In response to:

Is Healthcare A Right?

Dr_Zinj Wrote: Dec 04, 2012 9:17 AM
As the Declaration of Independence restates, people are endowed by our Creator to the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are not supposed to be taken away from people. Nowhere is it stated that the State is required to provide those things to people. And while liberty and the pursuit of happiness can be restored if taken away, life is the one thing that we can’t really give back. My father died of lung cancer this spring. He could have chosen to fight to the last, using every bit of medical science to battle the consequences of his lifetime smoking habit; even though it would have only BOUGHT him 3 to 6 months increasingly pain-filled, restricted to a bed or chair, life. Estimates were anywhere from...
Dr_Zinj Wrote: Dec 10, 2012 2:58 PM
That hospital, those doctors, nurses, technicians, do not work for free. Somebody gives them the money they need not earn a living, and have enough "slack" to be able to offer pro bono services. The point is, that is a voluntary choice for those benefactors. It is not a case of coerced Robin Hoodism by the government.

By the way, stealing $10,000 from thieves, convicted criminals, is still considered grand larceny and prosecutable in this country.
Dr_Zinj Wrote: Dec 10, 2012 2:53 PM
Those who wish to do so can contribute. If that's not enough, the child either gets the lower level of care that can be afforded, or dies.
Choosing not to pay to save that child is not the same as choosing to kill the child; even if the child ends up just as dead.
mbowen300 Wrote: Dec 05, 2012 1:14 AM
my son was one they have hospitals that take and treat them with out cost no one is turned away .so it is a big lie that the child just dies for lack of money .my son is now 30 yrs old and the hospital is doing well .does that answer your question ? also 2 yrs later my oldest son got sick i took him to a local hospital .i had no INS.and no money he was there for 3 weeks .he is now 40 yrs old .he was in need and they took care of him they did not refuse to treat that is another big lie .i went to hospital last yr i was in surg;in 15 min it was 2 days in ICU befor i was even asked if i had INS . this time i did but i was treated first .so if you die in the street it is because you didn't go to the hospital .lies work if you repeat them
mbowen300 Wrote: Dec 05, 2012 1:14 AM
my son was one they have hospitals that take and treat them with out cost no one is turned away .so it is a big lie that the child just dies for lack of money .my son is now 30 yrs old and the hospital is doing well .does that answer your question ? also 2 yrs later my oldest son got sick i took him to a local hospital .i had no INS.and no money he was there for 3 weeks .he is now 40 yrs old .he was in need and they took care of him they did not refuse to treat that is another big lie .i went to hospital last yr i was in surg;in 15 min it was 2 days in ICU befor i was even asked if i had INS . this time i did but i was treated first .so if you die in the street it is because you didn't go to the hospital .lies work if you repeat them
Netaric9@att.net Wrote: Dec 04, 2012 4:40 PM
You are so right! How can anyone with even one half of their brain power expect other people, who they don't even know to pay for something that is entirely their own responsibility. Oh, I forgot, a lot of people in this country have no responsibilities. I am so tired of supporting them.
jimmylynn Wrote: Dec 04, 2012 10:08 AM
Interesting Dr. Zinj.

So enlighten me. I can understand your position concerning your father, but what about that 5 year old child that develops a life threatening medical condition. A young family short on resources knowing that a cure or a medical procedure could save their child's life. A medical procedure that was so expensive that very few people could afford it, regardless of their financial situation. What is your opinion under those circumstances?
Dr_Zinj Wrote: Dec 04, 2012 9:39 AM
$150,000 to nearly half a million in healthcare costs to do so. His assets totaled maybe $120,000 if you were generous. Meaning the nation would have been required to pay the balance; or his healthcare providers not get paid for their work (i.e. stealing from his doctors and nurses.)

Dr_Zinj Wrote: Dec 04, 2012 9:18 AM
My father chose to not be a taker. He’d be the first person to tell you that he didn’t have the right to make other people pay for his healthcare. What he could afford, he paid for. What he could not afford he accepted as the rightful consequence of not saving more or earning more earlier in life.

You have the right to all the healthcare you can earn. Nobody has the right to all the healthcare the rest of us can pay for you.

Often when someone nears the end of life, they begin to contemplate their lives and recognize that of all the things they've accumulated, all the accolades that have been bestowed upon them, nothing is as valuable as life itself: there is nothing that should be protected more than life itself. But if it's the most valuable thing we possess, whose responsibility is it to protect it? Is it the responsibility of the individual that possesses it? Is it the responsibility of the society in which that individual is a constituent? The answer most likely lies somewhere between those two choices.

...