It it acceptable to let someone die who cannot afford health care?

Okay. Fine. We can swap the word "allow" for "forced"

 

1.) I have killed my own animals and eaten them. No sweat.

2.) Thats really a non argument. Otherwise we wouldnt have any taxes at all of any kind what so ever for anything. After all. Is it stealing from somone who doesnt have a car to use their tax money to help pay for road repairs? Is it stealing from a person without children when you tax them to fund the local school system?


3.) To some extent this already happens. Hospitals have to eat all kinds of money from uninsured / cant pay people. Should a hospital require payment up front or be allowed to refuse to treat someone? Let them die in the doorway? What if that person is incapacitated?

The problem here is that they dont have to treat the underlying problems. Just the "emergency" situation. So if you walk into an ER with cancer for example, they dont have to do anything for you, for example.
.

 

So, you are suggesting that the uninsured in America are "forced" to "die," in spite of the Hill-Burton Act?

Do you really believe that?

Or is this just a talking point, impervious to all reality?

 

No.

But none of the options apply.

 

Why can't it be the government helps the doctors help and the hospital helps along with some charity donations from private citizens and maybe the guy has to throw in 5 bucks a week or some kind of money til he does die or retire?

 

for me it depends, to me its a personal responsibility thing. if something happened to the person that wasnt their fault i.e. freak accident,car accident they didnt cause,etc. etc. i dont think it would be fair to them at all to say "you are screwed" and i think they should be helped to the greatest extent possible.

but if you cause something upon yourself knowing you aint got a dime as far as health insurance and never cared anyways, then sorry charley...your damned fault and its not anyone elses responsibility to cater you because you (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up.

im a great believer in personal responsibility, and if you smoke your ass off and develope lung cancer and you dont have insurance.........well then thats your own damned fault as you shouldnt have been smoking if you cant pay for the ramifications. And thats coming from a smoker.

 

Not sure about your state, but in my state there are so many mandates piled on health plan providers that catastrophic coverage costs a small fortune as well. It's impossible to buy real healthcare insurance in California.

 

Why will he never be able to pay for it? Do you have a crystal ball, or is it simply not a high enough priority to him to take his new found lease on life and do the right thing by working to pay it back?

 

In other words the government created the problem and wants the people to demand more government to fix the problem.

 

I think, if private funds cannot be equitably gained, the government should pay for it and he should then pay the government back. So, I guess I'm tending toward 5, but if he can get money by other means (jobs outside of those offered by the government) he should be able to do so. Ultimately I stopped at option 2

 

"Government is good at one thing: It knows how to break your legs, hand you a crutch, and say, "See, if it weren't for the government, you wouldn't be able to walk."" - Harry Browne

 

Hospital should pay for the cost. Doctors sacred oath "to save lives" hospitals are making money and part of their profit should go to charity that charity is to provide health care to those who can not afford it, "it is in giving that we recieved".

We don't want more government and having hospitals step in is part of preventing too much government interverance.

Private paid health care should be balance with private free health care.

One reason why the government keeps growing because private sector has become less humanitarian.

 

You've got it.

There's no better way of ensuring that everyone has equal access to health care than by stripping medicine of it's profitability.

All the hospitals go out of business, all the doctors become veterinarians, and all the pharmaceutical companies start mass producing LSD, Xtacy, and Meth.

Health care access will be equal to all because no one will have it.

 

Wrong, health care can continue to be profitable but not on the backs of human lives.

Hospitals will go out of business if those who can afford to pay will abuse and exploit health care because thy are too greedy.

Health care will be available to all because society will have a balance system of care, charity, humanitarianism, humanism and capitalism.

 

in canada this issue doesn't arise, everyone gets treatment regardless of income...

 

"Why does it say government pays for operation" instead of " tax payers pay for operation"

 

Make the taxpayers pay for it. You can't let someone die because they can't afford to pay.

Now, if that person is a vegetable like Terri Schivio was, and just lying on a bed leeching funds from the taxpayer to keep them alive, let them die. But not if the person will recover.

 

Why should he have to pay a cent toward his medical treatment, which should be a basic human right, is my question?

 

Right Wing Philosophy:

Life is sacred as long as it doesn't cost me anything.

 

so who pays for it or do medical folks work for free, the only right you have is the right to live a healthy life and prepare for the future

- - - Updated - - -

isn't that the exact opposite of your signature?

 

A fair point indeed good sir. I should have chosen my words better instead of making a blanket comment. You were right to call me on it.

 

Taxpayers should pay. Like they do over here.

 

Option 2 does not exist as stated. In reality option 2 is stealing from others to pay for the operation under pain of imprisonment.

 

The question should be, "If YOU go broke tomorrow, and lack the funds to pay for your healthcare, should you be left to die." Anyone who answers YES to that question is a fool who lacks the basic human instinct of self-preservation. Of course, self-preservation being defined as continuing to exist through all means necessary. Anyone who says NO with respect to themselves, but YES with respect to others, is a hypocrite who believes in the destruction of wells that they, under the same conditions, would drink from. A person of that nature deserves no respect, and neither does their opinion on the governance of a society.

Pertaining to "how" to render such healthcare services, taxpayers should pick up the tab and the recipient of the services (assuming they survive) should be thereafter required to pay back as much as financially possible. Even if they cannot afford to repay the full tab in their lifetime, paying as much as possible back is the dignified thing to do.

If they can't repay any of it back, such as in the atypical homeless man scenario, which was a subliminal attempt at dehumanization, then the tax payers should foot the bill and the IRS should monitor the recipient's income to ensure that he or she indeed can not afford to repay some of the tax payer's dollars.

Any objections to the underline principle of giving healthcare to dying individuals who can not afford it would be worse than having to write a check to a firefighter or police when they arrive to put out a fire or save you from a gang of heavily armed thugs invading your home.

 

Your scenerio is so unrealistic---its hard to take it seriously.

I had a relative who needed a pancreas, and liver transplant. He did not work and was living off the government due to his disability. Certainly had no savings. The only reason they took him off the waiting list---was because as he became more sick, he didn't meet the health requirements. You have to be where they think you would be able to handle the operation and survive recovery.

So...actually these things are being done. People get on waiting lists and if they are healthy enough for the transplant when it their time--it happens.

People that tend to need these transplants for the most part are NOT able to work. They are disabled and should be within our safety net system. The transplants may seem expensive---but really the treatments people have to do when an organ fails---is expensive too.