"Right" to Medical Care...WTF, Mate?
This sign, based on the "EMTALA" law, is posted in every emergency room in our little socialist town. Notice the "rights" this sign grants you...
I don't know if that's what Thomas Jefferson had in mind when he talked about our unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Tell me we don't currently have socialized health care in America! It's no wonder why so many hospitals are going out of business. If you privately owned a convenience store, should the federal government be able to FORCE you to provide food for any hobo who says he is hungry?
Imagine you found yourself as one of five people, living in a deserted area (you are the only five people of which you are aware)...
What rights would you have?
Would you have the right to force any of the other four people to provide you with medical care? (It depends on who has the biggest weapons, right?)
Why are your "rights" any different in a larger society?
How many people must a society contain in order for you to start having the right to force other people to give you their time or property?
Isn't it called "slavery" when you force someone to give you their time and labor? I thought we were all free at last.
Posts
26 Snotty Remarks:
I was under the impression that the expression "free country" meant one could obtain services for free. Which is good because I'm tired of paying my lawn man. Who will pay him for me?
A-Freaking-Men on that one.
One of our local hospitals has the same thing, but they are run by a religious order and will work will people to pay the debt owed. The thing is they just moved to a new location b/c so many people were walking in off the street without being able to pay and the hospital was sinking. So they moved to a new location where the onslaught of non-payers would be less and they are no longer in the hole. They are also one of the best hospitals in the region.
The point is this, now the doctors are getting paid what they deserve and the hospital has fixed the problem with having to treat any and all while going into the whole.
If people think health care would be better with the government fiddling around then I beg they look at FEMA to see what happens when govt's intervene.
This argument is made all the time. How are we supposed to solve this? Turn people away? Jail them if they dont pay their bills? Whats the answer?
Yeah...we're becoming more and more of a free country. It makes me so proud, I want to pledge allegiance to a flag or something. The flag that represents 'liberty and justice for all.'
Anthony, that happens here also. Hospitals are struggling to survive. Some are just deciding to get rid of their emergency room, to avoid shutting down. If people want to see what socialized health care looks like, just go to any emergency room, especially the ER's of any county funded hospital.
How do WE solve it? All WE should do is stay out of it, and not force private companies to give their services away for free. WE should just let hospitals be FREE to choose whether or not they are willing to be charitable. And if WE want to feel bad for people who can't pay for health care, and WE want to make sure people are given health care, then WE should go pay for their health care, individually.
Crusty, you have to be black to be free at last. The rest of us are just beginning our indentured servitude.
Thats all you got Crusty??!!
As much bitching as you do I thought you would have a better idea than that.
Wow that was lame...
Yeah, imagine that... After all the bitching I've done about the government redistributing wealth, taking the place of private business, and regulating private business; my big solution to the problem of people not having health insurance is NOT some big, elaborate centrally coordinated, government-sponsored plan. My big let-down of a plan is to terminate the government's ability to FORCE individuals to give other people their labor, and let individuals and private business come up with their own big, elaborate plans to solve the problem, if they choose to solve the problem.
I'm feeling a little wild today, I guess...acting all pro-freedom/anti-government.
So you would be prepared to drive off and let someone die if they could not afford to pay for their ride?
I dont think you know what the hell your talking about anymore.
I agree they should pay for what services recived but how exactly do you force them to do that? You dont know do you?
For someone whos so anti government you must be a masochist. Why on Earth would you want to work in health care? In Houston of all places! Cant you find some nice up scale county to work for? You are a public servant!?
Stronger government = micro management = dependent populace = God help us
I'm for the hospital having a pawn shop in it. When I go to the home of the uninsured on a 911 response, and as I listen to the sad story of how the 20 Y/O F has had a fever for 1 day and she can't afford Tylenol, my partner is unhooking the Xbox in the living room. The patient goes to the waiting room and the Xbox goes to the hospital pawn shop until the ER bill is paid. Give up the cellphone Biotch!!!
Ah but if you take away her phone then you've taken away her right to the luxuries that she can't pay for (cable TV, vacation, cell phones) but since someone else in this great country of ours has it, she has a RIGHT to have it too. Funny how responsible people recognize what they can't afford and do without and those who don't give a damn what they can afford just demand more and say it's their right to have it.
Anonymous,
Masochist? What's more masochistic? ...not helping someone? Or...forcing someone else, by the threat of violence and/or imprisonment, to give their money or time (enslave them) to someone who wants help, but can't pay for it?
Do you realize there is someone near you, right now, who is currently suffering in some way, possibly even dying, and you are not helping that person? You're reading a damn blog, instead of donating your time and money! You are a sick, masochistic, black-hearted psychopath?
People suffer, and people die. Check out my Death Clock post. Try to keep up with feeling bad for each one of those people. While you were reading this response, 50 people died. Where were you on those deaths, Captain Compassion?
It's one thing to passively let people suffer the consequences of their decisions/circumstances; it's a whole other thing to actively, violently, physically force people to give their time and money to help other people. Which one do you think is worse?
I'm all for people & private institutions helping eachother in times of need; I'm just not into masochistically forcing people to be charitable.
I like the pawn shop idea. Or...how about just not forcing hospitals to treat people, and letting them figure out whatever method they want to use to get their money out of people?
I would bet, if people had to pay a $5 co-pay to ride the ambulance, we would cut our runs in half. Likewise, if they had to $20 (the cost of a crack rock) to get seen at the hospital, there would be no such thing as a waiting room.
Nice work Jodi-Lou...I've never met a loser, who needed a ride to the hospital on the ambulance, because they didn't have another way of getting there, for the 2-week old boil on their leg, who didn't have a cell phone, big screen TV, and cable TV.
You don’t turn people away in the absence of government funding. You don’t “drive off and let someone die” because the executives at the private EMS are heartless bastards. The poor have options besides using the coercive force of government. They can ask for charity, arrange financing, or work off the debt; maybe even barter/trade.
Also, if you remove government from providing health care, the cost will likely go down. For example, mall cops cost less than government cops and private schools cost less than government schools. Not only that, but the charities that pick up the slack would run much better than the government ever could.
Yes it is masochistic
to work in a government job day after day when you feel so strongly opposed to them. Not only that but you know ahead of time that you will be required to help the worst people society has to offer.That my friend is masochistic.
Im not at all sure that you understand slavery either...
I have gone without things when I have to to pay bills and make ends meet. I dont spend money I dont have. I would love to shake the shit out of thoes who do nothing but take and take and burden every resposible person. The thing is that I dont let it eat away at me, I did not choose to work where I know I will have to interact with people or institutions that I loathe.
I dont know what your talking about saying "actively, violently, physically force people to give their time and money to help other people." Is someone at home making you feel unsafe? Are they forcing you to go to work with scum against your will?
There will always be people who take advantage. There will always be people who complain(you) but offer no solutions.
Anonymous,
What if I told you I come from a long line of ancestors who were slaves? Would you think I understand slavery then? What if I informed you that I am black? Then would you think I might know something about slavery?
I'll explain this 'force/violence' thing, just because I know you're not the only civics class dropout who is saying, "how is forcing someone to pay taxes, or forcing a hospital to provide free health care, by the threat of imprisonment or violence, an example of active, violent, physical force?"
"Active" as opposed to "passive"...an act of commission, rather than an omission of an act.
"Violent, physical force" ...because, whether you want to believe it or not, when you vote for fun little gubment programs, which you think are nice and charitable, the money to support that program has to come from somewhere.
The money comes from taxes. Not everyone agrees with your idea of charity, so not everyone WANTS to pay money toward your charitable cause. If someone decides they don't want to pay for your charitable program (taxes), then people will come to that person's house with guns. If that person still doesn't want to pay for your charitable program, then they'll attempt to imprison that person (kidnap him). If that person resists being kidnapped, the people with guns will use physical force, up to and including shooting the person who chooses to not pay for your charitable program. Do you think physically restraining someone or shooting someone is considered active, physical force?
On a county level, if a family, with young children, does not want to pay city or county property taxes, then the Sheriff comes with guns and forces that family, with young children, out of their house...makes them homeless...steals their property.
To choose not to help someone in need is a passive omission of a charitable act. At that point, you have not done anything to anyone; you just didn't choose to help someone.
To choose to vote for a gubment program, which helps people in need, is an active commission of a forceful/violent act against the general public. It is the very definition of imposing your will on someone else through force. It is an active act of force against someone else who hasn't done anything to you.
Does it make a difference if a bunch of other people agree with you? Does it make a difference if you commit the violent acts yourself, or if you hire someone else to do the dirty work for you (police/IRS)?
Had you REALLY never made that connection before? I'm sorry your ignorance could not persevere; it must have been nice to not know where tax money came from, or to not know what happens when hospitals choose not to be enslaved (choosing not to be forced to give away their labor for free).
It's kind of cute that you really thought that gubment programs were charitable.
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."
-Edmund Burke
Had you REALLY never made that connection before? I'm sorry your ignorance could not persevere; it must have been nice to not know where tax money came from, or to not know what happens when hospitals choose not to be enslaved (choosing not to be forced to give away their labor for free).
It's kind of cute that you really thought that gubment programs were charitable.
Of course any rational person can make the connection. I never said government programs were charitable, where did I lead you to think that? Going along with your train of thought you are contributing to the problem then. People cant pay but you still pick them up and take them to the free hospital dont you?
See thats my point, everyone knows the system is fucked. Who will be the first to say nope no more free rides? Will it be you? Stand up against slavery Crusty, quit your job today!!
By the way the 5 dollar copay for trips to the hospital is a good idea.
Stop trying to bait me into defending the goverment and taxes!
Why does it have to be so extreme with you?
Since when (and where) did private schools cost less than government schools? The public schools around here- even if you pay tuition and count the money spent by the government to fund the school- is half what private schools around here are. And heaven forbid you need special services/special education. Those schools cost more than Ivy League colleges for even simple programs.
Joeymom
In 1997 the state of Michigan paid an average of $5445 per pupil for public schools versus about $2500 per pupil for private schools. In the 2007-2008 school year, Washington D.C.’s average cost per pupil for the public schools was estimated at $24,600. The average for private schools in the same area was $11,600. According to the Center for Education Reform, public school averages $10,770 per pupil compared to $6,600 pep pupil for private school nationally in 2007.
As for special education/special needs, I believe that problem is exaggerated. I am not trying to come across as combative or insensitive, but how many of those “special” children are actually disabled, and how many need nothing more than some parental involvement/motivation. Even if they are all truly special needs children, why is it acceptable for the school district to continue to take money through the threat of force? Why shouldn’t I be allowed to give that money to a different group that I feel would do more for special needs children?
Nice research Jay...
JoeyMom, take a look at this article from the Cato Institute, explaining why socialized education doesn't work and suggesting that private schools cost around $3,000 on average.
Also take a look at this John Stossel, 20/20 special on public education.
Here's an online version of Jay P. Greene's book, "Education Myths," which claims socialized education per pupil costs are around $8,745 (page 9). The book also discusses Special Ed.
Here's a Washington Post article which talks about the cost of public education per pupil, which is reported to be around $25,000 per pupil (not $9,000), including ALL expenses.
I think, if someone gave me $750,000, I could figure out a way to rent a building and give 30 students a REALLY good education,... and still pocket a few hundred thousand dollars. What a waste of money! If only the gubment would just let people spend their $25,000 at private institutions.
I still don't believe people should have a right to be given socialized education, at someone else's expense; but letting people spend the money at private schools would lead to far better results than what the current socialized education system achieves.
Hey Crusty I thought you would get a kick out of this.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/1217081mugyear20.html
Anonymous, nice...
I guess it goes to show...
Socialists...errr...Obama supporters are criminals.
it'd probably be a good idea as well to give firefighters the privilege to let a house burn down if someone can't provide sufficient financial reason to persuade them otherwise. sure make those people think twice about bothering firefighters.
same with the police. we'll make you prove how badly you would like the police to figure out who assaulted you. nobody's gonna be helped on my taxpaying dime.
Anonymous, I like your thinking...welcome to logical, objective, reasonable thought.
Yes, we should put police, schools, and fire departments in the hands of private companies or volunteers. Since when did anyone acquire the god-given right to force someone else to pay for their school, fire protection, or police protection?
The logistics of turning these services over to the free market, and the benefits of doing so, could be argued for years, but the bottom line is that nobody has the right to force someone else to give them services.
And for all you WWJD's out there...for what reason do you really believe Jesus would pick up a gun and force someone else to give him their money or labor?
NHS baby!!
Post a Comment