Originally posted by @no1marauder Society creates a system where doctors are trained to provide medical care for the members of that society. What care is provided to an individual should be that which is medically necessary. Of course, care has to be rationed in some ultimate sense, but it should be rationed based on a patient's need and medical judgment not based on how many pieces of paper are in someone's wallet.
where did it say this patient was denied because they couldn't pay?
Originally posted by @kazetnagorra Doctors, hospitals, etc. aren't someone's "personal resources."
Being treated in a hospital doesn't add value and isn't a "contribution" to the economy.
You are being intentionally thick. When a person uses their money to pay for something, then the cost of the service is borne by the payer. The individual wants the service and the provider is glad to provide the service for a fee. All parties are happy and the government which taxes everything regardless of whether they contributed at all to the process gets a cut. Perhaps some of the government's share even help others. It is a win for all of society and there is no reason why everyone shouldn't be happy.
When someone does not have money and they ask for others to pay there are completely different issues
(1) should we take money from others to pay for this service?
(2) is the money we take from others better spent elsewhere?
Here it was determined either that this particular service is not one we will ask society to pay for in this situation or that money would be better spent somewhere else. We would all be better off if government made more not fewer decisions like this.
Originally posted by @quackquack You are being intentionally thick. When a person uses their money to pay for something, then the cost of the service is borne by the payer. The individual wants the service and the provider is glad to provide the service for a fee. All parties are happy and the government which taxes everything regardless of whether they contributed at all to the pr ...[text shortened]... mewhere else. We would all be better off if government made more not fewer decisions like this.
Yeah, governments just aren't killing enough people these days.
Removing life sustaining treatment from someone conscious and begging for it not to be terminated differs from intentional murder ............................................................... how again?
Originally posted by @quackquack You are being intentionally thick. When a person uses their money to pay for something, then the cost of the service is borne by the payer. The individual wants the service and the provider is glad to provide the service for a fee. All parties are happy and the government which taxes everything regardless of whether they contributed at all to the pr ...[text shortened]... mewhere else. We would all be better off if government made more not fewer decisions like this.
You don't understand what money is. When someone buys something with currency, it is the seller that bears the cost in terms of some kind of good or service. Money represents the implicit agreement that this cost is offset by the buyer in some indirect way, which can - but does not have to - correspond to the buyer spending resources in some other way (e.g. trading their labour for money). Of course, there is no guarantee that the buyer has done something productive in exchange for obtaining their money.
Originally posted by @quackquack Of course it is right. When you can't pay for your own medical treatment you rely on others to pay for you. Since money is not unlimited, someone has to make a determination of at what point further treatment is futile or best spent elsewhere.
Texans have to learn that being sick is not a right - it's a privilege.
Originally posted by @kazetnagorra You don't understand what money is. When someone buys something with currency, it is the seller that bears the cost in terms of some kind of good or service. Money represents the implicit agreement that this cost is offset by the buyer in some indirect way, which can - but does not have to - correspond to the buyer spending resources in some oth ...[text shortened]... no guarantee that the buyer has done something productive in exchange for obtaining their money.
You are missing the relevant point of the discussion. When someone provides goods in exchange for money, each party has decided that they would be better off if the deal was made. When someone has no money, third parties (tax payers) have to pay for a deal. Someone needs to represent the third parties to see if it is money well spent or if society would benefit more spending it elsewhere. Here the committee made a a determination that the money would be better spent elsewhere and I commend them for representing third parties when making a financial decision.
Originally posted by @quackquack You are missing the relevant point of the discussion. When someone provides goods in exchange for money, each party has decided that they would be better off if the deal was made. When someone has no money, third parties (tax payers) have to pay for a deal. Someone needs to represent the third parties to see if it is money well spent or if society wo ...[text shortened]... nt elsewhere and I commend them for representing third parties when making a financial decision.
On the contrary, it is you who are missing the point. When a patient is being treated at a hospital, the cost (in terms of labour, resources etc.) is X. This cost does not depend on what accounting preceded the decision to treat this patient, and does not disappear when a patient uses "their" money.
Originally posted by @kazetnagorra On the contrary, it is you who are missing the point. When a patient is being treated at a hospital, the cost (in terms of labour, resources etc.) is X. This cost does not depend on what accounting preceded the decision to treat this patient, and does not disappear when a patient uses "their" money.
The cost is not the issue. The issue is who pays for it. If you want something that has little value to others you can pay for it but you can't necessarily requires others to pay for it. Your unwillingness to acknowledge this obvious reality is comical.
Originally posted by @quackquack The cost is not the issue. The issue is who pays for it. If you want something that has little value to others you can pay for it but you can't necessarily requires others to pay for it. Your unwillingness to acknowledge this obvious reality is comical.
Originally posted by @no1marauder .....Granted the law is better that the UK law (mis?)interpreted in the Gard case which allowed doctors to block life sustaining treatment at any hospital, even ones willing to provide it, if the doctors determined death was in the patient's "best interests", Still, I'm kinda shocked that such a law exists in the US.
Originally posted by @no1marauder Yeah, governments just aren't killing enough people these days.
Removing life sustaining treatment from someone conscious and begging for it not to be terminated differs from intentional murder ............................................................... how again?
It's kind of like the difference between shooting someone in the face and not driving across town to buy expensive medicine for a stranger.
Originally posted by @athousandyoung It's kind of like the difference between shooting someone in the face and not driving across town to buy expensive medicine for a stranger.
Hardly:
Physicians have a fiduciary duty to their patients
Ethics committee or death panel?
16 May '18 18:52
Back to Top