Which Freedoms Lost?

[VaYank5150]

You may have agreed with what I said earlier, but that's not in any way me supporting the idea that we should ever be REQUIRED to carry health insurance.

And that is fair. IF we do not require people to have health insurance, THEN this law needs to be struck down, so the for-profit hospitals can tend to those of us responsible enough to have insurance and/or the ability to pay for the care.

But what do we do with emergency patients who can't pay? Have them die outside the door when they have treatable conditions?

What's the other option? Socialism?

 

[Bern80]

I think that what we are talking about is the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). It requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions.

An emergency medical condition is defined as "a condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in placing the individual's health [or the health of an unborn child] in serious jeopardy, serious impairment to bodily functions, or serious dysfunction of bodily organs."

Should this act be repealed?

Read:

Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't think it needs to be repealed. Who ends up paying is what needs to be addressed

The hospital ends up paying. The cost to hospitals results in higher prices for services that other patients can afford.

Which I don't think is right. No one can predict what and when an injury or illness will befall them, but we are all aware the possiblity of such an occurrance exists and is even likely at some time in our lives. So to me there is no excuse for an individual to not be accountable for paying for services rendered when they are required. Maybe you can't pay for them at the time, fine. Then you do the right thing to work out a way to pay off your debt. In the meantime, from a policy standpoint we need to figure what needs to be done to make those costs as minimal as possible when they do happen.

 

[mattskramer]

And that is fair. IF we do not require people to have health insurance, THEN this law needs to be struck down, so the for-profit hospitals can tend to those of us responsible enough to have insurance and/or the ability to pay for the care.

But what do we do with emergency patients who can't pay? Have them die outside the door when they have treatable conditions?

What's the other option? Socialism?

Why do so many people think of things in pure black-and-white? We have had a tiny bit of socialism for many years. That does not mean that we are an entirely socialistic nation. I support the act. Keep in mind that it is EMERGENCY care. The poor do not receive free check-ups or preventive care. When the emergency patient is stabilized, the hospital can determine whether or not the patient can pay for services. If he can’t pay, then he can’t pay.

 

[Bern80]

And that is fair. IF we do not require people to have health insurance, THEN this law needs to be struck down, so the for-profit hospitals can tend to those of us responsible enough to have insurance and/or the ability to pay for the care.

But what do we do with emergency patients who can't pay? Have them die outside the door when they have treatable conditions?

What's the other option? Socialism?

You treat them and work out how they are going to pay for it later.

 

[mattskramer]

I don't think it needs to be repealed. Who ends up paying is what needs to be addressed

The hospital ends up paying. The cost to hospitals results in higher prices for services that other patients can afford.

So to me there is no excuse for an individual to not be accountable for paying for services rendered when they are required. Maybe you can't pay for them at the time, fine.

So, the severely mentally retarded and physically handicapped (who can never be self-reliant), has a severe accident and develops an emergency life-threatening condition. Hospitals know that he is indigent and, due to his handicaps, will never be able to even work out a payment plan. What is to happen to him if you take EMTALA away?

 

[saveliberty]

Freedom to assume risk.

At every turn the government determines what risks I cannot take.

A question, why is it you are unable to see these lost freedoms?

 

[USArmyRetired]

How many more business "freedoms" thru regulation have we lost since Obama became president?

Well let's wait and see what the brandy new Consumer finance Protection Bureau will do for business.

Talk about sidestepping the laws on this one. Obama appoints Warren without senate confirmation by calling her an assistant to Gutless Geithner and since the money for this new bureau comes from the federal reserve, our elected representatives cannot even vote on whether to fund it.

You want to talk loss of freedoms, just wait to see what an unelected heavily funded, untouchable government shill like Warren can do.

In other words, there have been no losses. Thanks.

Being free means having the opportunity to work hard in order to earn the money and personal property necessary to reach one’s potential and goals. Additionally, unless one has the power to decide how he can use the fruits of his labors to realize his dreams, one cannot pursue his happiness, and thus, is not free.

ObamaCare will impose enormous taxation on all working Americans. The confiscation of even more of a person’s net revenue strips away that person’s freedoms. It is as simple as that. When one has less disposable income, one has less choices. When one has less choices, one is less free.

Freedoms you will lose:

1. Freedom to choose what's in your plan

2. Freedom to be rewarded for healthy living, or pay your real costs

3. Freedom to choose high-deductible coverage

4. Freedom to keep your existing plan

5. Freedom to choose your doctors

 

[PoliticalChic]

Even though that is from PC's post, I doubt she's independent enough politically to recognize specifically the republican role in what you're speaking of.

You misunderstand the difference between recognize and desire to discuss.

I can understand why you wouldn't want to discuss it, being as how hyper partisan you are.

I suppose you and Oddy haven't read many of my posts....they are anti-Left, and pro-conservative.

Not Republican.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Even though that is from PC's post, I doubt she's independent enough politically to recognize specifically the republican role in what you're speaking of.

You misunderstand the difference between recognize and desire to discuss.

Right...I wouldn't want to discuss it if one of my comments had outed me as a party man, either.

Fact remains that the parties don't even have different playbooks...It's the same book that they merely turn over and read from the back of, depending upon who controls the authoritarian apparatus of state.

Another recent and poignant shared blabbering point is "they're just being the party of no, who have no new ideas"...Remember that one making the rounds during the Bush regime?

Now here is a further misunderstanding, cynicism, or at least painting with too broad a brush.

Since I have only two choices if I wish to have a say in government, you are so very wrong if you don't see which party is closer to conservative values.

Certainly the same choice innervates the Tea Party.

 

[shintao]

In other words, there have been no losses. Thanks.

Says you.

Run a business and then tell me that the fucking government doesn't rape you. And Obama pulling shit like he did with Warren ain't going to make life any easier for businesses.[/QUOTE]

What seems to be the problem here? I am sure if it were out of the ordinary, the right would be calling for impeachment immediately. I would imagine the same thing has been going on for years and you overlooked it because it was a republican doing it.

 

[Bern80]

The hospital ends up paying. The cost to hospitals results in higher prices for services that other patients can afford.

So to me there is no excuse for an individual to not be accountable for paying for services rendered when they are required. Maybe you can't pay for them at the time, fine.

So, the severely mentally retarded and physically handicapped (who can never be self-reliant), has a severe accident and develops an emergency life-threatening condition. Hospitals know that he is indigent and, due to his handicaps, will never be able to even work out a payment plan. What is to happen to him if you take EMTALA away?

I don't intend to take away EMTALA law. I intend to modify who pays as a result of the law and I have no problem paying taxes for people that truly can not help themselves, lack the ability to predict consequences, aren't aware, etc.

 

[manifold]

If I answer the OP question based on outcomes then I'd say the freedom to burn a book as a form of political protest has certainly eroded.

 

[Oddball]

You misunderstand the difference between recognize and desire to discuss.

Right...I wouldn't want to discuss it if one of my comments had outed me as a party man, either.

Fact remains that the parties don't even have different playbooks...It's the same book that they merely turn over and read from the back of, depending upon who controls the authoritarian apparatus of state.

Another recent and poignant shared blabbering point is "they're just being the party of no, who have no new ideas"...Remember that one making the rounds during the Bush regime?

Now here is a further misunderstanding, cynicism, or at least painting with too broad a brush.

Since I have only two choices if I wish to have a say in government, you are so very wrong if you don't see which party is closer to conservative values.

Certainly the same choice innervates the Tea Party.

Your misconception that you have only two choices is your problem...In fact, if it can be said that there are only two choices, and those "choices" are between statist party A and statist party B, then it's highly questionable as to whether you have any legitimate choice at all.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Right...I wouldn't want to discuss it if one of my comments had outed me as a party man, either.

Fact remains that the parties don't even have different playbooks...It's the same book that they merely turn over and read from the back of, depending upon who controls the authoritarian apparatus of state.

Another recent and poignant shared blabbering point is "they're just being the party of no, who have no new ideas"...Remember that one making the rounds during the Bush regime?

Now here is a further misunderstanding, cynicism, or at least painting with too broad a brush.

Since I have only two choices if I wish to have a say in government, you are so very wrong if you don't see which party is closer to conservative values.

Certainly the same choice innervates the Tea Party.

Your misconception that you have only two choices is your problem...In fact, if it can be said that there are only two choices, and those "choices" are between statist party A and statist party B, then it's highly questionable as to whether you have any legitimate choice at all.

Some 98.6% of the vote went as follows, Dem-Repub:

Popular vote 69,456,897[1] 59,934,814[1]
Percentage 52.9%[1] 45.7%[1]
United States presidential election, 2008 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While technically you point is correct, one could be of the 1.4%, it is also an obfuscation.
If you don't care to make your distinction based on small differences,as is the way the system works,...don't vote.

I choose to make said distinctions in the hopes that more Americans make the same distinctions...i.e., November.


And, if you choose to throw a tantrum if you don't get your way, then you'd have to be a liberal.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

I've heard much about Obama's Administration and our current Democrat-run Congress taking away our freedoms from the Tea Party and GOP candidates attempting to rally the TP as their base. I honestly don't know what freedoms we've lost, other than the freedom to pay women less for the same work, the freedom for health insurance companies to victimize their clients (and citizens will have to have health insurance which I think of as losing a freedom to be irresponsible toward your fellow human beings), and the freedom for credit card companies to bamboozle their card holders. I remember when the Patriot Act passed and some of our freedoms actually were lost.

I would like to ask those who believe we've lost freedoms to explain which freedoms we've lost since the end of the last administration - in other words, what freedoms have we lost since the Obama administration took over. This isn't a challenge, I honestly want to understand the ever-growing point of view on this subject.

And, please, let's keep it civil.

Its an on going process, as the Bills were unread and passed ,they created new government bureaucracies that are still in the process of being created the regulations still being written .

As far as freedoms being lost they wont be noticed ,just like the lose of freedom that has been going on for 100 years .

The DC money policies right now are taking your freedom if you think of money equaling freedom the dollar us being devalued making everything cost more and limiting opportunity .

The people who will pay are the grandchildren of the people alive now they will be saddled with huge government debts and restrictions.

 

[Oddball]

Now here is a further misunderstanding, cynicism, or at least painting with too broad a brush.

Since I have only two choices if I wish to have a say in government, you are so very wrong if you don't see which party is closer to conservative values.

Certainly the same choice innervates the Tea Party.

Your misconception that you have only two choices is your problem...In fact, if it can be said that there are only two choices, and those "choices" are between statist party A and statist party B, then it's highly questionable as to whether you have any legitimate choice at all.

Some 98.6% of the vote went as follows, Dem-Repub:

Popular vote 69,456,897[1] 59,934,814[1]
Percentage 52.9%[1] 45.7%[1]
United States presidential election, 2008 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While technically you point is correct, one could be of the 1.4%, it is also an obfuscation.
If you don't care to make your distinction based on small differences,as is the way the system works,...don't vote.

I choose to make said distinctions in the hopes that more Americans make the same distinctinctions...i.e., November.


And, if you choose to throw a tantrum if you don't get your way, then you'd have to be a liberal.

I don't give a hoot in hell what anyone else does.

You're either part of the problem or part of the solution.

Republicans have been part of the progressive statist problem since at least Teddy Roosevelt.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Remember the cacophonous wailing of the left over the Bush administration's alleged politicization of the Justice Department?

Except...it wasn't "alleged".....at least according to the 2008 Justice Department's Inspector General report. It found most of the attorney firings were politically motivated and improper

Link

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

In other words, there have been no losses. Thanks.

Only happened under Bush.

 

[JiggsCasey]

I'd like to see hospitals be able to demand guarantee of payment upfront.

If you come in with crushing chest pain and no payment, you will die.

It's called capitalism.

And there it is, in a nutshell: Behold, modern conservative ideology on display for all.

The party of Jesus, demanding the exact opposite that Jesus ever would.

This is why your party is dying, and why you have to pull off gimmicks and card tricks to motivate your former base come election day.

Well done, tool.

 

[RDD_1210]

Freedom to assume risk.

At every turn the government determines what risks I cannot take.

A question, why is it you are unable to see these lost freedoms?

Nah, there's no risk for you. Since according to you, you can always declare bankruptcy to clear your debts!