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

Is it acceptable to enslave or steal from others in order to provide medical care? Or, more fundamentally, is it acceptable to INITIATE violence against the person or property of others?

 

Do not hate me my friend but I do not agree

it is not self preservation if someone else pays

 

You are using semantics in order to misconstrue the meaning of self-preservation. The word does not mean self-reliance, but rather the "innate desire for 'self' to survive". The word self in this case represents 'life' rather than 'do-it-yourself'. Perhaps thinking in terms of life-preservation would help you overcome the semantic barriers.

In conclusion, self-preservation equals a survival instinct. That survival instinct means living at all cost. No matter at whose expense. And, the reality is no one with common sense would place an third party's property over their own life. Especially if that third party is not personally known. 99.9% of people who say they would are liars attempting to hold together a political, social, and economic philosophy that is inconsistent with their own nature. The remaining 0.1% are fools.

 

Why not? If someone cannot pay, who do you expect to help them out? They are your countrymen, you have a duty to help them out, as I have a duty to help out my countrymen via my taxes.

 

Capitalist can not survive without the poor the success of capitalism is charity and this include providing free health care to those who can not afford it.

 

I think it soothes peoples conscious to lump all or even most of the poor into the category of "they deserve it" or "they did something bad to get themselves there". Otherwise, how else can they justify simply passing a pregnant and homeless woman on the street?

 

I am not against some help from the government but believe they waste so much that could be helping the needy , I believe in charities but not thru taxation and growth of the government.
I think you are saying that the one in need would take anyones stuff to survive , I agree that they would but I personally would not allow it after all it is my stuff.

 

Well, considering this is exactly what happened to my uncle, ( He wasnt homeless, I added that part, but he was certainly in the poorest of the poor catagory. ) So. It does happen.

 

Is it acceptable to steal from another to pay for someone's financial obligations under pain of force?

 

It's not acceptable to allow anyone to die for any reason.

 

No it is not acceptable to steal from others to pay for someone's financial obligation nor is it acceptable to steal from others to enrich one self that is why rich merchants off set that by giving back to the community through what we call CHARITY and this include providing health care to those who can not afford it.

"It is in giving that we receive" that is why businesses that have a good charitable programs tend to be more successful.

 

I agree with all the above points. However, it is only charity when it is optional, otherwise it is theft.

 

And the distinction would be oh so important to someone who needed that care. I'm sure you would choose death over treatment you didn't pay for too, right? You would choose death for a friend or family member? Or, just for people you don't know?

 

Most of us, even believers in small govt, would want to help another human that otherwise, for lack of resources, would die. I wouldn't mind being taxed to save that person even though I'm a believer (in general) of limited govt. Contradiction? Maybe. But BFD. Now contribute to those bridges to nowhere? No way.

 

here is how I look at it. It boils down to the government, once again, not wanting a company to earn a profit that the government would rather have in their pockets. So, let me keep my private health provider and if we have to why not provide catastrophic health care to those who don't have the insurance to cover that?

 

You have to understand that the question of whether it's acceptable to let someone die comes off as sounding bat(*)(*)(*)(*) crazy to us over here who've had UHC for 37 years. That's 37 years of never asking such an idiotic, senseless question such as the one on the OP.

Whatever leaps and bounds America thinks it's made, it is so terribly stunted when it comes to this issue of healthcare. You're cutting off your noses to spite your faces. if you don't take care of your sick, your nation will be sick. And being well while those around you are sick and you don't give a stuff shows a lousy streak of humanity. You get what you clamour for. Clamouring that, "Too bad, it's their own fault, let them die," stains your own hearts.

Some of you don't get it and never will. When your beloved friend dies because they couldn't afford health care, come back here and give your callous spin on it.

This is one side of some American thinking about healthcare that really sickens me. Hardly advanced and naunced in their thinking at all. Like an ignorant backwater of thinking.

Wake up, fools.

 

My health is my concern and only my concern. That is why I am self-insured. If I can't afford a heart transplant, then so be it. Likewise, if you are sick and can't afford a heart transplant, that is on you. Now, that is not to say that I wouldn't be inclined to help you out... I don't want to be forced to help you out and I certainly don't want the government to take credit for my humainty or gernerosity.

 

The US healthcare system is designed specifically to maximize corporate profit and keep costs artificially inflated.

There's no justification whatsoever for a hospital charging twenty dollars for an Asprin pill.

But the costs are high, that way, insurance companies get paid lots, and the healthcare providers. The people pay the price.

BTW a common misconception is that insurance pays the price on these staggering costs. Nonsense. Nobody stays in business by spending more than they make, so insurance companies collect more in premiums than they pay out. It's just a scam to pool the cost to the public. In essence, the people aren't paying for only their health care, but also paying a middle man who didn't provide any medical services.

And Obamacare actually made the system worse in this regard (or better if you're his corporate bum-chum)

So no, you can't let people die so long as you're the reason they can't afford to get patched up.

 

Your provocative, sensational and emotional plea is wasted. Emotive reasoning will fail with me every time - unless it satisfies Logos, Pathos is given no heed.

 

The US healthcare system was designed to provide the best care to people... and it does. Now, as to inflated costs, look no further than the US Government. Paying too much for an Asprin is no differernt than our military having to pay $200 for a hammer or $100 for a toilet seat... its all due to governement involvement. You think it is bad now....welcome to OWEblamerCare!

 

I think perhaps this is the crux of the differences in philosophy about medical care. Human life is precious to what degree? Any degree? And to whom? I really don't think we owe each other our life's savings for extraordinary medical procedures. The greatest medical costs are expended during the final years of life. Because "life is precious". But do these extreme measures prolong life? Or do they delay death? A fine somewhat nuanced distinction. If all you can afford is a Ford, do I owe you a Cadillac? At some point we each have to accept the limitations of our circumstances.

You offer me even money that I would think differently if the tables were turned. I don't think you show enough conviction or you'd offer me better odds than that!!! No, not "all efforts must be taken" at MY expense!! And I don't want "all efforts" taken for me at YOUR expense! ! A fan of Dr. Kevorkian, and the law in Oregon.....I would welcome the blessed relief of death from any unbearable extended pain and suffering. And frankly I don't understand anybody who thinks otherwise. But to each his own, as long as I'm not forced to be responsible for you.

Our health care delivery system is all screwed up, I'll grant you that. But reducing an entire nation's populace to a state of penury so as to perform death-delaying far-from-conventional extraordinary procedures with no limitations, no parameters is unrealistic, unacceptable, and frankly inhumane.

*****

It's not over 'til the fat lady sings.......lalalalala.....

 

As we are seeing by the mentality of the progressive activist government that is using the IRS to categorize Americans more by political idealogy vs economic class your question should have been: Is it acceptable to let someone die because of their political beliefs?

 

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. Participating hospitals may only transfer or discharge patients needing emergency treatment under their own informed consent,

There were ACTS dating back to 1944 requiring essentially the same thing.

A"participating hospital is any hospital that accepts any payments from the US Dept of HHS. In other words,,,,,,,ALL US hospitals.

It IS a common everyday practice in hospital ER's all over the US to have an indigent patient come in with a minor, NON-EMERGENCY condition. Sprained ankle for example. The ER is WELL aware that if they refer that patient to a doctor's office, the indigent person will then state, "I also have chest pains." THAT REQUIRES BY LAW that the hospital do a full cardiac workup, costing the hospital many times more than xraying the ankle and taping it up.

And if the indigent patient presents WITH an actual emergency, the hospital is required to treat the patient.

NO ONE DIES IN THE US DUE TO INABILITY TO PAY FOR TREATMENT.

Long term, non-acute, care is a different story.

 

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

Granted, the above poll is not even remotely a scientific sampling with just 45 people weighing in. But 25 -- 55.56% -- voted for government to pay for the hypothetical operation. Obviously this thread -- and probably this forum -- is heavily weighted with lefties. Or vocal lefties. I ask you 25 oh-so-concerned-for-your-fellow-man......who the heck do you think 'the government' is????? 'The Government' is not some amorphous specter conjured up by a pseudo-psychic medium gazing into her crystal ball, whispering mumbo-jumbos. 'The Government' is US. I repeat -- 'The Government' is US. Perhaps you should all write that 100 times until you comprehend that. 'The Government' is US. That means that WE pay for everything YOU say that the GOVERNMENT should pay for. What percentage of your/my/our income should go to 'the government'? Maybe all of it. And then 'the government' can determine how much each of us needs to live and allocate a small dole accordingly. Of course, considering recent news revelations, citizens in lock-step with whichever party were currently in power would receive higher stipends than those with opposing opinions.

Wheeee!!!! Lookee!!!! Our wise dispensers of wealth, our elected representatives and all their appointed cronies would have so much more money to throw away on such worthwhile projects as the sex life of the tse-tse fly. Frankly, I don't know why 'the Government' needs our money at all, with Ben Bernanke perpetually cranking out those dollars on the printing press in his basement.

Yanno...those of us who save frugally for our retirement and then depend on our retirement funds -- not 'the Government' -- to support us expect the managers of said funds to honor their fiduciary duties, invest and manage with honesty and integrity.... We all know the extreme-left state of California is virtually bankrupt. And California’s public employee pension system -- CalPERS -- is drowning in the sinkhole of its unfunded obligations. Much of their problem is the result of investing taxpayers' money based on political, rather than on economic principles! CalPERS has lost millions of dollars on its green investments, which Joseph Dear, their chief investment officer, at a conference in March said “Our experience is that this has been a noble way to lose money.”

Whoopee!!! I LOVE losing money, as long as it's in a noble way...... Ohhh yaaasss....

But, need I reiterate, 'The Government' is US. You. Me. Us. If 'the Government' pays, you pay, I pay, we pay. And I don't owe you death-delaying extraordinary Cadillac-care 'at whatever it costs'. Remember what Margaret Thatcher said -- “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.” And then what????

Liberals are oh-so-caring for the welfare of others. Uh-huh. Then how come the likes of Joe Biden donate less to charitable causes than I do????? Huh??

'Nuff said.

 

Actually, the US ISN'T the best at the quality of healthcare. They ARE however, the best at PROFITEERING from the healthcare system. In actual quality of care, the US is pretty far down on the list.