Here's some good news..........NOT!

[Richard B the EMT]

JPINFV states

Not exactly. The vast majority of constitutional rights in the United States are so called "negative rights." Freedom of speech is not a carte blanch right, in part, because it is not written anything like "Citizens shall have freedom of speech." If it was, for example, then EMT-City Admin would be violating my rights by editing or deleting any of my posts. Instead, it is specifically written that the US government shall not make a law abridging freedom of speech. Therefore, only the government is not allowed to curtail a person's free speech. By wording it this way, the only burden of restriction is on the government.

Tell that to Lenny Bruce and Redd Foxx!

[aussiephil]

If a government department can cover their costs on their own, then there is no reason why they should not do so.

JPINV,

based on this statment, do you think it is right that a person who is unable to afford health insurance, has severe chest pain, & self presents to a hospital to recieve treatment that may not be effective because he is too late? Or, a person who has insurance, calls an ambulance, is rushed straight through without triage & recieves faster treatment?

Or should we all be treated equally, without prejudice based on socio-economic factors?

[Dustdevil]

Or should we all be treated equally, without prejudice based on socio-economic factors?

In the U.S., they are. What makes you think they are not? Too many Hillary Klinton rallies on Aussie TV?

[Ridryder 911]

Free service to all? Maybe not the best way...

I was sent this link, and found it interesting. It will piss off our neighbors up North..

http://www.freemarketcure.com/brainsurgery.php

[JPINFV]

If a government department can cover their costs on their own, then there is no reason why they should not do so.

JPINV,

based on this statment, do you think it is right that a person who is unable to afford health insurance, has severe chest pain, & self presents to a hospital to recieve treatment that may not be effective because he is too late? Or, a person who has insurance, calls an ambulance, is rushed straight through without triage & recieves faster treatment?

Or should we all be treated equally, without prejudice based on socio-economic factors?

Are you arguing that people who require the services of medical providers should not be billed?

[aussiephil]

Are you arguing that people who require the services of medical providers should not be billed?

I am argueing that we have a social & moral obligation to assist those less fortunate in society. I have said that here

Or should we all be treated equally, without prejudice based on socio-economic factors

& here

We have a social responsibility to ensure that healthcare is available to all, not just those who can afford it.

& here

Basic healthcare, the right to live your life knowing that in a first world country you have the best doctors etc & that they are available if needed is a primary need

& here

Why is it that we have people like Bono (from U2) Bill Gates & Co comtributing millions of dollars to third world countries to provide basic healthcare FREE? Because they recognise that it is the only way to improve how those people will live in the years to come.

I will say it one more time.

Healthcare should not be run for profit. Healthcare is a basic right of all people to have provided at little or no cost. This runs from GP visits, to inpatient & outpatient visits.

[JPINFV]

Healthcare should not be run for profit. Healthcare is a basic right of all people to have provided at little or no cost. This runs from GP visits, to inpatient & outpatient visits.

That still fails to respond to my point about negative vs positive rights.

So, if healthcare is a "right" who decides what health care providers get paid? Who decides what amount of health care is enough? What about people who use more health care than 'their fair share?' Should people who have money be allowed to spend it on health care and get a higher level of service? If not, why? It's their money after all.

[RaceMedic]

Im sorry i fail to see where the government is responcible for my healthcare... they have other things they need to worry about. I work and earn my money that i spend on health insurance, i demand better care for doing so. However everyday i pick up people on the street that are fully capable of working milking the system. so in a sence we already have government sponcered health care, all the medicare cuts have made us do is find new and better ways of falsifying our paperwork ( and we all do ) to get the re-embursement. medicare and medicaid are so far behind because ALL administraitions have milked it for loans for decades... republican and dems alike are responcible for how it has declined and is going bankrupt

[SSG G-man]

Where does the line of "health care" get drawn. Should the government pay for my lipo because it affects my mental health? I do not want more children, should the government pay for me to get clipped?

Just a little devils advocate!!

[JakeEMTP]

Where does the line of "health care" get drawn. Should the government pay for my lipo because it affects my mental health? I do not want more children, should the government pay for me to get clipped?

Just a little devils advocate!!

In a word, no. The two procedures you mention are elective. They are not required to save your life ( ok, maybe the lipo ). If perhaps the Government re-allocated just a fraction of the monies spent on pork-barrel projects to healthcare, they wouldn't be looking for ways to cut spending on Medicare/caid.