kbordson 8 #26 March 7, 2009 QuoteThe choice should not have to be made. They should both be treated. How can a world where we have the capability to overcome almost any obstacle, have to make such a basic decision? Everyone has an opinion until it might be them on the table. Funny how that changes it. This is not a problem in other countries. Health care has turned into a business that exists for profit. Is that really what it's about? How this country can spend the massive amounts of money on wars, pork laden projects and ridiculous benefits for elected officials is nothing short of criminal. We are quickly rushing towards a catastrophe. This is how gov.'s are toppled. And should be. Only when everyone unites will things change. The reason the chinese are doing what they're doing, is not because they're a bunch of kind-hearted commies. No, they don't want to end up on a meathook in the middle of Tiannemen square. Let's take a second look @ this and really consider what's important. How productive could we be if we didn't have to worry about what should be basic human needs? If a country wants to expand and prosper, they need to create a place where this can exist. Look at the success of Google and see how they treat their employees. Can't a country do this? An effective national healthcare program is long overdue and should be here now. Check out the movie"Sicko" to see how it really works in other countries. We have been fed a(nother) bunch of lies and are being led to the slaughter. Time to stop this. You honestly make good points and no one is arguing that there shouldn't be change. But a couple thoughts - You lost points using Sicko as your support. That was honestly a propaganda film that was made for money. You don't truly understand the system (but neither do I and I am IN it) I DO know that there are ABUSES of the system. I DO know that there are ABUSES of the providers of the systems. And I know someone will complain about using personal examples but EVEN last night - I was personally threatened while providing what I consider the best of care to one of my patients by the family member of someone receiving government funded assistance. (now... granted part of me knows not to take his threats seriously .... but when it comes to "entitled" care... sometimes people think there are NO limits to what they are "entitled" to) As far as who should get treatment? The answer is and ALWAYS will be triage. But... someone does have to pay to keep the hospital there, to keep the nurses employed, to keep the doctors learning. Someone has to pay the electric company and the gas bills of the hospital. You are using MANY services when you go to the ER and SOMEONE has to keep those running.... and I believe in personal responsibility. I do NOT expect someone to pay for my bills, whether they are medical or food or clothing ... I incur debt, I am responsible to resolve that. Combining this with a discussion of police and fire services is silly too (not yet done in this thread... but used as an argument ALL THE TIME)... cuz the police do NOT protect ME. They protect the laws. I can NOT just walk into the police station and say "I want a body guard." Once the law is broken though, then they are called into service. Likewise... the fire dept is not MINE. I have smoke detectors that I bought, I have a fire responses system that I pay for. And if there are multiple fires... I can't stomp my foot and DEMAND they come to mine first. AND in some situations the homeowners and their insurance can and HAVE been billed by the dept's for calls. I'm NOT entitled to police or fire services. But with paying taxes I get a SMALL benefit if something goes catastrophically wrong... but with caveats and restrictions. What is the government responsible for? In my opinion - it is a social group arranged to tell the masses to "play nice" and to decide on how to enforce that decree. The government is NOT there to give me anything. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #27 March 9, 2009 QuoteGiven only the two patients listed as options--both of whom come to an emergency room at the same time with similar life-threatening conditions--who should the hospital treat first? Given the seriousness of the injuries, there will not be time to ascertain their respective insurance status prior to treatment, therefore, insurance will be an irrelevant factor. They can treat both simultaneously. Presuming there is only one doctor, each will get half of his attention. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
