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.
Private ownership is archaic and abnormal...both physically and intellectually (which is one in the same).
Human thought is a byproduct of the natural world. Same goes for elements.
The idea a person or group can limit/exploit certain aspects of these natural occurrences and others cannot is the height of absurdity.
Private non-profit ownership is OK by me. Many hospitals were established by churches. Many rural areas would not have a hospital if it weren't for church-owned hospitals.
Show me some proof of a creator, and I'll happily embrace him.
Among animals, some have sharp teeth and claws, some have a nifty exoskeleton to protect them from predators and some have grown a bigger brain, capable of abstract thinking and inventing deities.
And some have smaller brains, incapable of grasping the big picture.
We as a society collectively can determine that providing healthcare is in the common best interest of society. In our country we elect representatives who in theory vote the will of the people.
In the case of the ACA, every single poll indicated that the majority of the country, by a large margin, was opposed to the legislation as they understood it. In a representative society, it should not have passed. The ACA is not health insurance or national health like they have in other countries - in those countries citizens at every income level pay into their social programs. They have a tax structure more regressive than the US.
The ACA was rammed down the throats of America. The national leadership made it clear they would not support any democrat who didn't vote with the party. The final vote was a democrat who was literally bribed; that man today works as a CEO for the healthcare industry for a salary in excess of $1.0 million per year.
If the liberals want national health, then they need to put forward a plan that appeases the concerns of all Americans, and does not step on the individual freedoms and liberty we in the US enjoy. There are solutions in the middle.
I support a basic national health plan funded by a payroll tax that everyone pays. I support eliminating all refundable tax credits. I don't have a problem with a progressive tax system; as a high income and affluent citizen, I recognize I am fortunate. The decision is mine, however. I have no right to force my view or will on others without following our established protocol.
Where the liberals fail is they continue to demand more from me while offering up less from themselves. If the country wasn't running trillion+ deficits and trillions in debt, then perhaps me and the Evil Koch brothers wouldn't care. But given your track record, you will simply expect me to pick up your bar tab after drinking yourself into a stupor, and then call me a greedy SOB because I call the bartender and cut you off.
That it will have better health care than any other country that does not consider it that way.
If most people can't access it, how good is it?
Trying to frame this outside the tired conservative-liberal dichotomy that gets us nowhere. To me the issue is more the fraud that the government knows to be happening, but too many hands in the cookie jar are the same hands in the government. It's highly corrupt and it benefits nobody in the general public for sure.
What you are seeing is the sunset of "negative liberties," and sunrise of "positive liberties." Positive liberties are not liberties at all, but rather a form of servitude. But, that's what this society seems to want and that's what it will get, until a new generation "gets it," wipes the slate clean and starts over. And the beat goes on and on and on.
The hospital is not required to do anything but the emergency room is required to stabilize because a person in extremis cannot legally make his own decisions. So the patient is stabilized in order to find out further information. The hospital is under no obligation to further treat the patient if the patient can't pay.
Health care is not a right.
EMTALA spells out the mandated 'RIGHTS' of all PERSONS in the USA as defined by our laws. The patient is stabilized in the interests of the patient, not for the ER or hospital.
The patient is cared for until medically stable, and subsequently can be transferred if there is a responsible party accepting the patient.
An emergency or unstable patient can only be transferred by that patient's own wishes, or if the initial ER/facility is not capable of handling that particular medical/surgical problem.
EMTALA spells out the mandated 'RIGHTS' of all PERSONS in the USA
No, it spells out a mandate for what we must give them whether they deserve it or not, whether they have any "right" to it or not.
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.
