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

Anywhere that this is the case, it is an invitation to a lawsuit--one that even an attorney who had just passed the bar three weeks ago should be able to win.

From Wikipedia:

 

It is not a legal issue, it's a moral issue. Sometimes morals are more important than the law - breaking the law to save someone's life is justified.

I don't see why Steve jobs deserved to survive longer than your relative, after all Steve jobs got his wealth by extractive the surplus profit of his workers, while your relative presumably earned their wealth through their own labor. Steve jobs spent his life stealing the labor of others.

 

The workers at Apple got a greater share of Apples receipts than Steve Jobs did. That is true in every successful business and most unsuccessful ones as well. The employees at Apple got more than 50% of Apples expenditures. Jobs got a couple of percentage points. The difference is that the employees divide their share, unequally, amongst themselves. It cannot be any other way. My son worked for Apple early in his career. He had no complaints. Made very good money and got/had to travel all over the world for Apple. Today he is a millionaire with his own computer consulting business. Largely initially financed by Apple's paychecks. But if you are so brainwashed and mindlocked against corporations, WHICH PROVIDE THE BEST JOBS IN THIS NATION, then it is too late for me to explain TRUTH to you.

Steve Jobs lived as long as he did because he spent his own EARNED and well deserved money to stay alive. All are welcome to do the same.

In the USA we are given a CHANCE. Nothing else is ever free. If YOU blow YOUR chance, too bad for YOU. NOT my problem. I made the most of my CHANCE and you deserve NO part of it.

Steve Jobs efforts, intelligence, and drive created 600,000 jobs for AMERICANS. 600,000 jobs from Jobs, he deserved every penny he ever earned.

 

Originally Posted by RedRepublic View Post
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.

RedRepublic response: It is not a legal issue, it's a moral issue. Sometimes morals are more important than the law - breaking the law to save someone's life is justified.

I don't see why Steve jobs deserved to survive longer than your relative, after all Steve jobs got his wealth by extractive the surplus profit of his workers, while your relative presumably earned their wealth through their own labor. Steve jobs spent his life stealing the labor of others

********************************************************

Sheesh! I don't even know where to begin! In fact, I'll just ignore the scurrilous attacks on the late Steve Jobs, the perverted ideas about how wealth is created/earned, etc.; whether the means justifies the ends (stealing to save a life), etc., etc., etc., blah, blah, blah.

None of that spewing is germane to the topic -- Is it acceptable to let someone die who cannot afford health care?

When, during the 224 years of our Republic, did we develop some kind of communal, cultural mindset that a futile quest for immortality is the most worthwhile endeavor we can all participate in trying to achieve, and at whatever cost!!!!????!!!!! Death is a biological mechanism! Deal with it!

"Methuselah lived 900 years....." ...lalalala....

Ponce de Leon sought the 'fountain of youth' to no avail.

"Live fast, die young, and leave a beautiful corpse." I remember this saying from back in the '50s....probably from the days of the James Dean cult....

And today we see all these aging people fooling themselves with Botox injections, freezing their faces in a grotesque perpetual death mask, dying their hair looking like fright-wigs, while their bodies continue to age, obeying the laws of nature...

Maybe we want to be genetically engineered to become the Turritopsis nutricula jellyfish -- a species that might be the only animal in the world to have truly discovered the fountain of youth since it is capable of cycling from a mature adult stage to an immature polyp stage and back again. Thus there may be no natural limit to its life span -- in essence, they are able to bypass death! Wow! This is Darwin's 'survival of the fittest' in overdrive! On steroids! On Botox!

Granted, there are serious, deep-rooted problems with our health-care delivery system and its attendant costs. Everyone's knee-jerk number-one resolution for any perceived error or diagnosis or judgment or cost, etc., etc., is "SUE, SUE, SUE"!!! Let's face it -- there is not a solution for every problem. Technology and medical advances, knowledge about life-style habits, nutrition, sanitation and hygiene have doubled life expectancy during MY lifetime!!! Unbelievable!

Nobody seriously addresses the costs caused by litigation in our litigious society. Tort reform is seriously needed. And what about the fact that we are a drug-addicted society? Legal drugs. Drug ads swamp the TV air time, like barkers at a carnival.....snake-oil salesmen.....you need this drug! You may be suffering from......whatever...... So people demand these drugs of their doctors. And if doc #1 refuses, they go to doc #2, and so forth. It's not an uncommon practice, and known as 'doctor-shopping'. Or for even common ailments and diagnoses, people demand cat-scans and MRIs and god-knows-what-else, driving up costs unnecessarily and exponentially. There's no such thing as a free lunch. You want every high-tech procedure needed or not? You want to try every pill, needed or not? You want all our kids on Ritalin walking around like zombies, every elderly person on Prozac, tottering around like zombies.... then YOU PAY FOR IT!!! I don't owe it it you. The government -- which is you and me -- doesn't owe it to you. Or maybe you're just a hypochondriac. Or suffer for Munchausen's syndrome... Again, then YOU pay for it! I don't owe it to you. The government doesn't owe it to you.

Yes, my mother, too, died of pancreatic cancer back in 1971. It was a terrible, painful way to die. Her care was costly -- she had some insurance coverage, and my spouse and I paid the rest. We didn't demand that the government -- you and I -- pay for her care. We didn't steal from anybody else to save her life. In fact, we didn't want any 'heroic measures' to 'save' her life -- it was too excruciating...

I have said before -- there is a big difference between 'extending life' and 'delaying death'. And those of you who insist that life is worth saving at all costs -- at someone else's expense -- are often, in my opinion, just futilely draining resources to delay death -- and extending the pain and suffering of the loved one. That, to me, is the ultimate immorality.

Patient: Doctor, I want a second opinion.
Doctor: You're also ugly.
----- Henny Youngman




.

 

I am speaking from experience here. I have a great deal of familiarity with Leukemia. My eldest son died from it. No public hospital will provide a Bone Marrow transplant unless you either have insurance that will pay for it, or the cash up front (about $400,000). Most hospitals cover their responsibility to Hill-Burton through their treatment of the poor in emergency room services. Our local hospital, a small one, covers about $5 million per year in unreimbursed emergency room care a year. That is sufficient for Hill-Burton. They do not provide free cancer treatments.

 

I cannot tell you that you are mistaken about your own experience; but I can (and shall) note that you have the basis for a successful lawsuit, if your claims are correct.

 

Understand that I am 100% AGAINST govt health care. NOT on principle, but because the govt has an unbroken record of failure in every non-governmental endeavor EVER attempted. This includes other countries. 90+% of all countries that have total govt supplied health care have their citizens spending MORE out of pocket than Americans do.

Govt is the absolute best study in inefficiency.** Always has been, always will be, ALL GOVT.

That being said, I think, not certain, that hospitals MUST provide ACUTE, life saving care, to anyone that presents to the hospital. They do not have to provide non-acute care. And treating a terminal illness is not life-saving acute care.

** Inefficiency.

The best health care example is Medicare. Regular non Medicare public spends about $7000. for health care. Medicare spends $11,080.00 WITH severe price controls paying provider 40% or LESS of what the providers get paid by the underage public that spends $4000. LESS. That gives us an overall national cost of a bit over $8,000. per patient.

Liberals claim that Medicare treats the old, that's why it costs more. To that baloney, I say PRICE CONTROLS. Additionally liberals dismiss catastrophic insurance coverage. But we have a perfectly good example of catastrophic working well for decades. Medicare Supplement insurance. A 65 year old person in any health, with any pre-existing condition can buy a NON-CANCELABLE policy that pays 100% of any hospital bill that Medicare does not cover, NO LIMIT. It also covers 100% of the % of doctors bills that Medicare does not cover. He can buy that policy, and MILLIONS DO, for about $200.00 per month. And that policy premium CANNOT increase as he ages or requires treatment.

Why so much for so little? Because it is a catastrophic policy. The insurer is only at risk for 20% of a price controlled doctor bill and less than $1500 of a hospital bill. Medicare pays all but those amounts.

A 40 year old married man with 2 kids could have a tax deductible MSA of $25,000. and a family insurance premium of $500 per month or FAR less. But each year HE would pay all medical bills up to $25,000 then the insurance would cover 100% beyond that. NO govt involvement and CONSUMER DRIVEN health care prices instead of govt driven health care prices.

It is NO coincidence that medical costs began their large increases WITH the passing of Medicare in 65.

It cannot be simpler, an office visit cost $15 (I'm old) Medicare only ALLOWED $6, dollars for that. They paid 80% of it and the patient paid the remaining 20% The balance vanishes, noncollectable, in fact unbillable. Was it a big surprise that the cost for an office visit increased to $40? Not to anyone with a brain.

Hospital cost are even worse. The Medicare Part A (hospital in patient) deductible this year is $1184.00 The patient is responsible for that (The Medicare Supplement PRIVATE insurance pays all of that) Then what about the rest of the hospital bill? People like to think that advances in treatment are responsible for the early ambulation of patients in hospitals. They get you out of bed and walking HOURS after surgery. WHY. You get admitted to a hospital under some certain diagnosis. Medicare pays the hospital a SET FEE according to that diagnosis. If you're in the hospital 25 hours or 59 days, they get a set fee. and that fee is low. A broken hip requiring surgery and a replacement the hospital gets about $5000. plus the $1184. That's for EVERYTHING, OR, room, meds, food, rehab, xray, the whole ball of wax. No surprise people are discharged in 3 days now is it?

Yet Medicare costs are out of sight.

 

Yes, its a moral issue. If you want the guy to live, you spend your own money and ASK others to help. Being free people those others have the freedom to disagree with you and decline to assist.

What is not moral is using this guy's illness as an excuse to enslave others because you feel you are more moral than they are. Making them your slaves proves you are less moral, not more.

Steve Jobs EARNED his money just as most everyone else does. He was just better at it than most.

 

No, it's not.

It's stealing. You care about the guy, you pay. It ain't complicated.

Actually, no. You'd be expected to pay. Then it isn't stealing. Or the patient would be presented with a bill. Either way, the vendor has the right to be paid. He ain't the one dying, and he ain't the one that cares.

If you care so much, why do you cavil at paying for what you want?

 

Smoking cases far more harm to society than to the individual, shouldn't smokers have to pay a massive tax to cover the medical expenses they are inflicting on others?

 

But we don't have a "health care crisis" in this country.

We have a Government Is Too *******ned Big Crisis, and the fallout from the government's unconstitutional interference in the health care markets is only one aspect of the rampant socialism that has infected this country.

Look at the results of this poll. 57% of the respondents foolishly believe "the government" should pay for it.

The "government" doesn't have any money. That means those people believe strangers should be held up at gun-point to provide the funds to provide medical care for people they don't care about. And this 57% wants the completely open and honest IRS to police MessiahCare, too.

That's going to work out just swell. It always does when you give accountants police powers, doesn't it?

 

Dear Mayor Snorkum --

The way you set up your response in your post, it looks like you're debating my position. Actually, those quotes are quotes that I highlighted debating the position of RedRepublic. If you check back, you'll see that you and I are in agreement. Just thought I'd clarify, because I don't want my position to be accidentally misrepresented. --- Thank you.

 

Not likely, if there were a basis for a lawsuit, you would find lots of lawsuits being filed and lawyers taking such lawsuits on spec., especially if lawyers thought they were winnable. You don't see a lot of such lawsuits, nor do you see lawyers lining up to take such cases, especially pro-bono. That alone should tell you something.

 

Although we disagree as to what must be covered by the Hill-Burton Act, that is really a tangential matter. I consider your post quite thoughtful; and I agree with the overwhelming majority of it.

My wife and I also have Medicare Part A (which pays toward hospitalization), as well as Blue Cross/Blue Shield. This makes Medicare the primary insurance carrier for matters of hospitalization.

 

Nope. But I'd they did so should people who drink alcohol, smoke weed, gang bang,drive, etc etc. . My responsibility is me, it's not my job to provide for you.

- - - Updated - - -

Nope. But I'd they did so should people who drink alcohol, smoke weed, gang bang,drive, etc etc. . My responsibility is me, it's not my job to provide for you.

 

Let him die. In fact health care costs should be doubled so that only the top 1% can afford it. We need to weed out the lazy, poor and ignorant people of this country.

 

Wealth has nothing to do with taxes, we tax income not wealth.

- - - Updated - - -

Why is the government, the taxpayer, obligated to pay it?

 

Great then I can come to your house with a policeman and demand your ATM card to go pay for things I need and if you won't turn it over have you arrested for withholding it? How about that deal?

 

And many do when they are being run into bankruptcy because of the lack of proper payment. So again, 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?

- - - Updated - - -

OK then let's start applying a 10% tax to ALL incomes no exceptions not deduction allowed to pay for it.

 

Then the hospital officials should decide whether or not to accept Medicare and/or Medicaid patients.

Someone at a local pharmacy recently informed me that they often sell medical equipment for an amount beneath their own cost--in other words, at a loss--in order to remain an in-network provider with some healthcare-insurance plans. (It is a little like a loss leader in a supermarket.)

 

How about we stop paying them to be lazy, poor and ignorant so they become hard working, productive citizens who pay taxes and provide for themselves?

- - - Updated - - -

They do now.

Your point being what? If the government required them to provide services below their cost and in bankrupted them what good is that to society?

 

They do, indeed.

And those hospital officials who feel that they are not being reimbursed adequately may always withdraw from their acceptance of Medicare and/or Medicaid.

 

smoking weed is a mostly personal endeavor, it causes a minimal of cancer because they don't put all the crap into it that cigarette company's do, driving has basically a tax, gang banging is punishable by long imprisonment, as for alcohol if abused there are many ways to modify behavior if habitually intoxicated and breaking laws.

 

And more and more are doing so, great plan you have there soon no one will take Medicare or Medicaid patients.

 

Apparently, things are very different where you live than they are around here.

In any case, it should be (and is) the hospital officials' choice...