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.
Sure they have that right. I never said otherwise.
And regardless if they are insured or not, they can get treated.
Obtaining health insurance will remain voluntary -
GD.. the problem is your right to chose NOT to have health insurance.. then affects OTHERS rights.. ..
Why.. that person that gets sick and decided.. because it was his "right" NOT to have health insurance.. STILL gets treated..
WE treat the uninsured because we realize that it is the HUMANE thing to do.. because it is his RIGHT to his LIFE and therefore we should not deny him his LIFE by turning him away for treatment...
But then that person never pays the bill.. and so who ends up paying hte consequences.. the rest of society.
If we didn't feel healthcare was a RIGHT we wouldn't be treating individuals that didn't have the means to pay for it..
We don't hand out BMW's to people who can't pay for it? NOR do we (technically) give loans to people who would never be able to pay them back! and rightfully so.. because owning a BMW is not a right.. heck owning any care is not a right.. but we all have a right to obtain a driver's license!
BUT. the right to be TREATED IS JUST THAT a right.. and we treat it as such and administer treatment.. because it is INHUMANE to do otherwise.
So on the one hand your saying that health insurance is a priveledge but that treatment when your sick is a right ?? Kind of a little twisted..don't you think.. since health insurance is really the vehicle for someone to actually GET the healthcare without shifting the burden on to the rest of us? (like when they get a bill they can't pay.. etc.?)
And also. .if treatment were a "right" then why are so many people going without treatment or proper treatment (like needing to skimp on their meds) because they can't afford it. why are people then going sick and in some cases dying because they didn't or couldn't get the actual proper treatment that they have a "right " too ? If treatment is a right.. then we should all have the rigth to pay what we can afford for said treatment.. and in order to determine that shouldn't we as a society make up an acceptable amount (or percentage) that each person should be required to pay of their salary for said treatments that we all have the right to?
The argument that health insurance is a priveldge then makes no sense.. because you are then in essence saying healthcare is a privledge... yet we are treating it as a right and then absolving them of personal responsibilty... and actually forcing people to excercise their rights and then shifting the burden of that onto everyone else..
See.. I don't want free healthcare.. I just want what I deserve and have the rigth too (treatment) like anyone else.. and want to pay what I can for it based on what I have available too pay.
Last edited by TristansMommy; 05-06-2009 at 04:32 PM..
If you go back and read what I said - precedent is the key. Hence why I need Westlaw to do the search.
So you talked to some clerk at the AG's office.
Gotcha.
Show me the statue from the website. There is nothing in there whatsoever about accepting partial payments for medical debt. There is nothing on the internet whatsoever about it either.
Do you think that the AG office would give out incorrect information?
Let's bottom line this argument: Currently, acquiring health insurance is optional. Even if you have all the money in the world, you are not compelled to have health insurance. It is not mandated by government.
And, it is going to remain so.
There are going to be major proposed changes in the Congress that will make health insurance much more affordable. There will be provisions for those who are having financial difficulties acquiring health insurance - they will be able to get help. There more than likely will be the ability to access the same insurance that government employees can access.
But, bottom line - acquiring health insurance will be voluntary. That person who have all the money in the world will still have the right to not get health insurance if they don't want. Those that want health insurance - and need a little help financially, will also get that.
Show me the statue from the website. There is nothing in there whatsoever about accepting partial payments for medical debt. There is nothing on the internet whatsoever about it either.
Do you think that the AG office would give out incorrect information?
Your focusing on statute. Precedent is not a statute.
Frankly we are off topic here - when I can get to my office - I'll look it up. Til then, you can keep talking to yerself sparky
Let's bottom line this argument: Currently, acquiring health insurance is optional. Even if you have all the money in the world, you are not compelled to have health insurance. It is not mandated by government.
And, it is going to remain so.
There are going to be major proposed changes in the Congress that will make health insurance much more affordable. There will be provisions for those who are having financial difficulties acquiring health insurance - they will be able to get help. There more than likely will be the ability to access the same insurance that government employees can access.
But, bottom line - acquiring health insurance will be voluntary. That person who have all the money in the world will still have the right to not get health insurance if they don't want. Those that want health insurance - and need a little help financially, will also get that.
GD.. no one was arguing with you what is proposed or what it is now.. I do know the difference.
I certainly have the right to argue the merits of what I think it should've been and why
I am however pointing out why I feel it should be mandatory... and where I feel the legislation fall short.
I'd be curious as to what happens with the tort reform once the lawyers have their way with it...
FBI Probes Hacker's $10 Million Ransom Demand for Stolen Virginia Medical Records
The FBI is investigating a $10 million ransom demand by a hacker or hackers who say they have stolen nearly 8.3 million patient records from a Virginia government Web site that tracks prescription drug abuse, an FBI official confirmed Wednesday
FBI Probes Hacker's $10 Million Ransom Demand for Stolen Virginia Medical Records
The FBI is investigating a $10 million ransom demand by a hacker or hackers who say they have stolen nearly 8.3 million patient records from a Virginia government Web site that tracks prescription drug abuse, an FBI official confirmed Wednesday
You were the one who essentially said - it could not happen though
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.
