Subject:
|
Re: Trying to understand
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 16 Mar 2000 22:08:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
471 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bill Farkas writes:
> 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.
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 it's costs.
Any more than that and it would risk taking a hit in the pocket book.
The government, in subsidizing medical care, is providing a relatively equal
footing for me to recieve treatment regardless of my ability to pay. I feel
that as a relieving thought. No it's not perfect, but at least I know I'll be
alive to admire it's imperfection.
> Besides, medical treatment is not a "right".
> Those who have more money always get better treatment.
True. It's been that way throughout history with most things. The rich always
get better X.
> In the past, charities
> and (dare I say it) churches handled such matters a lot more efficiently than
> the federal government has.
But they weren't in it to make a profit. The reason they were there was because
no one else would take care of the poorer people.
> The government has done nothing but lowered the
> standard of care and raised prices beyond the average persons ability to pay.
So what now? Break out the leeches?
>
> Bill
-Duane
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Trying to understand
|
| (...) But this is not a socialist country. It's not right for the gov't to take my money and force me to make charitable contributions as it sees fit. This is mandatory benevolence and as such ceases to be so. Beides, the gov't is so inefficient (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Trying to understand
|
| Well plowed ground alert. (...) You do. Or you should. It's not my problem if you didn't manage your affairs correctly. Maybe I'll decide to help, but it should be my decision. Medical care is a good, that is, a form of property. There are no rights (...) (25 years ago, 16-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
|
|
|
|
