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.
In the event a victim does not have sufficient health coverage or does not have their bill paid by another person or group of persons (such as a charity), they will have to pay any bills that are incurred from their care, and if they are incapable of paying they will have to go through bankruptcy, as anyone should if they cannot pay what they owe. When they made a choice about their insurance coverage, they weighed the costs and benefits and decided to take on certain risks, and to take the consequences of their choice. The case of the uninsured amputee is obvious - the risk did not pay off for him - but what about the person who took out health insurance and paid monthly premiums for 60 years for coverage he never used? His risk didn't pay off, either, but both made choices and bore the consequences of their choices. Liberty entitles people to make their own choices and to take risks; whether these risks pay off or not is a separate issue - the point is that it was their risk to take and their choice to make, not anyone else, and certainly not the state. Liberty applies to doctors and hospitals as much as it does to patients. Doctors have the right to bill high amounts for their services, but at the same time they also have the right to bill low amounts or nothing at all. There is nothing about liberty or libertarianism that precludes taking patients in on a charitable basis, or taking them in if they need care and taking the risk of not being reimbursed.
No_Recess seems to believe that libertarianism forces people to work for profit alone, but the whole point of libertarianism is that people have the freedom to choose whether they work for profit, work for charity, or do work of any kind. The generous charity is as libertarian as the greedy business - so long as there is no coercion involved, both are exercises in liberty and freedom to choose. Even in the absence of federal mandates, it is considered routine and proper for hospitals to treat those who need care even if they take a risk that they will not be paid back. It is their right to take on that risk and make that choice, as much as it is their patients' right to make choices and take risks with their insurance coverage.
That said, freedom of choice applies to everyone, so if a person or a group of people forming a charity wish to contribute money to pay their bills, then they are absolutely free to do so, and I for one would gladly welcome such an event. I believe I can say the same for most libertarians and most non-libertarians. The bottom line is that liberty does not mandate poverty and suffering. I hope that the users here who want state-funded medical care for the victims will make a financial contribution of their own - regardless of your views on health care, exercising your right to contribute to the care of the victims can only be a benefit to them.
I don't know if this would be a hijack but answer the question CNN asked Paul:
A five year old illegal w/o insurance walks into the ER in need of immediate care. Do we treat him?
I guess that is up to the hospital isn't it?
If it is a government run hospital, then... why do we have a government run hospital? Seems like if you are going to use the "libertarian scenario", you should use it appropriately, otherwise the question is a setup.
Rather than getting in the tit for tat argument about if taxation is " forcing you" or making a decision against your will, the fact is you are being taxed, that taxation isn't going to go away completely , so you should strive to have a voice in how those taxes are used best and demand that those in charge of these taxes use them wisely and with financial care and I can tell you of the taxes collected from me this year and every year I would like a percentage to be used for health care for those in need when other avenues fail.
BigDgeek's article shows a great example that while charity is a important part of the equation, just like anything not one side or system is fool proof and the idea of checks and balances just like in our government is best for filling the gaps. Example quotes from the article here showing even charity is not the fool proof best way all......
quote "Some bombing survivors contacted by the Tulsa World said they had no idea funds remained and were never contacted by the foundation to determine whether they had unmet needs. The fund isn't included on a list of funds on the community foundation's website.
"I was not aware there was any fund like this," said Beverly Rankin, who was injured in the bombing, in an email. "I doubt that I am the only one who knew nothing about it."
quote ""They want you to get to the point where you just say, 'Forget it.' I just got fed up to the point where I just stopped asking," she said.
quote "They told me he had to have five failed surgeries in the state of Oklahoma before they would pay for him to go out of state. That's ridiculous," she said.
quote "
While it is honorable that people donated and helped and surely some were helped by it as noted others are falling through the cracks of this charity and in those instances I don't see why taxes , yours and mine money collected shouldn't help these people. I'd much rather see my taxes help them then some other fool hearted uses that taxes are often used for.
Seems like an argument for submission.
It is like telling a woman that she is going to be raped anyway, so she should ask to be moved in a more comfortable position.
As for "falling through the cracks", this will happen regardless. Problem is, when you submit to a master, the choice is theirs, not yours. People have become comfortable with being ruled as such and can not think of any other means of living.
If it is a government run hospital, then... why do we have a government run hospital? Seems like if you are going to use the "libertarian scenario", you should use it appropriately, otherwise the question is a setup.
That was basically Paul's answer. Well, non-answer.
Ok. A five year old illegal w/o health insurance goes inside the ER of every single medical facility within the U.S. in need of immediate care.
In the event a victim does not have sufficient health coverage or does not have their bill paid by another person or group of persons (such as a charity), they will have to pay any bills that are incurred from their care, and if they are incapable of paying they will have to go through bankruptcy, as anyone should if they cannot pay what they owe. When they made a choice about their insurance coverage, they weighed the costs and benefits and decided to take on certain risks, and to take the consequences of their choice. The case of the uninsured amputee is obvious - the risk did not pay off for him - but what about the person who took out health insurance and paid monthly premiums for 60 years for coverage he never used? His risk didn't pay off, either, but both made choices and bore the consequences of their choices. Liberty entitles people to make their own choices and to take risks; whether these risks pay off or not is a separate issue - the point is that it was their risk to take and their choice to make, not anyone else, and certainly not the state. Liberty applies to doctors and hospitals as much as it does to patients. Doctors have the right to bill high amounts for their services, but at the same time they also have the right to bill low amounts or nothing at all. There is nothing about liberty or libertarianism that precludes taking patients in on a charitable basis, or taking them in if they need care and taking the risk of not being reimbursed.
No_Recess seems to believe that libertarianism forces people to work for profit alone, but the whole point of libertarianism is that people have the freedom to choose whether they work for profit, work for charity, or do work of any kind. The generous charity is as libertarian as the greedy business - so long as there is no coercion involved, both are exercises in liberty and freedom to choose. Even in the absence of federal mandates, it is considered routine and proper for hospitals to treat those who need care even if they take a risk that they will not be paid back. It is their right to take on that risk and make that choice, as much as it is their patients' right to make choices and take risks with their insurance coverage.
That said, freedom of choice applies to everyone, so if a person or a group of people forming a charity wish to contribute money to pay their bills, then they are absolutely free to do so, and I for one would gladly welcome such an event. I believe I can say the same for most libertarians and most non-libertarians. The bottom line is that liberty does not mandate poverty and suffering. I hope that the users here who want state-funded medical care for the victims will make a financial contribution of their own - regardless of your views on health care, exercising your right to contribute to the care of the victims can only be a benefit to them.
You would have to define the word profit for me cuz like Red in Shawshank Redemption on the word rehabilitation I believe it to be a made-up word so people can wear a suit and have a job.
But I'd be open to alternative definitions. Same goes for charity.
Even major medical policies don't cover 100% of hospital care, and I would wager many of the victims are not from Massachusetts; the Boston Marathon attracts participants from across the US and around the world.
They should sue the Boston Police and city for negligence. The payout will pay for their medical care.
That was basically Paul's answer. Well, non-answer.
Ok. A five year old illegal w/o health insurance goes inside the ER of every single medical facility within the U.S. in need of immediate care.
Does he get care in all/none/some?
You are missing the point.
It is their decision.
Why is that a non-answer?
How about this...
Man comes up to your house in need of aid (food, medicine, etc...). Whose decision is it to render aid?
Is it yours? Or is it mine? Can I decide for you or do you make that decision yourself?
Paul answered correctly and you are missing the point that to respect liberty means we respect each individuals ability to choose. You can't choose for someone (ie force their hand) and respect liberty.
Now you can certainly hold the position that you think liberties are limited to your view as to what freedoms people should have, but then... are you any different than any other dictator or "good intending" tyrant out there? That is a subjective case to declaring ones self master.
Man comes up to your house in need of aid (food, medicine, etc...). Whose decision is it to render aid?
Is it yours? Or is it mine? Can I decide for you or do you make that decision yourself?
Paul answered correctly and you are missing the point that to respect liberty means we respect each individuals ability to choose. You can't choose for someone (ie force their hand) and respect liberty.
Now you can certainly hold the position that you think liberties are limited to your view as to what freedoms people should have, but then... are you any different than any other dictator or "good intending" tyrant out there? That is a subjective case to declaring ones self master.
I'm trying to differentiate between current law and law in your worldview.
Currently, by law, the child in question must receive services.
So if I'm understanding you right, and correct me if I'm wrong, you believe it is up to each individual hospital's choice whether the boy receives care or not.
This is why Paul looked like his normal crazy self. He couldn't understand a simple legal question.
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.
