Subject:
|
Re: Trying to understand
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 16 Mar 2000 22:18:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
511 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Duane Hess writes:
> > > 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.
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 that most of the money goes to gov't unionized workers - hmmm a
liberal constituency - what a coincidence.
>
> > 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?
Which ones, the ones the barbers of old would apply to patients or the ones
currently living off the gov't nipple? :0)
>
> >
> > Bill
>
> -Duane
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Trying to understand
|
| (...) It's interesting that the biggest union in the country is the Union of Federal Workers. It gives a good hint of why government never gets smaller. Scott S. ___...___ Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net Systems Administrator-Affiliated (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
