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.
I was, and still am being facetious, but if people would sign that waiver and it was enforced we wouldn't need Obamacare or Universal healthcare.
how do you enforce something like that? and if someone does sign it and needs medical care, what happens? you let them die in the waiting room? isn't that against the doctor's his hippocratic oath or something? I'm trying to assess the practicality of such an arrangement. It's easy to say "well, we'll just have people sign something and enforce it" without getting into the bits and bytes. Also, what is the cost of implementing such a thing?
how do you enforce something like that? and if someone does sign it and needs medical care, what happens? you let them die in the waiting room? isn't that against the doctor's his hippocratic oath or something? I'm trying to assess the practicality of such an arrangement. It's easy to say "well, we'll just have people sign something and enforce it" without getting into the bits and bytes. Also, what is the cost of implementing such a thing?
Again, I was being facetious. Obviously such a plan is both unenforceable and inhumane. As for cost, well it s free as long as hospitals don't have a problem with people dying in their waiting rooms or the occasional John Q(Denzel Washington 2002) type of response.
I was originally being flippant because suggesting that that the government should have no say in what we put in our bodies is shortsighted as eventually it will impact you and me in the form of higher healthcare costs in the short term and more taxes if we are talking Medicare or Medicaid in the long term.
Again, I was being facetious. Obviously such a plan is both unenforceable and inhumane. As for cost, well it s free as long as hospitals don't have a problem with people dying in their waiting rooms or the occasional John Q(Denzel Washington 2002) type of response.
I was originally being flippant because suggesting that that the government should have no say in what we put in our bodies is shortsighted as eventually it will impact you and me in the form of higher healthcare costs in the short term and more taxes if we are talking Medicare or Medicaid in the long term.
I just like to think logically when people come up with ideas. "Just make them sign a waiver" - as if it were that easy, lol.
A friend of mine posted on FB "I'm sorry but if you live in Tornado Alley it should be mandatory to have shelters". Nice in theory, but who's going to pay (among other issues). Notoriously conservative Oklahomans? Don't think so! Besides, no shelter I think has a prayer against and F4 or F5 tornado.
Not to derail the thread too much, but I read that it's costing more to test welfare recipients for drugs than it is in monies they are not paying to people who test positive. Just one of a thousand "penny wise pound foolish" moves we make.
how do you enforce something like that? and if someone does sign it and needs medical care, what happens? you let them die in the waiting room? isn't that against the doctor's his hippocratic oath or something? I'm trying to assess the practicality of such an arrangement. It's easy to say "well, we'll just have people sign something and enforce it" without getting into the bits and bytes. Also, what is the cost of implementing such a thing?
Maybe the IRS could enforce the waiver. Haven't they been entrusted with enforcing the Obamacare "mandate"? At least we can rest well knowing the IRS is a honest arm of the gov't that would never go rogue or mishandle our most private records.
how do you enforce something like that? and if someone does sign it and needs medical care, what happens? you let them die in the waiting room? isn't that against the doctor's hippocratic oath or something?
That is exactly what presidential candidate Ron Paul suggested during one of the debates.
The resulting round of catcalls seemed to surprise him, despite the reality that his stated position would be a violation of the oath that he took when he became an MD.
So, in Seattle I can stroke my LEGALLY carried Ruger .22 lite pistol while smoking cannabis and hugging a girl who is legally topless under our giant statue of Lenin, but in Jersey I can't legally smoke an e-cig or even get my back waxed.
And the folks at home have the nerve to ask if I'm ever moving back
Maybe the IRS could enforce the waiver. Haven't they been entrusted with enforcing the Obamacare "mandate"? At least we can rest well knowing the IRS is a honest arm of the gov't that would never go rogue or mishandle our most private records.
This is actually interesting. As a Libertarian I agree with you but if you get sick as result of something you put in your body and you go the hospital without insurance, who pays? First the hospital, then they pass it on to us in the form of higher costs and higher insurance premiums. Anything leftover the government picks up, again with money from you and me.
If every American would sign a waiver refusing any care(other than what they can pay for themselves) for sickness resulting from what they put in their bodies I would be fine with your position.
So who pays when one is an alcoholic and has signed the waiver and the people in the vehicle that the drunk just slammed into is full of people who have signed the same waiver but don't use tobacco or liquor? Who pays for their medical needs or funerals the drunk or will they have to pay for it themselves since they signed the waiver?
how do you enforce something like that? and if someone does sign it and needs medical care, what happens? you let them die in the waiting room?
You've got only two consistent choices. One is that the government has an interest in absolutely everything, that there is no sphere of individual private action. The other is that sometimes people must be left to die as the consequences of their actions. Pick your poison.
A friend of mine posted on FB "I'm sorry but if you live in Tornado Alley it should be mandatory to have shelters". Nice in theory, but who's going to pay (among other issues). Notoriously conservative Oklahomans? Don't think so! Besides, no shelter I think has a prayer against and F4 or F5 tornado.
Actually tornado shelters do an excellent job against tornados, including F5. True dedicated tornado shelters are underground, well built and fortified. I can attest to that personally having spent my college years in "tornado alley" and surviving a hit from an F4 in an underground shelter. None of us in the shelter were injured at all, while a woman across the street who took shelter in an interior small windowless room on the first floor of a commercial bldg (restaurant) was killed.
KoalaNJ
Last edited by KoalaNJ; 05-22-2013 at 12:14 AM..
Reason: correct spelling
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.
