It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Rockpuck
Originally posted by kinda kurious
Often when people bring the Constitution into the argument, I simply ask if they would like their next surgery performed with what was "State of the Art" in 1776.
(The life expectancy at that time was 50 years of age for males by the way.)
Whether health care was "state of the art in 1776" is immaterial. The Constitution is supreme law.
Originally posted by System
Why is the NHS Orwellian?
Originally posted by InfaRedMan
Simple... because the big pharma lobbyist puppet masters with their hands firmly up the butts of American politicians say so. Big money buys good propaganda!
IRM
Originally posted by Laurauk
It beggars belief, that there are members who would allow children to die, just because they cannot afford health insurance, or pay the fees for treatment.
[edit on 13-8-2009 by Laurauk]
Originally posted by blueorder
In the current US system no one who is apparently about to die is refused treatment?
Originally posted by skibtz
What happens in the current US system when someone who is about to die requires treatment but has no money or insurance?
Originally posted by noangels
The trouble is their lack of treatment could result in an early grave to many as minor issues over the years become life threatening.
Originally posted by Laurauk
NO, What I was referring to was some members, in here complaining about having to pay taxes for Free Healthcare. That is what I find alarming, so if someone say a child was dying would they still complain with regards to paying for that childs healthcare?
Originally posted by blueorder
That's what I mean
Originally posted by skibtz
It would be good to know what the situation is regarding this matter.
If people do receive life-saving treatment regardless of the means to pay for it then why get insurance et al?
I suppose the US SHS (Selective Health Service) would differentiate between someone dying of cancer and someone who has just arrived from a car accident.
In the current US system no one who is apparently about to die is refused treatment
Originally posted by Laurauk
NO, What I was referring to was some members, in here complaining about having to pay taxes for Free Healthcare.