I think the US could only contemplate such a scheme as universal healthcare with its economy in such a bad state.

Public spending will naturally balloon with the introduction of federal healthcare (it is federal, right?), and this may stimulate the economy, assuming that they'll be buying medical equipment and so on from US companies. Maybe it's time defence spending was cut.

Communist health care was not necessary to fix the problems with health care in America, what needed to be done was a overhaul of the old system, removing medical insurance's ability to pay much less than a normal consumer, and stopping patients from suing doctors who don't waste gratuitous amounts of money on unnecessary procedures in order to cover their butts in the case of a lawsuit. The system was fine before, it simply had a few bugs that needed to be dealt with, instead, we are now raising taxes so that illegal immigrants can get free health care, great job Obama.

I hate to rip up an already ripped up post, but this is completely wrong. Look at Health Care as a government owned insurance company. Insurance companies RELY on the fact that they have large sample sizes (which in statistics is astronomically significant when making important decisions about operations). The more people that are insured, the more successful the operation will ultimately be. The likelihood of someone getting a heart attack randomly is low, and the costs of this unlikely event pay for itself from every tax payer's pocket. However, now that we have insurance, we can now try to Prevent that heart attack. Instead of waiting for something bad to happen (trip to E.R.), we can go for regular checkups as a preventative measure. Which, in turn, will guarantee less money spent than what is currently spent today.

Not to mention, ITS HEALTH CARE. What is so hard about sacrificing a couple bucks every pay check to help out the uninsured?

According to PolitiFact, no one is giving any benefits for illegal immigrants in any way, shape or form, Falkoner.

Well, maybe up in whatever state you live in it seems that way, since you have absolutely no experience with actually seeing them getting citizen's rights in action, but here in Arizona, it's a major problem, illegals were able to abuse the laws forcing hospitals to admit people who came to the emergency room, and they'll almost certainly find some way to abuse these laws too.

Can you explain how this abuse happens?
In my head, it sounds more like a free clinic then actually any form of abuse happening.

I thought you already know where I live: California. California has the #1 of illegal immigrants population. Texas comes second, but California has a little more by twice more population of illegal immigrants than Texas. California has more illegal immigrants than New York, Illinois, Florida, Arizona, Georgia, New Jersey, and North Carolina combined. All of which are behind Texas.

So I have no experience with actually seeing them? Please.

I do not see Mexicans actually abusing the laws (Of course, not all), their reason is just to live a better life, stay away from the drug cartels, or provide money to their home at Mexico. A few blocks away from where I live, is a street full of Mexicans, which leads to downtown. And my neighbor's roof is being repaired by Mexicans. So, what do you have against them?

@MasterJohnny: I think if you simply read through this little page MSN so kindly compiled for people, you can see how easy it is to abuse the law, and get medical attention without having the finances to fund it.


California also happens to have the largest population, followed by Texas, hence your statistics are flawed, give me a percent of illegal immigrants, and maybe they'll be more accurate, however, it seems fairly silly to be relying on statistics from the government on people who by law shouldn't even be in the U.S.


What I have against them is their use of citizen's rights when they haven't obtained citizenship, I'm not being racist like you're making it out to be, legal immigrants are fine by me, heck, illegal ones are fine too as long as they're not taking the rights of a citizen, but the problem is that so many of them do. If you go to the ER, you find the vast majority of the people there are illegal, my cop uncle told me about how a friend of his needed treatment, but had to wait at the back of a huge line, so he went home, dressed up in a border patrol outfit, and walked into the ER and found the line suddenly shorten for him. It's a definite problem.

On top of illegals using it, people who cannot afford the ER also use it, leaving the doctors to foot the bill for their procedures, and opening the doctors up to a lawsuit should they do anything wrong, and I'd say that's just as bad as illegal immigrants using the ER. Medical care is a privilege, which you earn, not a right, obviously we should at least provide light medical coverage, which we are already doing with MediCare and other programs, but giving someone full coverage who hasn't earned it themselves is ridiculous.

Anyway, that was not even the central point of my original argument, and whether you think illegal immigrants are abusing such laws or not doesn't really matter, because there are plenty of other more meaningful arguments I made that you seem to have ignored.

Don't argue just to argue. His point is that he has plenty of experience with illegal immigrants, this isn't some "who has the worse immigrant problem" competition.

This is an interesting point. If we have a right to live, insofar as medical care is required to live, would it not then also be a right? Two hundred years ago, obviously this was not a problem, since medical care did not exist, and if people died, they died. So why is it today that people believe they have a right to this care?

I do not see any abuse. There is no law that prevents certain people from getting emergency help. It helps both citizens and illegal immigrants regardless of nationality. (I think it was designed to do just that).
Now an ethical question: It saves lives whats so bad about that?

But in the case of lives, all lives ultimately end at some point. What is the point in prolonging the inevitable, and why not just let it go? As a whole, it might even be more efficient to let some less then valuable lives go. For example, I do not like giving medical treatment to those who've committed unforgivable crime, and to those who've done terrible deeds- and that they will do us no good even if we keep them alive.

However, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights clearly state that it recognizes "inherent right of the individual to life". But that still doesn't mean medical care is a right. Right? One now could say, to not help those in need when you could clearly help, and consequently led them to death- is murder. Thus, emergency help to those who need can be considered an obligation, and for the ones that are in need, a right. Oh, and Article 3 from Universal Declaration of Human Rights also states everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person.

I'm not sure if one could call those who've committed unforgivable crime 'Human' though.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Mar 28 2010, 10:30 pm by BeDazed.

It's immoral, in my opinion, for ER to cost money. It is a basic service provided by the government in just about every European country, and many other countries as well. And of course we're not all waving red flags, stringing up businessmen and calling each other comrade.

I'm not sure how much of a problem immigrants using the facilities is. My best guess is that they use ER a lot for medical emergencies, but the risk of them being deported would prevent them from applying for expensive operations and the like.

Clearly you don't know the meaning of the word. The healthcare bill that has just been passed in America is not "socialist", either, for the record.

I'm arguing that his point is invalid, his claim to having experience is not backed up by his statistics. However, it really is irrelevant to the main argument.


Nobody is taking your right to live from you by not giving you free medical care, nowhere does it say "You have the right to receive care for any medical problems you may have", when you do something to endanger your right to live, it is not the obligation of the government to help set you straight, it is simply their obligation to not mess you up in the first place. Admittedly, sometimes people simply get unlucky, and such cases I would not mind paying for, so long as the person has put forth their best efforts to provide for themselves, however, making it a law is simply a horrible idea, because the vast majority of medical problems are the results of a bad choice in the past, and now we must pay for someone else's mistake.


Then can you please explain what is it in your great and infinite wisdom? Because having health care paid for by everyone, the rich paying extra for the poor's care, as well as their own, seems like socialism to me, at least in regard to health care.


Is it also immoral for a doctor who has spent years studying his field to make money for the service he provides? The government simply does not have the money to pay for a bunch of silly medical conditions, especially when the medical care being paid for is for someone who does not pay taxes to the government.


Did you completely miss the italicized "The hospital must screen for the emergency and provide the care without inquiring about your ability to pay."? Any schmuck off the street can walk in, having no intention of paying any sort of bills for their care, and by law they must be treated, and when it comes time to pay, and they don't, all the expenses are left for the doctor to pay.

Much as you can try to see it as a moral thing, the way I see it, either God has a plan for someone who simply gotten unlucky, or the person made a choice themself that landed them in the position they're in. I can see how on a temporal view it seems like you're condemning someone to death, but in my eyes they're simply moving on to another section of their existence.

The government could easily make cuts in other areas to pay for improved healthcare accessibility.

You seem to be of the old free-market Christian mindset that people should rely on charity. That's soooo 19th century.

Admittedly, the government could easily make cuts, and really should in many areas, however, I feel like the money should go to other places, such as clearing up our debts or to public education, not to pay for everyone's health care.


Nah, I'm more of the mindset that people should work for what they get, and that they only should be helped in cases where they simply got unlucky, rather than cases of them just being lazy.

Why? If doctors were not paid for their job, they probably would not be doctors anymore, and there would be no doctors around to provide ER services. Where does the ER morality stem from? And mind you, being paid from tax money and being paid from people's pockets is costing money either way. If you had said "ER should be a government responsibility" I'd probably have agreed, but why should it be immoral to have to pay for it?

And stop attacking russia to make your arguments sound more reasonable

See definition 1. The bill is providing "governmental ownership and administration" of the "distribution of [healthcare] goods." It is a perfect example of a socialist law.

I agree that this right is not specifically enumerated in the constitution, however, a decent regard for the lives of others might require us to provide ER services regardless of whether they can pay. It comes down to what bedazed was saying: if we have the ability to help someone and don't because they can't pay, have we committed a negligent murder? Sure, we aren't responsible for the accident which caused their wound or whatever, but we're also choosing to let them die when (presumably) we have the ability to save them. If we choose not to provide the service, it leads us to this question: Do the rich have a greater right to life than the poor? The rich can pay, the poor cannot, so a rich man will live when a poor man will die.

Easier said than done. We haven't run a surplus in about a decade in the U.S, since Clinton was in office. Taxes will be raised over the next eight or so years in order to pay for the healthcare bill.

Another interesting dillema: What's worth more, a person's life, or a good education? What has a lower price tag?

I still find it interesting that people have come to be so concerned with health care. Two hundred years ago, if you died, you died. Nowadays we need to save everyone.

However, with that philosophy, anything that goes wrong, that you could help with, but don't, is your fault. Because I don't go and help the starving children in Africa, it's my fault they're starving. Because I don't go down to help rescue the beached whale, it's my fault it dies. The moment you allow yourself to believe that concept, you're now obliged to try to help with the infinite number of things that will be your fault should you choose not to help out. Things happen, and you simply cannot try to fix everything if doing so hurts everyone, for the benefit of a few.


The question should be "What's worth more, preparing for a successful future, or lessening the chance of a successful future in an attempt to rescue the past". It takes more resources to fix the problem that has already happened, which end up being taken from where they would have been put to good use in the future. Very rarely does a person who's given major medical care end up contributing more than that care cost after receiving it. So yes, the rich live and the poor die, because the rich man has typically contributed more beforehand, and therefore is able to provide for himself.

When I said 'cost money' I meant the patient's money. The doctors would be paid by the government, as in most countries where there is some kind of national health service. I think that if a person is ill or needs a checkup then they should be able to seek medical advice for free and, in the case of a medical emergency their treatment should be free also. Perhaps there is a different moral culture in the US, but is it not immoral to leave someone to die if they cannot afford to pay for emergency treatment, or allow someone to contract a terminal cancer because it would cost them money to seek medical advice which could have caught the cancer early? Surely it is equally unfair to save someone's life then slap them with a huge bill which they may, according to their position in society, may not be able to pay? That is why ER should be a service paid for by the government, to avoid situations where someone's wealth dictates their ability to receive emergency treatment, or present doctors with the moral and financial dilemma of saving the life of someone who may not be able to pay for the treatment.

I think every citizen has rights, but they also have a duty to contribute to society. I believe in positive liberty - that is to say that people should contribute (via taxation) to the provision of services which enable the less fortunate to enjoy the same basic level of care and protection as the more fortunate. Your taxes fund the police force which protects you from crime, the military which protects your borders, and the education system which ensures that everyone at least has the opportunity to reach a minimum standard of education. Why, when all these services are provided by local or national government, do people protest at the logical extension of government service provision to healthcare? To support it is to support both liberty and equality.

If a working man is injured in a fall, and in danger of losing his leg if he does not get prompt medical treatment, but he cannot pay for whatever reason, to allow him access to government-provided healthcare is to give him the liberty to continue his working life and not become disabled and unable to work. Just as education enhances liberty by providing more job opportunities, healthcare enhances liberty by preventing the destruction of a person's opportunities through illness or injury. A small increase in your tax bill is a small price to pay for a valuable contribution to society as a whole. Christians teach us to love thy neighbour, so I find it slightly hypocritical that the most vocal opposition to the healthcare bill on this forum has come from individuals with a faith. The metaphor of loving one's neighbour can be extended to society as a whole. To turn one's nose up at the prospect of paying a few extra dollars in order to save or improve the lives of the less fortunate is fundamentally unChristian and inhumane, and before anyone plays the Atheist card I would remind them that, Atheist or not, they have been brought up in a society which has been shaped largely by Christian values, both ostensibly and subconsciously, and probably have a lot in common with their religious counterparts.

My attacks on Communism were just to mock the whole 'Red Scare' thing that some people still seem to think is a reality.

You mean the money that's being taken from the doctors in the form of increased taxes in order to pay for these patients? Taxes don't just pop out of the government's butt, they've got to come from somewhere. In a perfect world, your moral plan would be fine, yes, it would be great to be able to help everyone, however, in a perfect world, everyone works their hardest to keep themselves healthy and to contribute to society. Problem is, this isn't a perfect world, and many of the people who voted for and want the Health Bill, only want it because it's a means of stealing money through voting, and they don't put back into society what they take. They are in effect stealing money from those who have worked for it in order to pay their bills.