It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by TheHypnoToad
Originally posted by chickenshoes
And,no doctor is required to treat a person who has no ability to pay.
This might be true for a family practice physician, or some clinic, but it is definitely not true at hospitals if you are in a life-threatening emergency situation.
Hospitals are required to stabilize patients before transferring them to a charity hospital. If you come in the ER bleeding to death from gunshot wounds, they cannot just shove you right back out the door because you don't have insurance.
Originally posted by 44soulslayer
reply to post by chickenshoes
I can only speak for the UK, but the idea you put forth of a hardworking man suddenly struck down by an affliction through no fault of his isnt the average scenario.
I would say first of all, the lowest paid members of US society get about $15,000 a year right? Are we to assume that they pay for their accomodation, food and essentials out of this $15,000 and are left with nothing? If so, that is an issue of wage levels. Why are these people earning such a pittance? Why are they only capable of being in jobs with such a wage bracket? Why are they not attempting to earn more money, or cut down on expenditure to pay for their own healthcare.
If you feel strongly about helping those with disease, you should give freely to charity without coercion. I have donated significant amounts of money to Cancer Research charities in the UK. I believe that in the long term, this will benefit cancer sufferers much more than simply paying for one course of treatement with an overpriced proprietary pharmaceutical. I truly believe in the power of charity. Where there is a moral obstacle to be overcome, people will do it of their own volition to the degree they can. Forcing anyone into paying for another man's treatment regardless of the situations surrounding the case is not acceptable in my opinion. Even worse is this concept that majority confers some right to force others to pay for other's medicine (ie like if Tom forces Brad to pay for Jim's medicine).
I would actually like to ask you a few questions sir. Please dont feel like I am singling you out in a negative way, I would just like to hear your side of the story.
a. Why are you in a job which leaves you without enough money to buy insurance? Do you feel this was your own fault/ choice?
b. Do you think it is fair for you to force (through a vote) richer people to pay for your insurance?
c. Do you think that government/ society has an obligation to take care of you; or compensate you for the position that you were born in/ the path you chose?
Again, please dont think those are hostile, Im genuinely interested to know your views!
Originally posted by 44soulslayer
reply to post by dawnstar
Supply and demand.
If you didn't do those jobs, one of two things would occur:
1. The salaries would go up to try and get more people into the jobs.
2. Outsourcing/ immigration.
Originally posted by skeptic1
Plus, if the system is socialized, I think that will cut back on the competition to be the best. I have several chronic illnesses, and I want to go to the best. The best doctor that has worked to prove he is the best. The best hospital that has competed and improved their technology to be the best.
My worry is that if things are socialized and/or standardized, there won't be as much effort put into being the "best" because there won't be any reason to work to get there.
Originally posted by HillbillyHippie
FIRST, its not American - its European-style.
SECOND, its socialism.
SOCIALISM - the government gives you what IT decides you need whether you like it/want it OR NOT.
Next comes, "preventative healthcare"... The government then forces you to get flu shots even if you don't want them in order to "save money" spent on treatment.
THIRD, the government already gave my daughter (my only child) brain damage (autism) with their vaccines, and I don't want them to get their grubby paws on my nieces and nephews (the last stand of the bloodline).
FOURTH, I don't want them placing me in a home against my will when I am retired.
If you allow the government to "preserve" your life, you allow the government to run your life. I truly wonder if anyone in the UK/Europe understands the stubborn need for individual freedom we Americans have? Is this lack of understanding why they are so hostile towards our policies and have so much misunderstanding concerning our actions?
I want personal responsibility and personal reliability in every area of my life. I want to learn and do everything I possibly can to take care of myself because I DO NOT trust anyone else with my life - because it is MY LIFE!