Check my logic! They must treat you in ER. Therefore, it is a right.

[Gman2]

That you cannot be excluded from stabilization in the ER is the law. Therefore, it is a right. Good so far? Now, if it is a right to get stabilization, why is it different, to get care that you will continue to need? There is no qualitative difference between them.

When those republicans say, we dont need HCR, we gotz ER, you can then say, so, you believe it is right to require them to provide emergency care? And that care is provided on an ability to pay? You gottum.

[mdmc]

1. We currently have the worst socialized medicine possible

well put..

[Gman2]

2. My point though, is the logical turn. If one is moral and legal, so is the other.

[Motown_Johnny]

10. their argument is that it is a matter of degree

you have a right to a lawyer, but not the lawyer of your choice.


you have a right to be treated humanly while in prison, but not lavishly.

you have a right to an abortion but not to have other people (taxpayers) pay for it.

etc etc etc


It isn't that I disagree with you, it is just that some people will draw the line between a right and a privilege differently than you and I.

[Gman2]

13. NOPE, they cant. Those that cant afford HC, will accept all relevant care.

The poor arent doing hunger strikes, to get boutique care. Therefore, if stabilization is a right, so is that which you need, to not remain, or become life threatening.

[Motown_Johnny]

18. they will say "that is what Medicaid is for"

[Gman2]

21. Then you ask, is that right, that we have that program, given that it is assuming a right to care?

They will give you some gobbltygoop like, yeah, only the destitute. And that further allows the role of HCR as moral, already occuring, in the least effective manner. So, we have every right and duty, to improve that broken structure, given that required care, because it is directly morally equivalent to stabilization, is a right.

[mdmc]

11. not only is it moral and justified (as the status quo is what is being advocated)

we have a better way of providing the same service.

Why not have a more efficient and healthy society?

Why do they hate America?

If only Sarah Palin would support socialized medicine. We would have the teabaggers and the liberals! then we would just need to beat the corporatist.

[kestrel91316]

3. ER's HAVE to treat you, yes. But then they have every right to charge you

5x what they would charge an insurance company for the same services, and then sue you into bankruptcy and beyond to collect their bill. Wow. Ya gotta love such freedoms.

[fascisthunter]

4. there is the precedence...

without this point, I still conclude your access to health care is a right and not a privilege.

[robinlynne]

5. Maybe they have to treat you, but then they can take your house, car,and anything else you have.

So,it's not like they are "giving" you care. You will probably go bankrupt. (over-generalization but I'm tired, and you know what I mean.)

[Gman2]

16. But the right exists. And no matter the imperfection of BK, that is ability to pay.

[thotzRthingz]

6. "You gottum" ... Indubitably! (n/t)

[Motown_Johnny]

7. Check my logic

Article 1 section 8, U.S. Constitution

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei

^snip^

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;









Because universal health care clearly falls under the heading of "general welfare" it should be the obligation of the federal government to collect taxes to provide health care for all citizens.

[hlthe2b]

8. They must cart off your body to potter's field or cremation...

So that is a right, too, but unfortunately there's a world away in terms of quality of care... Same goes for "freebie" ER care in a nation without universal single payer health care. Diagnosing your treatable cancer and then sending you out the ER door to try to find chemotherapy or other follow-up care, as happens now, is certainly not what you have in mind... But, I get where you are going... The reason ERs can't turn you away is due to specific legislation, which does not apply to health care in general.

[Gman2]

12. I above most understand that ER care is inadequate. My point is logical.

And I appreciate the con. gen wel. point as well. But, the Rethug you would be against, would declare that we dont NEED HCR, we already have ER care. And you can assume that since they brought it up, they agree that it is RIGHT that we make it the law, that you are stabilized. And that whether and how much they collect, is on an ability to pay basis. That is just what we propose For HCR.

They can no longer put HCR in the privilege category. Or, they must publically denounce the practice of providing emergency care to humans that need it. THAT, is my point.

[hlthe2b]

14. I'd embrace anything that had a chance to work at this point...

The HCR debate and twists/turns has become the most bizarre episode of Twilight Zone, imo...

[Gman2]

15. If we could establish HC as a right, and not have dumbass GOP able to argue against, we are done.

[elleng]

9. More like a 'mandate.'

[madville]

17. Just because something is a "right" doesn't mean it's gonna be free

Here's my take on it strictly from the standpoint that health care is a right and the governments role in that:

We have the right to freedom of speech - That doesn't mean the government owes us or has to give us our own free laptop so we can blog and express that right. It just means they can't stop us from expressing our ideas but they are under no obligation to finance it.

We have the right to keep and bear arms - That doesn't mean the government must buy us all a gun so we can exercise that right, it just means they can't prevent us from expressing that right in a legal manner.

We have the right to freedom of religion - That doesn't mean the government must build and finance churches so we have a place to practice our religion, it just means they can't stop us from doing so.

These are rights specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

It can be argued we have the "right" to health care but the government is not under an obligation to pay for it, just like the rights mentioned above. Should the government do things to regulate and bring down the cost of health care? Absolutely. Should the government stand up a program to provide an affordable health plan/health care to everyone? You bet.

I would say everyone has the right to access to health care, and everyone does if they can pay for it but many can't. It's no different than I have the right to own my own newspaper but I would have to pay for it and can not do so. I have the right to own a $10,000 firearm but I can't afford one. I have the right to build my own super church but I don't have funding. I still have all these rights but no money to pay for it.

I just think too many people associate the "right to health care" with the idea that because it is a right everyone should have it whether they can pay or not. That isn't the case with other "rights". The best way to frame it is: Everyone has the right to access to affordable health care/health insurance. They need to be focusing on lowering costs to affordable levels, not simply covering everyone at outrageous expense under the same old system.

[Gman2]

19. You shifted the debate. If stabilization is the law, why isnt required care?

You are saying that it isnt OK to withold stabilization because of ability to pay, but it is OK to withold required care. That is illogical.

[Freddie Stubbs]

20. Because the law does not require it

[madville]

23. It can be unaffordable and a right at the same time

My whole point was that the fact that health care is a right doesn't mean that it is accessible to everyone because it is unaffordable. It is unaffordable to many at this point in time but even if you can't afford it you still have the "right" to it. It should be accessible to everyone. The way to make it accessible to everyone is to make it affordable to everyone. It has to be paid for somehow, some way and everyone will not have access to health care until it is affordable.

[Gman2]

24. But I've already got you on my logic. Then, we go from there.

[madville]

26. Laws and rights are different things

The law says EMS must provide emergency care and people have a right to that care. They also have the right to bill people or their insurance company for that service whether they can pay or not or if the insurance even covers it.

People do have the "right" to regular health care, but it is not accessible to many because it is unaffordable.

[Gman2]

28. Exactly, you just said that we have a right to care, and they have a right to get paid.

So, the only way to alleviate the unfunded mandate we are putting on ER's, is to pool everyone, and average payment over us all. Otherwise, ER's will continue to get screwed.

[madville]

31. I agree

I agree. Health care has always been a right but for the most part accessibility is based on one's ability to pay except in emergency situations where laws make it illegal to deny care but still allow providers to bill out for that mandated service.

[Gman2]

25. And how to make it affordable to someone who's broke? Ill and broke?

Since it is a right!

[madville]

27. Through subsidies or programs like medicaid/medicare

The poor should be covered and have access to care. They can pass laws and budget money to make that happen. They can find ways to finance that by the middle and upper class paying more than their share to cover the less fortunate.

None of that has anything to do with health care being a "right" like any of our other rights in this country.

[Gman2]

30. And when we determine that those are inadequate, and lead many to poverty?

We have every right to ammend that process. The right to care has not been disproved. And the moral equivalency has not been disproved either.

[Gman2]

22. Then we need to stop stabilizing accident victims immediately, if they cannot prove payment.

"I just think too many people associate the "right to health care" with the idea that because it is a right everyone should have it whether they can pay or not. "



That makes treating patients in ER illegal, and an illegal unfunded mandate. Why arent all the ER's not suing already?

[depakid]

29. EMTALA can easily be repealed-

and it only requires screening for and stabilizing treatment of emergency medical conditions or active labor.

[Coyote_Bandit]

32. What about

the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?

Doesn't get more foundational than that. Meaningful access to healthcare is a prerequisite to those rights.

[Gman2]

33. You know damn well that Con respect thingie doesnt extend there.

I leave that argument for others. Mine, is using pure logic, and using moral equivalency, to disallow any argument with my thesis.

[Coyote_Bandit]

34. My bad

I certainly wouldn't want to add to or otherwise disrupt the logic of your thesis.....