Subject:
|
Re: Trying to understand
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 16 Mar 2000 21:41:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
284 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Duane Hess writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bill Farkas writes:
> >
> > That really is the point. The government has no business subsidizing medical
> > treatment. Everything the government gets involved in goes thru the roof
> > price-wise. That's the same problem with insurance, if the consumer doesn't
> > have to pay the actual cost, the prices skyrocket because market forces no
> > longer apply.
>
>
> So those without the means to pay the bills suffer? Not very humanitarian.
>
> > Bill
>
> -Duane
That's still not the business of the federal gov't. They are there to provide a
framework which protects our liberties - not to dole out compassion. That
argument doesn't hold water anyway, anyone can go to the emergency room
regardless of ability to pay. Besides, medical treatment is not a "right".
Those who have more money always get better treatment. In the past, charities
and (dare I say it) churches handled such matters a lot more efficiently than
the federal government has. The government has done nothing but lowered the
standard of care and raised prices beyond the average persons ability to pay.
Bill
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Trying to understand
|
| (...) So who picks up the tab? Would I as an uninsured person who walked into an emergency room, get the treatment that I needed if it weren't subsidized? I doubt it. I would get the amount of care where the hospital knew it would be able to recoup (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
139 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
