POLITICS & DONALD Annoying Orange MEGATHREAD

[Cappytaino]

Dude it is already illegal to refuse healthcare to people in desperate need. If someone shows up to an ER with gunshot wounds and the doctors refuse to treat them, the doctors get sent to prison and the hospital is shut down.

https://www.acep.org/news-media-top-banner/emtala/

But what you're saying here isn't even an American value. Having to treat people (in exchange for money, regardless) to prevent their death is basic human rights. If there's some sort of dispute over whether that's 'American', then the term is meaningless and should be abandoned.

I just acknowledged that in my post before if you didn't read it.

Legally, Non-ER doctors have the discretion to refuse service in non-life threatening cases for any reason not related to race, religion, or political beliefs.

So refusing to save someone with gunshot wounds is unethical, but letting someone slowly die from cancer due to lack of insurance is morally acceptable?

Cancer is obviously the extreme end of the spectrum. Cancer treatments are expensive, it's no wonder people can't afford them and for people with cancer, they should receive treatment. But where do you draw the line? For example, do self imposed conditions which threaten life count? If someone binge eats and develops a cardiovascular condition and requires a bypass surgery, should I be forced to subsidize their unhealthy lifestyle?

[Ad Bot]

[SeventhSandwich]

I just acknowledged that in my post before if you didn't read it.

Alright, patient abandonment is also a crime.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-patient-abandonment.html

[HellHound]

poor people died in the streets of sickness for hundreds of years - how come it's become an issue now??

[Cappytaino]

Alright, patient abandonment is also a crime.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-patient-abandonment.html

http://www.injuryclaimcoach.com/treatment-denial.html

This source claims otherwise. Depending on the situation, patients can be denied care if the doctor has reason to believe they are deluded, faking a condition, attempting to secure narcotics, or constitute a safety problem due to dangerous behavior while waiting to be seen.

This is one of the major reasons Triage exists, to get care to people that actually need it and sort out the people in lesser/no need.

[SeventhSandwich]

For example, do self imposed conditions which threaten life count? If someone binge eats and develops a cardiovascular condition and requires a bypass surgery, should I be forced to subsidize their unhealthy lifestyle?

Wtf are you talking about? You aren't subsidizing their unhealthy lifestyle. You aren't buying them fries with a milkshake. You're preventing a permanent end to their life.

I don't really know what to tell you, man. If you think a meager portion of your paycheck is worth allowing fat people to die, then that's just a fundamental moral issue on your part. I can point out the economic and social benefits of preventing people's untimely deaths, but if you think a meaningless fraction of a penny out of your wallet is worth more than someone's dad, mother, or child, then you're kinda beyond the stage of being rationally convinced. Sort it out yourself.

[Cappytaino]

Wtf are you talking about? You aren't subsidizing their unhealthy lifestyle. You aren't buying them fries with a milkshake. You're preventing a permanent end to their life.

I don't really know what to tell you, man. If you think a meager portion of your paycheck is worth allowing fat people to die, then that's just a fundamental moral issue on your part. I can point out the economic and social benefits of preventing people's untimely deaths, but if you think a meaningless fraction of a penny out of your wallet is worth more than someone's dad, mother, or child, then you're kinda beyond the stage of being rationally convinced. Sort it out yourself.

Medical care is a commodity, not a right.

The fundamental issue with taxpayer funded healthcare on a moral level is that it impedes the actual, constitutional right of the people to property in order to provide a commodity to someone to which they are not automatically entitled on any constitutional/legal basis.

Food is a commodity. Farmers grow food to make money. Food helps nourish people so they don't starve. But you're not entitled to it. Healthcare is the same. Unless the constitution is amended to define healthcare as a fundamental right, I don't see why the actual rights of people are being impeded to provide it.

if you think a meaningless fraction of a penny out of your wallet is worth more than someone's dad, mother, or child, then you're kinda beyond the stage of being rationally convinced. Sort it out yourself.

Your argument is that healthcare is too expensive for people to afford but you go on to define its cost as a meaningless fraction of a penny. Look at the tax rates of countries with socialized healthcare. Middle class people are paying 40-65% of their income in taxes in some cases to among other things fund the healthcare system

[SeventhSandwich]

The fundamental issue with taxpayer funded healthcare on a moral level is that it impedes the actual, constitutional right of the people to property in order to provide a commodity to someone to which they are not automatically entitled on any constitutional/legal basis.

I was going to duck out after the last comment, but you're still under this assumption that single-payer healthcare means the government putting a gun to doctor's heads until they give cheaper care. You fundamentally don't understand how a single-payer system works and it's really obvious.

A single-payer system is indistinguishable on all levels (patient, doctor, hospital, drug companies) etc, except instead of the money moving from patient to hospital or pharmacy, the money is moving from taxes, to a national healthcare system, to the hospital/pharmacy. Nobody is any less or more compelled to give medical care. The hospitals are working for money. The doctors are working for money. The pharmaceutical companies and pharmacies are working for money. The only difference is that tax payers are supporting society's medical bills rather than their own.

For your brown townogy, it's like food stamps. Farmers are not being forced to give their food to the poor. They are being paid by grocery stores, who are being paid by the government rather than the customer. The only 'compelled' transaction here is the fact that taxpayers pay a meager amount of their paycheck into the program.

What you're doing here is reframing this argument into 'the poor doctors, the poor hospitals' when what you're really saying is, "I do not want to spend money to keep other people from dying." Under a single payer system, neither the hospitals nor the doctors nor the drug companies are any worse off. At all. End of story lol

Look at the tax rates of countries with socialized healthcare. Middle class people are paying 40-65% of their income in taxes in some cases to among other things fund the healthcare system

That disparity is not solely because of healthcare. UK income tax is below the global average but they have the NHS. This argument is demonstrably false.

[Electrk.]

Medical care is a commodity, not a right.

This is the dumbest thing I've read since Ben Shapiro's "furniture store" tweet

[HellHound]

donald Annoying Orange just wanted to seize the means of reproduction

[Cappytaino]

This is the dumbest thing I've read since Ben Shapiro's "furniture store" tweet

instead of calling it dumb, show me where the constitution says that healthcare is a right

[Foxscotch]

instead of calling it dumb, show me where the constitution says that healthcare is a right

it doesn't matter what the hell the constitution says. I can't imagine most fascist regimes think there are many inalienable human rights at all. just cus some nation governs that way doesn't mean it's right

[PhantOS]

the constitution was made to be amended. that's why we call them amendments

[Cappytaino]

it doesn't matter what the hell the constitution says. I can't imagine most fascist regimes think there are many inalienable human rights at all. just cus some nation governs that way doesn't mean it's right

A fascist regime uses access to healthcare as a tool to control the people. See: USSR, NSDAP Germany, Fascist Italy. People are more willing to concede their rights if they think the government is taking care of them, and concession of rights is what allows fascism to happen.

the constitution was made to be amended. that's why we call them amendments

Then congress will amend it if need be. As it currently stands, however, healthcare is not a right.

[otto-san]

all the constitution does is describe our government and what it's not allowed to do, i don't see how it's relevant here. funding healthcare is well within congres's powers of the purse.

[Cappytaino]

literally all the constitution does is describe our government and what it's not allowed to do, i don't see how it's relevant

The first ten amendments define the rights of the people. It's relevant because single-payer healthcare assumes that healthcare is a right while under the constitution (supercedes local/state law) healthcare is not considered a right, therefore there is a potential issue of unconstitutionality if you force taxpayers to subsidize a commodity (healthcare).

If it were legally defined as a right, it would be different. As it currently stands, however, it is not.