass on the costs associated with patient.
Does this hospital receive fed, or state dollars to subsidize its operation? If it does then it has no right to pass on the costs associated with patient.
They actually retain that right regardless. I brought this up before and no one mentioned it - does receiving ANY sort of government assistance mean that you must adhere to the principles of the posters at City Data?
I mean, if someone is receiving Social Security, do you no longer have the right to spend your money as you deem fit? What about recipients of the homeowners tax credit? What about farmers subsidized by the feds? I predict that I'll get excuses for all of these cases, because this "the government gave you some money and thus you must abide by our rules" rationale is being used only because you guys believe that it aids your argument. You don't actually believe in it as a principle.
They actually retain that right regardless. I brought this up before and no one mentioned it - does receiving ANY sort of government assistance mean that you must adhere to the principles of the posters at City Data?
I mean, if someone is receiving Social Security, do you no longer have the right to spend your money as you deem fit? What about recipients of the homeowners tax credit? What about farmers subsidized by the feds? I predict that I'll get excuses for all of these cases, because this "the government gave you some money and thus you must abide by our rules" rationale is being used only because you guys believe that it aids your argument. You don't actually believe in it as a principle.
SS is a benefit you pay into. Its your money your getting back.
Homeowners tax credit once again your money returned to you.
Farm subsidies. Hmmmm Pretty sure they arent allowed to buy illegal seeds like pot.
The point is the Hospital if it receives tax dollars doesn't have the right to pass on costs associated with housing illegals and providing care. If the board wishes to fund this out of their own pockets that's up to them.
The tax dollars a hospital receives is supposed to offset for catastrophic cases of legal citizens etc.
Now you want to tell me what I believe?
SS is a benefit you pay into. Its your money your getting back.
That's a pretty bad way of looking at it. First, current recipients are receiving more than they originally paid in. That won't be true in a few years, but it's a fact now.
Second, the whole point of SS is that people are terrible at saving money. If they weren't, we wouldn't need it. But people are so bad at handling their finances that the government actually does it better (think about that for a second). So even if people were getting as much as they paid in, the government would still be doing them a favor in most cases.
But we don't have to use SS or a tax credit (BTW, there is no real difference between a tax credit and a service in essence - both are money being taken out of taxes and given to you. Any service that costs less than your total tax burden could be turned into a tax credit with ease).
Let's just use Medicare as an example. You believe that when the government gives you money, it can to some extent tell you how to act. So what can the government make a Medicare recipient do? And keep in mind there is no evidence in this case that they are using federal or state or local funds to accommodate this woman, so any requirement would not be a string attached to the use of the money itself. If you receive Medicare and run a restaurant, can they now dictate who you serve to?
That's a pretty bad way of looking at it. First, current recipients are receiving more than they originally paid in. That won't be true in a few years, but it's a fact now.
Second, the whole point of SS is that people are terrible at saving money. If they weren't, we wouldn't need it. But people are so bad at handling their finances that the government actually does it better (think about that for a second). So even if people were getting as much as they paid in, the government would still be doing them a favor in most cases.
But we don't have to use SS or a tax credit (BTW, there is no real difference between a tax credit and a service in essence - both are money being taken out of taxes and given to you. Any service that costs less than your total tax burden could be turned into a tax credit with ease).
Let's just use Medicare as an example. You believe that when the government gives you money, it can to some extent tell you how to act. So what can the government make a Medicare recipient do? And keep in mind there is no evidence in this case that they are using federal or state or local funds to accommodate this woman, so any requirement would not be a string attached to the use of the money itself. If you receive Medicare and run a restaurant, can they now dictate who you serve to?
Bottom line: She is an illegal alien who has received long-term treatment for her medical condition, and no longer requires hospitalization. Nevertheless, she continues to occupy a hospital room, and receive services from paid hospital staff. Regardless of whether this hospital is or is not receiving government funding, there is absolutely no reason for this woman to remain hospitalized, let alone, in this country. She is here in violation of our laws, is making NO contribution to our tax base or anything else, and should be deported. Why are you so hell-bent on defending this?
That's a pretty bad way of looking at it. First, current recipients are receiving more than they originally paid in. That won't be true in a few years, but it's a fact now.
Second, the whole point of SS is that people are terrible at saving money. If they weren't, we wouldn't need it. But people are so bad at handling their finances that the government actually does it better (think about that for a second). So even if people were getting as much as they paid in, the government would still be doing them a favor in most cases.
But we don't have to use SS or a tax credit (BTW, there is no real difference between a tax credit and a service in essence - both are money being taken out of taxes and given to you. Any service that costs less than your total tax burden could be turned into a tax credit with ease).
Let's just use Medicare as an example. You believe that when the government gives you money, it can to some extent tell you how to act. So what can the government make a Medicare recipient do? And keep in mind there is no evidence in this case that they are using federal or state or local funds to accommodate this woman, so any requirement would not be a string attached to the use of the money itself. If you receive Medicare and run a restaurant, can they now dictate who you serve to?
Your analogy fails. Now if they gave me money for my resturant to offset operating costs that laws imposed upon me then yes they should be able to dictate certain things. For example I get money to grow and sell only organic foods or to purchase only organics . The purpose of the money was to offset the additional cost of dealing in organic foods. Yes the Gov has a right to deny me passing the costs on to my customers. Guess what they do it in the dairy industry already.
Your analogy fails. Now if they gave me money for my resturant to offset operating costs that laws imposed upon me then yes they should be able to dictate certain things. For example I get money to grow and sell only organic foods or to purchase only organics . The purpose of the money was to offset the additional cost of dealing in organic foods. Yes the Gov has a right to deny me passing the costs on to my customers. Guess what they do it in the dairy industry already.
How does this distinction make the analogy fail, exactly?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
