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

6.) Let him die if he so chooses.

 

You just posted hogwash, and I can prove that. The rich are the only segment of the population that pays a higher percentage in taxes than their percentage of total income. And their percentage of total income is NOT increasing.

Additionally, you have avoided the FACT that the rich EARN what they get. They take nothing from the poor. The poor have nothing the rich want.

And when the rich EARN their money, they do not bury in in coffee cans, they immediately invest it. And who benefits the most from investments by the rich? The poor.

 

Not sure if this has been explained to you or not for those that voted for the government to pay, that mean YOU pay for it. If its Dick Chenny, YOU pay for it instead of picking and chosing who you want to save through the charity of your choice.

 

Actual figures in rebuttal of the nonsense lie you posted.

In 1991 the top 1% of income earners paid 25% of the US income tax.

1991,

The bottom 95% of income earners paid 58% of the US income tax.

In 2000, the top 1% of income earners paid 37% of US income taxes.

the bottom 95% of income earners paid 45% of US income taxes.

In 2005, the top 1% paid 39.5% of US income taxes

The bottom 95% of income earners paid 40% of US income taxes.

In 2007 the top 1% of income earners paid 41% of US income taxes.

The bottom 95% of income earners paid 39% of US income taxes.

AND THAT IS LOOKING AT ONLY THE TOP 1%!



Today the top 25% of income earners pay 87.3% of US income taxes.

The group earning the top 26% to the top 49% of incomes pays the ENTIRE remaining 12.7% of US income taxes.

The bottom 51% of INCOME EARNERS pay NO US income tax at all and COLLECT $59 billion in refunds for taxes NEVER paid in.

And the top 25% of income earners earn 37% of the nations income, NOT 87% AS YOU FALSELY CLAIM, and pay 87.3% of the income tax,,,, while the bottom 75% earn 63% of the nations income and pay 12.7% of the income taxes.

 

Thats not what CNN and MSNBC tells them. Quit confusing liberals with the truth, it only makes them angry and retreat into their shell.

 

better you should reframe your question as

is it ok to take money using guns from healthy to pay for sick they dont know?
rather than let family ot private charity do it?
will money aimed at helping sick be stolen by cornies? yes

 

In most parts of the nation, a poor person without insurance will not get treatment for cancer, will not get a bone marrow transplant needed to save his or her life, will not get a kidney or liver transplant. so yes, they are allowed to die.

 

and so you can privatly donate al your income to help them

move them in


nothign stopping u

 

Anyone needing treatment, who is denied adequate treatment by any hospital raccepting federal funds (including Medicare and/or Medicaid) should sue. Immediately.

 

Quote Originally Posted by Bluesguy View Post
OK what if it cost $100,000,000 a year to keep them alive? What if so many people need health care who have not taken the care and concern to provide it for themselves will cost the country every single penny of tax revenue we take in?

But the poster said whatever it takes.....................so if it takes $100,000,000 a year is it acceptable to let them die?

 

What are they taking from you and be specific and what bills are they making you pay for them?

 

No they do not and you are challenged to back up your assertion.

 

What if their treatment would cost the hospital more than what the Government reimburses them? Lots more? Why does accepting federal funds to pay for the services you are providing people already mean you cannot refuse to treat someone if that treatment will bankrupt you or force you to raise you billing on those whom the federal government doesn't pay for to the point they can't pay for it?

 

best to commodify medicine


allwo million if new docs to compete

allow building of 1000s of private hospitals in each state

 

I think in most places if someone is crashing or is seriously injured hospitals will treat them and not do the ambulance rerouting thing until they die, even though that apparently has happened. The issue isn't just about people who have a trauma, but also about people who do not go to the doctor for the pain or that lump because it isn't an emergency and they cannot afford it and by the time it becomes a crisis issue it is too late because that pain or lump is late stage cancer or something like that. On the other side, ER's would not be so jammed packed with people with colds and such if they had a way to be seen otherwise so things may be misdiagnosed in triage or there may not be available beds and people who should be seen in the ER are delayed treatment. It is a false choice though to say We must have Obamacare or people will die. Maybe we need to rethink the whole healthcare delivery system.

 

You may think it works that way, but it doesn't. For example, if you have leukemia, and you cannot come up with about $400,000 up front, you will not get the Bone Marrow Transplant, the Government will not pay for that treatment even if it has a better than 85% chance of curing the disease. Just won't happen. I know this from personal experience.

Unless you can pay, either out of pocket or through your insurance, if you have cancer you will not get the Chemo or other treatments you need to beat the disease, if you have congenital heart failure, you will not get the treatments you need unless you can afford it out of pocket or have good insurance. This is reality in the U.S.. You may think Hill-Burton covers things like this, but it does not. All Hill-Burton covers is care that will stabilize the patient in an emergency room, it does not provide for follow up treatment, for that you have to qualify for Medicaid in your state. Here are the eligibility requirements for New Jersey

Medicaid (depending on the state you live in) may or may not pay for such services, in most states it does not. In my state of DE we instituted a program about 6 years ago that will provide treatment for cancer to the uninsured for one year and one year only. After that you are on your own. None of the states around us provide even that level of support.

 

That's not how the law actually works. If you think it does, you are in for a very rude awakening if you decide to depend on it. If Hill-Burton worked the way you think it does, we would not have a health care crisis in this country. But the fact is that Hill-Burton does not work the way you think it does.

 

LOL, if I had that kind of income, sure. But I don't. I am lucky to be able to afford the insurance that covers my wife and myself.

 

What the f*uck is the government for then, if it's ok to let people die?

 

I would say that it is to adjudicate disputes between citizens. That what is needed from a system of governance.

What is NOT needed is for A to steal from B to provide healthcare to C.

 

Steal? When you live under a society there are some basic things you need to sacrifice - "stealing" to save a life is justified. If someone was dying on the street I would be justified to go into a store and more literally steal, if it would save their life. Human lives come above money and wealth.

 

I think that the store owner would cut you some slack, recognizing that you acted to save another person's life. However, I wouldn't say that the owner doesn't have the right to prevent you from taking his stuff or demanding that you repay him. It's his stuff.

And please don't give me a line about "society". I am concerned with the ethics of HUMANS, not of mythical beasties like Society, Nessie, and Bigfoot. I've never seen a society, so I don't care whether a society's actions are ethical.

It is not legitimate for one person to steal from another, even if the thief wishes to use the money for ends he thinks are worthwhile.

 

"Human lives come above money and wealth."

Can you PROVE that claim? I understand the emotional, moral and religious dictates, but this is a legal issue.

We recently buried a family member. She had been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and was given 6 months to live. Steve Jobs had the same disease and his Billions allowed him to survive for many years. Should the govt have spent an equal amount on EVERY person like my family member so they TOO could enjoy [or not] many more years on other people's money?

 

Any hospital whose officials believe that Medicare and/or Medicaid reimbursement is inadequate may simply refuse to accept these forms of payment.

If a hospital does not refuse these payments, it is tacitly declaring that these reimbursements are adequate.

And it is then legally bound by the Hill-Burton Act...