Subject:
|
Re: Trying to understand
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 16 Mar 2000 21:59:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
475 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bill Farkas writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Duane Hess writes:
> > So those without the means to pay the bills suffer? Not very humanitarian.
>
> 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.
I agree, but to nitpick, that service isn't done out of the goodness of the
hospital's collective heart; it's subsidized.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Trying to understand
|
| (...) Today it is, because bad money (gov't charity) has driven out good (private charity). It used to be a pure charity decision, the hospital (if for profit) took a deliberate margin hit, or raised the money by charity drives. (25 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
| (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
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
|
|
|
|
