Such people do get medical treatment now. The cost is transfered from them to the others who can afford to pay by the hospital and doctors.
Isn’t that taking money away from some people to pay the costs of others.
Good points, and by the way, as to your earlier post, if my checkup cos and extra $5 so that you could have a healthy grandson than that would have been the best money I ever spent.
One issue that I have though this. I go here for my healthcare:
We’re in a rural area and this is a place that was set up for indigent migrant workers essentially without healthcare in response to some of the problems you describe.
This is a nonprofit organization, and I get my healthcare alongside the poorest of the poor. The place is clean, organized, efficient, and top-notch. I go there simply because they are the best in the area.
All around there are organizations like this, and free clinics and 501c3 organizations dedicated to providing prevantitive non emergency medical care at a cost available to all, even if you can’t afford anything.
A big problem though is that organizations like this get underutilized. In our emergency room you will continue to find people that simply don’t seek medical care until they have an acute problem.
Only in the same way that a bag of groceries costs me more than it would if the store didn’t have to deal with inventory shrinkage.
The transferring of costs due to shrinkage or bad accounts payable to other customers is inherent in the market process and not specific to healthcare.
It’s a question of degree and a different thing entirely than if you were to charge some customers more so that other customers could shop for free overtly.
Not a Democrat. We’ve covered this. Many times.
We’ll try and help you see it, therapists will be mustered and dispatched. Be nice to win you over, but its not that important, so long as you don’t get in the way.
You have your faith, though you try to dress it up in rationaist clothes, but faith is what it is: that property rights are on a par with the most central human rights, that to tax away property in order to share it with the needy is as immoral as letting them go without. There is no more basis for your insistance that this is so than for mine that it is not. (It is not.)
Nonsense. Witnessing.
I don’t need a defense, I do what I believe to be just and proper. Who needs a defense? Against your accusations?
I find the experience of sharing so fullfilling, so satisfying, that I cannot, in good conscience, permit you to go without it.
No, don’t thank me, least I could do.
Really bad comparison. No one is sneaking into emergency rooms and pilfering medical treatment.
And, come to think of it, so what? The plain fact is that those who can pay for treatment pay more in order to pay for those who can’t.
I think it’s much better to regularize the process and get low income workers preventive health care which will reduce cost for all. At least the medical professionals think preventive care does reduce the number of serious, and costly illnesses.
The treatment facilities that you describe in your post cost money to run. Someone pays for them so I don’t really see your point. Yes, many low income families have no idea that free, to them, treatment is available. The often don’t take newspapers or other sources of information. There needs to be a determined outreach so that they know about it.
Why are you willing to pay toward my grandson but not some other total stranger? I am a stranger and you would still be paying the fin even if I had never heard of SDMB.
On “philosophical” grounds? Didn’t he tell us that Jesus was his favorite political philosopher? Yes, Mr. President, he did say “Suffer the little children” but that’s not quite what he had in mind…
If you’re now accusing Liberal of falsely quoting me, you should take this up with the mods, not with me.
Have you bought some insurance for poor kids yet, or do you still not want to?
Right. There is a difference, you know, between the public and private sphere, and a legitimate role for each to play. You have stated as much in the past on numerous occasions, and we differ on this merely in the degree of state involvement necessary.
Of course, this is a big difference, and one that matters. But I’m sure you will agree that it is one over which people of goodwill may have legitimate differences of opinion.
There are, as mentioned, numerous charities that do a lot of good work in this area - reducing poverty and providing medical care to many people. I’m sure that whatever your feelings on this subject, and your opinions on the legitimacy of a state role, the fact that the state plays a different role now makes the role of these charities quite important.
Personally, I think they do a better job than government control would. But that’s neither here nor there. For now it suffices that you don’t need to support socialized medicine to be a good Christian.
Render unto Caeser what is Caesar’s, and all that.
Wonder what Jesus would have said about that?
I’m not being facetious here. It’s hard to imagine that the Jesus described in the Gospels would have considered it that important how the needy were helped, relative to that they get helped.
So Jesus would have supported the government forcibly taking money from one person and using it to provide a low level of health care for people? Interesting. Please show me anywhere where Jesus advocated this type of thing.
In Jesus’ time, tax collectors were the worst kind of scum.
While Jesus was in Bethany in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, which she poured on his head as he was reclining at the table.
When the disciples saw this, they were indignant. “Why this waste?” they asked. “This perfume could have been sold at a high price and the money given to the poor.”
Aware of this, Jesus said to them, "Why are you bothering this woman? She has done a beautiful thing to me. The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me. When she poured this perfume on my body, she did it to prepare me for burial. I tell you the truth, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her."Matthew 26:6-13
yeah, and I believe they were private contractors. They paid the ruler a fixed sum and then recovered it by collecting taxes from the common people. They more they collected the higher their profit.
Ah, the free market.
So, you think Jesus would say: And verily I say unto you, that man is righteous who has his money taken from him to feed the poor, just as that man is righteous who feeds the poor himself. And my Father in heaven shall judge them the same and welcome them as equals into His house.
Of course, if Jesus really wanted the needy to be helped, He could just save us all the trouble and help them Himself. What’s the point of being omnipotent if you don’t use that omnipotence to end suffering.
What’s free about a market in which government fatcats partner with business tycoons?
The tax collectors, publicans, bid competitively for the job of collecting taxes with the high bidder winning the job. So in order to get the job you had to bid high and in order to make money you had to collect as much tax as possible.
Isn’t competitive bidding for a contract a free-market operation?
Point me to a free market theorist who supports the notion that businessmen can contract with the government for the power to forcibly take as much of people’s property as the businessmen want, and then we can talk.
As soon as you use the word “tax”, you’re no longer talking about the free market. The free market is the trading of goods and services among individuals making voluntary choices. Ain’t nothin’ voluntary about taxes.