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.
One thing that seems to neglected in our little debates over whether healthcare is a right or is optional is the question of choice. If you have a serous chronic health problem that might cost thousands of dollars a treatment , do you have a choice ? Can you choose not to be treated if the option is death? I have just such a problem and know if my treatment is interupted or otherwise becomes unavailable today I personally will be dead in from just a few weeks or at best a month from now. Now if Mr Paul and his ilk need an example of slavery and loss of freedom I submit my life as an example. To me slavery means a loss of freedom and choice and I have no choice and unless our technology changes will continue to have no choice. Most people in this healthcare debate have no real life threatening issue staring them in the face. They have never had Hobb's choice and I suggerst that until you have walked in the shoes of the millions of us who have faced death and in some cases have death as a constant companion like I do then the observations of such lucky people are the cheapest form of small talk from small minds.
That's very sad. You can't enslave people because you need to. You're not entitled to anyone's blood, sweat or tears because you need it.
"Freedom (n.): To ask nothing. To expect nothing. To depend on nothing."
Well keep in mind we do have a food stamp program and about 48 million Americans are on it. Now you personally could care less what happens to these people but others do.
You're right, I could care less. However, I magine you meant couldn't care less, in which case you would be wrong. But once again you confuse charity with rights. The right to food simply doesn't exist.
You seem to not realize that not all hospitals and medical facilities are required to follow the EMTALA law of 1986. Only those who accept PAYMENT from the federal government to do so.
There are numerous hospitals in this country not required to even give you a medical evaluation (albeit it a handfull). Its not a RIGHT to be treated, if it was, these facilities couldnt deny you service.
The VAST majority of hospitals in this country accept federal funds, e.g. Medicare, Medicaid, Hill-Burton, Tri-Care, etc.
The VAST majority of hospitals in this country accept federal funds, e.g. Medicare, Medicaid, Hill-Burton, Tri-Care, etc.
The fact that the VAST majority of hospitals accept federal funds, doesnt mean its a right.. The vast majority eat daily, have a home to sleep in, drive a car daily as well, but the vast majority doesnt mean a right exists..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
So you're saying YOU know some homeless employed physicians?
I'm saying I know why physicians are paid what the are..
The fact that the VAST majority of hospitals accept federal funds, doesnt mean its a right.. The vast majority eat daily, have a home to sleep in, drive a car daily as well, but the vast majority doesnt mean a right exists..
I'm saying I know why physicians are paid what the are..
Healthcare is not a right, regardless of how much anyone would argue that it is.
The fact that the VAST majority of hospitals accept federal funds, doesnt mean its a right.. The vast majority eat daily, have a home to sleep in, drive a car daily as well, but the vast majority doesnt mean a right exists..
I'm saying I know why physicians are paid what the are..
I wasn't talking about a right. I was referring to your post about the EMTALA.
I know the vast majority of hospitals take payment under EMTALA, I clearly posted that a handful of hospitals dont on my posting..
Oh, no you didn't. Here's what you said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
You seem to not realize that not all hospitals and medical facilities are required to follow the EMTALA law of 1986. Only those who accept PAYMENT from the federal government to do so.
There are numerous hospitals in this country not required to even give you a medical evaluation (albeit it a handfull). Its not a RIGHT to be treated, if it was, these facilities couldnt deny you service.
I clearly put (albeit it a handful) in brackets for a reason because numerous would be objective. If you think NO hospitals should deny treatment, then a handful would be too many .
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.
