Should hospitals be free to dump penniless emergencies.

[manu1959]

I interpret it the same way. We are supposed to obey those in charge....if I remember correctly, this is in Romans? But we are also supposed to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, give shelter to the homeless, etc... I agree with you about love waxing cold. It's difficult to respect someone who says that they are a "Christian", when they believe it is okay to not be....*thinking*.....charitable.

Charity to me is: not shouting, "Get a job you loser!", as you walk or drive by a begger. "It's their fault they're homeless.". "God helps those who help themselves."......being disrespectful to those you consider as inferior to you. This way of thinking is more in line with LeVeyan philosophy than Christianity.

Today's Christian right says, "But...but...if we clothe the hungry and feed the naked just because they need help, that's COMMUNISM!"

you are delusional.....the christian right that actually goes to church and participates gives a great deal to the less fortunate.....

passing laws to take money from one group and give it to another so all have equal amounts is counterproductive.....

the religious right and the traits you accuse them of are both an invention of left to further the lefts agenda....

 

[rdean]

If insurance companies can dump people that get sick, why shouldn't hospitals be able to do the same thing?

This is what Republcians are fighting for, they THINK they are fighting against Obama, but what they are really fighting for is to see how fast they can give their money away to companies who are actually selling "illusionary" insurance policies.

30 cents of every dollar goes to CEO bonuses, stock options, advertisement, offices, administration, etc.
We spent 94 billion in 1993, but 2.5 TRILLION in 2008. This is what the right is fighting to keep. Obama want's to end this fleecing of the American people. The problem is that he isn't the "white" color.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I interpret it the same way. We are supposed to obey those in charge....if I remember correctly, this is in Romans? But we are also supposed to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, give shelter to the homeless, etc... I agree with you about love waxing cold. It's difficult to respect someone who says that they are a "Christian", when they believe it is okay to not be....*thinking*.....charitable.

Charity to me is: not shouting, "Get a job you loser!", as you walk or drive by a begger. "It's their fault they're homeless.". "God helps those who help themselves."......being disrespectful to those you consider as inferior to you. This way of thinking is more in line with LeVeyan philosophy than Christianity.

Today's Christian right says, "But...but...if we clothe the hungry and feed the naked just because they need help, that's COMMUNISM!"

Now, that you bring it up, doesn't it seem strange that liberals, who we all know love humanity, are deathly opposed to giving charity?

"Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.
-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.
RealClearPolitics - Articles - Conservatives More Liberal Givers

And those liberal politicians, like Vice-President Biden, G-d love him,

"Looking at the ten-year total of Biden’s giving, one percent would have been $24,500. One half of one percent would have been $12,250. One quarter of one percent would have been $6,125. And one eighth of one percent would have been $3,062 — just below what Biden actually contributed.

“The average American household gives about two percent of adjusted gross income,” says Arthur Brooks, the Syracuse University scholar, soon to take over as head of the American Enterprise Institute, who has done extensive research on American giving. “On average, [Biden] is not giving more than one tenth as much as the average American household, and that is evidence that he doesn’t share charitable values with the average American.”
Byron York 9/15/08 NR


And, how about, as our President phrases it 'a teachable moment'...

"Obama and his wife, Michelle, earned $181,507 to $272,759 each year from 1998-2004.
Their income jumped to $1.6 million in 2005, Obama's first year in the Senate, with the rerelease of his first book, “Dreams from My Father.” They made nearly $1 million in 2006, half of it from his second book, “The Audacity of Hope.”
The Obamas' charitable giving also increased with their newfound wealth.
From 1998-2004, they gave between $1,050-$3,400 each year. In 2005, they gave $77,315, including donations to literacy and anti-poverty campaigns and their church. In 2006, they gave $60,307 to charity.

Up until recent years when their income increased sharply from book revenues and a Senate salary, Obama's family donated a relatively minor amount of its earnings to charity. From 2000 through 2004, the senator and his wife never gave more than $3,500 a year in charitable donations -- about 1 percent of their annual earnings.(Sam Stein Huffington Post)

How do ya' figure them kooky liberals???

 

[Harry Dresden]

I interpret it the same way. We are supposed to obey those in charge....if I remember correctly, this is in Romans? But we are also supposed to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, give shelter to the homeless, etc... I agree with you about love waxing cold. It's difficult to respect someone who says that they are a "Christian", when they believe it is okay to not be....*thinking*.....charitable.

Charity to me is: not shouting, "Get a job you loser!", as you walk or drive by a begger. "It's their fault they're homeless.". "God helps those who help themselves."......being disrespectful to those you consider as inferior to you. This way of thinking is more in line with LeVeyan philosophy than Christianity.

Today's Christian right says, "But...but...if we clothe the hungry and feed the naked just because they need help, that's COMMUNISM!"

if thats true Squigmont why do i continually see things saying that the "Christian Right" gives a hell of a lot to charity?...you must have overlooked that....because we all know a Centrist would have mentioned that....

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

I interpret it the same way. We are supposed to obey those in charge....if I remember correctly, this is in Romans? But we are also supposed to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, give shelter to the homeless, etc... I agree with you about love waxing cold. It's difficult to respect someone who says that they are a "Christian", when they believe it is okay to not be....*thinking*.....charitable.

Charity to me is: not shouting, "Get a job you loser!", as you walk or drive by a begger. "It's their fault they're homeless.". "God helps those who help themselves."......being disrespectful to those you consider as inferior to you. This way of thinking is more in line with LeVeyan philosophy than Christianity.

Today's Christian right says, "But...but...if we clothe the hungry and feed the naked just because they need help, that's COMMUNISM!"

Now, that you bring it up, doesn't it seem strange that liberals, who we all know love humanity, are deathly opposed to giving charity?

So giving less than someone else = "deathly opposed to giving"

How do ya figure that kooky math???

I'm pretty sure that Jesus would've taken a dim view of using the amount of charity you give as a competition, too...

 

[xsited1]

Should hospitals be free to dump penniless emergencies.

Yes. And whoever passed a law stating otherwise should be required to pay for their care.

you are already paying for their care. What do you think hospitals do when they have unpaid medical bills? They raise the cost of medical treatement.

That's the point of the OP. Of course we are already paying for it. The question is should the taxpayers be responsible for paying the bill of another person?

 

[Care4all]

I interpret it the same way. We are supposed to obey those in charge....if I remember correctly, this is in Romans? But we are also supposed to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, give shelter to the homeless, etc... I agree with you about love waxing cold. It's difficult to respect someone who says that they are a "Christian", when they believe it is okay to not be....*thinking*.....charitable.

Charity to me is: not shouting, "Get a job you loser!", as you walk or drive by a begger. "It's their fault they're homeless.". "God helps those who help themselves."......being disrespectful to those you consider as inferior to you. This way of thinking is more in line with LeVeyan philosophy than Christianity.

Today's Christian right says, "But...but...if we clothe the hungry and feed the naked just because they need help, that's COMMUNISM!"

Now, that you bring it up, doesn't it seem strange that liberals, who we all know love humanity, are deathly opposed to giving charity?

"Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.
-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.
RealClearPolitics - Articles - Conservatives More Liberal Givers

And those liberal politicians, like Vice-President Biden, G-d love him,

"Looking at the ten-year total of Biden’s giving, one percent would have been $24,500. One half of one percent would have been $12,250. One quarter of one percent would have been $6,125. And one eighth of one percent would have been $3,062 — just below what Biden actually contributed.

“The average American household gives about two percent of adjusted gross income,” says Arthur Brooks, the Syracuse University scholar, soon to take over as head of the American Enterprise Institute, who has done extensive research on American giving. “On average, [Biden] is not giving more than one tenth as much as the average American household, and that is evidence that he doesn’t share charitable values with the average American.”
Byron York 9/15/08 NR


And, how about, as our President phrases it 'a teachable moment'...

"Obama and his wife, Michelle, earned $181,507 to $272,759 each year from 1998-2004.
Their income jumped to $1.6 million in 2005, Obama's first year in the Senate, with the rerelease of his first book, “Dreams from My Father.” They made nearly $1 million in 2006, half of it from his second book, “The Audacity of Hope.”
The Obamas' charitable giving also increased with their newfound wealth.
From 1998-2004, they gave between $1,050-$3,400 each year. In 2005, they gave $77,315, including donations to literacy and anti-poverty campaigns and their church. In 2006, they gave $60,307 to charity.

Up until recent years when their income increased sharply from book revenues and a Senate salary, Obama's family donated a relatively minor amount of its earnings to charity. From 2000 through 2004, the senator and his wife never gave more than $3,500 a year in charitable donations -- about 1 percent of their annual earnings.(Sam Stein Huffington Post)

How do ya' figure them kooky liberals???

giving to ''charity'' or your church's charity, doesn't always equate with helping all the needy that needs help...christian charities and other religious charities tend to have narrow mission statements....and many, many, many groups of people are never reached by their missions....

IF Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist etc and all secular charities were reaching everyone, then we would not have so many indigent, poor and needy in our country...they can only do so much....and do a very fine job on their missions, but it just is NOT nearly enough! IF it were not for these charitable missions, our welfare rolls would not be close to manageable in my opinion!

Democrats have no problem with helping people and support most any program to help the poor....Blue coastal states in general, pay more in taxes per person and supports the less fortunate states, many of which are in general, red states...

The wealthiest of Democrats are EXTREMELY generous, ala Gates and Buffet and Heinz etc with their own charities, along with welcoming more taxes upon themselves....

Overall I think we are a generous nation made up of generous people....

care

 

[PoliticalChic]

Today's Christian right says, "But...but...if we clothe the hungry and feed the naked just because they need help, that's COMMUNISM!"

Now, that you bring it up, doesn't it seem strange that liberals, who we all know love humanity, are deathly opposed to giving charity?

So giving less than someone else = "deathly opposed to giving"

How do ya figure that kooky math???

I'm pretty sure that Jesus would've taken a dim view of using the amount of charity you give as a competition, too...

"So giving less than someone else = "deathly opposed to giving."
Another anemic defense.

And, as so often an emblem of your posts, an attempt at wit.
Unfortately, you are unequipped in that area.

Proven over and over, Conservatives actually and verifiably help others, while Libs talk a good game, but love giving as long as it is other folks' money: i.e. Biden and Obama, and, judging by your post, you.

I recall Margaret Thatcher's critique of Socialism: “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

Now, that you bring it up, doesn't it seem strange that liberals, who we all know love humanity, are deathly opposed to giving charity?

So giving less than someone else = "deathly opposed to giving"

How do ya figure that kooky math???

I'm pretty sure that Jesus would've taken a dim view of using the amount of charity you give as a competition, too...

"So giving less than someone else = "deathly opposed to giving."
Another anemic defense.

And, as so often an emblem of your posts, an attempt at wit.
Unfortately, you are unequipped in that area.

Proven over and over, Conservatives actually and verifiably help others, while Libs talk a good game, but love giving as long as it is other folks' money: i.e. Biden and Obama, and, judging by your post, you.

Then according to you conservatives ARE communists!
Thanks for making my point, honey-pie!

 

[PoliticalChic]

So giving less than someone else = "deathly opposed to giving"

How do ya figure that kooky math???

I'm pretty sure that Jesus would've taken a dim view of using the amount of charity you give as a competition, too...

"So giving less than someone else = "deathly opposed to giving."
Another anemic defense.

And, as so often an emblem of your posts, an attempt at wit.
Unfortately, you are unequipped in that area.

Proven over and over, Conservatives actually and verifiably help others, while Libs talk a good game, but love giving as long as it is other folks' money: i.e. Biden and Obama, and, judging by your post, you.

Then according to you conservatives ARE communists!
Thanks for making my point, honey-pie!

Another vapid, empty unsubstantiated post.

A waste of good electrons.

Let's make believe you actually had a point, in addition to the one on top of your head.
A tip that my prove valuable in your real life, such as it is: Reality is defined by actions, not speech.

Therefore, actual contributions, as I have documented, of time, money, blood, etc. define the sense of community that Conservative believe in, not the empty talk of Libs.

And the conflation of the words 'Conservative' and 'Communism,' indicative of nothing other than the availability of a Scrabble board, identifies the level of discussion that one can expect from you.

And that's MRS. Honey-Pie to you.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

And as usual you missed the point: you're now scrambling to prove that you can have your cake and eat it, too. A tip that may prove valuable in life: generosity taken to its ultimate conclusion results in a Marxist collective. (Such collectives can't last if there are more than about 30 people, but that's another story.) Therefore, if liberals are more socialist, that makes them more generous, and if conservatives are more generous, that makes them more socialist.

So you can save your doublespeak for someone who's buying.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And as usual you missed the point: you're now scrambling to prove that you can have your cake and eat it, too. A tip that may prove valuable in life: generosity taken to its ultimate conclusion results in a Marxist collective. (Such collectives can't last if there are more than about 30 people, but that's another story.) Therefore, if liberals are more socialist, that makes them more generous, and if conservatives are more generous, that makes them more socialist.

So you can save your doublespeak for someone who's buying.

It is evident that your modus operandi is to talk as fast as you can and hope there is a point somewhere in there.

I think you understood my premise.

But when you re-read some of your posts, such as this one, you might begin to understand why folks you meet on a regular basis give you that cement smile, then walk away.

How about you do us both a favor and continue 'not buying.'

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

So you can save your doublespeak for someone who's buying.

But when you re-read some of your posts, such as this one, you might begin to understand why folks you meet on a regular basis give you that cement smile, then walk away.

Don't confuse me with a politician. I would stop meeting anyone who did that to me on a regular basis.

How about you do us both a favor and continue 'not buying.'

I'd be delighted to agree to that one...

 

[PoliticalChic]

So you can save your doublespeak for someone who's buying.

But when you re-read some of your posts, such as this one, you might begin to understand why folks you meet on a regular basis give you that cement smile, then walk away.

Don't confuse me with a politician. I would stop meeting anyone who did that to me on a regular basis.

How about you do us both a favor and continue 'not buying.'

I'd be delighted to agree to that one...

So stop throwing pebbles at my window.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

But when you re-read some of your posts, such as this one, you might begin to understand why folks you meet on a regular basis give you that cement smile, then walk away.

Don't confuse me with a politician. I would stop meeting anyone who did that to me on a regular basis.

How about you do us both a favor and continue 'not buying.'

I'd be delighted to agree to that one...

So stop throwing pebbles at my window.

Dang! I thought those things were paint pellets!

 

[Againsheila]

Isn't there a passage in the Bible that says, do unto others as you would have them do unto you?

Probably so, the bible is full of contradictions. I was just pointing out the irony of Care's argument.

But didn't Jesus say, love your neighbor as yourself?

Actually, Jesus said that wasn't good enough. Anyone can love their neighbor, we (Christians) have to love our enemies as well.

 

[alan1]

So giving less than someone else = "deathly opposed to giving"

How do ya figure that kooky math???

I'm pretty sure that Jesus would've taken a dim view of using the amount of charity you give as a competition, too...

"So giving less than someone else = "deathly opposed to giving."
Another anemic defense.

And, as so often an emblem of your posts, an attempt at wit.
Unfortately, you are unequipped in that area.

Proven over and over, Conservatives actually and verifiably help others, while Libs talk a good game, but love giving as long as it is other folks' money: i.e. Biden and Obama, and, judging by your post, you.

Then according to you conservatives ARE communists!
Thanks for making my point, honey-pie!

Obviously you don't understand the difference between an individual voluntarily giving, and a government confiscating from individuals so that the government can give the money to their chosen charity.

 

[RadiomanATL]

I read so many posts saying that the government has no business in health care. There are comments that say that health care is not in the Constitution and that it is not a right. I read all sorts of similar glowing generalities and absolutes. Then I thought about EMTALA. I thought that mentioning it would be an excellent way for me to impress upon people, perhaps even those laissez-faire fanatics, that issues like this are not so black-and-white and either-or.

What is your position on the “Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act” also known as EMTALA? Let me spell it out for you as simply as I can. It is a basically a Federal law that requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay.

For more detailed information on it such what makes a hospital subject to the law and when a qualifying hospital is allowed to discharge a patient, please read:
Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, don’t you think that government has no business getting involved in health care? If a hospital knows that Joe Smith is struggling to come into the hospital and has a life threatening condition, that Joe needs immediate care, and that Joe has no insurance and no financial resources, then that hospital should be free to have security escort Joe out to the curb. The hospital can have Joe carried outside and dumped off at the curb if Joe is in too much pain to walk. Don’t you agree? Leave the free market alone to do as it pleases as long as there is no fraud involved. “If you don’t have the money to pay for your care and you can’t find charity, then die in the street.”

Wow. I think that hospitals should be free to dump poor patients having easily surgically treatable life-threatening emergencies on the street corner. Don’t you? “Awww. You just had an accident and severed your leg off – but you can’t pay for us to treat you. Go bleed on the street please. You are messing up our carpet.”

(Note my sarcasm.)

Around here they dump them on Grady Hospital. If the person has no insurance or cannot pay...the ambulance takes them to Grady.

 

[elvis]

Sarah Palin was for health care before she was against it.

Healthcare Decisions Day

WHEREAS, Healthcare Decisions Day is designed to raise public awareness of the need to plan ahead for healthcare decisions, related to end of life care and medical decision-making whenever patients are unable to speak for themselves and to encourage the specific use of advance directives to communicate these important healthcare decisions. WHEREAS, in Alaska, Alaska Statute 13.52 provides the specifics of the advance directives law and offers a model form for patient use.
WHEREAS, it is estimated that only about 20 percent of people in Alaska have executed an advance directive. Moreover, it is estimated that less than 50 percent of severely or terminally ill patients have an advance directive.
WHEREAS, it is likely that a significant reason for these low percentages is that there is both a lack of knowledge and considerable confusion in the public about Advance Directives.
WHEREAS, one of the principal goals of Healthcare Decisions Day is to encourage hospitals, nursing homes, assisted living facilities, continuing care retirement communities, and hospices to participate in a statewide effort to provide clear and consistent information to the public about advance directives, as well as to encourage medical professionals and lawyers to volunteer their time and efforts to improve public knowledge and increase the number of Alaska’s citizens with advance directives.
WHEREAS, the Foundation for End of Life Care in Juneau, Alaska, and other organizations throughout the United States have endorsed this event and are committed to educating the public about the importance of discussing healthcare choices and executing advance directives.
WHEREAS, as a result of April 16, 2008, being recognized as Healthcare Decisions Day in Alaska, more citizens will have conversations about their healthcare decisions; more citizens will execute advance directives to make their wishes known; and fewer families and healthcare providers will have to struggle with making difficult healthcare decisions in the absence of guidance from the patient.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Sarah Palin, Governor of the state of Alaska, do hereby proclaim April 16, 2008, as:
Healthcare Decisions Day in Alaska, and I call this observance to the attention of all our citizens.

I saw the "for it before she was against it" and immediately thought "John Kerry."

 

[Chris]

Now, that you bring it up, doesn't it seem strange that liberals, who we all know love humanity, are deathly opposed to giving charity?

So giving less than someone else = "deathly opposed to giving"

How do ya figure that kooky math???

I'm pretty sure that Jesus would've taken a dim view of using the amount of charity you give as a competition, too...

"So giving less than someone else = "deathly opposed to giving."
Another anemic defense.

And, as so often an emblem of your posts, an attempt at wit.
Unfortately, you are unequipped in that area.

Proven over and over, Conservatives actually and verifiably help others, while Libs talk a good game, but love giving as long as it is other folks' money: i.e. Biden and Obama, and, judging by your post, you.

I recall Margaret Thatcher's critique of Socialism: “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”

The problem with wars is that eventually you run out of other people's money.