the emergency department cannot refuse treatment in a life threatening situation
why don't you propose a reasonable alternative to the situation above? if you don't want to invest in primary care, then what do you do with people who suffer from chronic illnesses? how do you justify to continue paying for their expensive emergency department costs?
You've already turned me down on MULTIPLE ban bets ("Joe could cheat!") Mister "Walk The Talk" so that ship has sailed.
Stop lying.
what does freedom have to do with treating an ill person without insurance? you mean freedom to not treat?
The top 1% pay around 15%-20% of the income taxes. The poor pay very little, even getting the EITC to offset the payroll taxes. I already have healthcare, and can save my own money for my retirement. If a relative of mine needed help, their friends and family can help, it is wrong to force another to pay for it.guitartosh, The idea is that people with higher incomes pay more taxes but that all depends. When rates go up more people in higher brackets hide their money and the government collects less money, when rates are lower more people pay. The only ones that are stuck paying regardless are the poor class. I don't think its correct to say you are paying for anybody else to get health care, its available for you also. It also goes to set up your pension. Maybe a relative of yours benefits from it. Is that such a bad thing?
I think we have to remind ourselves that poor people are our fellow citizens too and not some kinda parasite. They get exploited more than anybody else and we use them to make ourselves rich. Whats the problem?
It is in Canada eh? They do it right there I have heard, eh?
yep,lazy libs,using the system,unions SUCK!Yes and No. I use to work in a large hospital in the finance department. I did a report showing all the lazy idiots who would take extended sick benefits (up to 6 months) full paid. Come back and work for 2 weeks and hurt their back again. The Director looked at the report and said sorry can't do anything, they are union employees.
Lots of waste of public money.
by law my hospital is required to treat everyone in the emergency department to our fullest ability regardless of their insurance.
so if it's the law, then how do you justify spending more on catastrophic emergencies rather than trying to prevent them?
(EMTALA)
- The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) is a federal law that requires anyone coming to an emergency department to be stabilized and treated, regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay, but since its enactment in 1986 has remained an unfunded mandate.
dude, what is your point?man needs law to ensure he/she helps the sick . Use of fear ?
what does that say about us ? What does that say about the 'success' of religion, teachings of?