T
Trader
Guest
Are you SURE that having your relatives on the jury would be an advantage for you?
I need to work on making that quote button work for me. I messed up that previous reply to boppaid.
- Status
I need to work on making that quote button work for me. I messed up that previous reply to boppaid.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Sure – I’m the one who has a job. Can’t afford to lose me.Are you SURE that having your relatives on the jury would be an advantage for you?
Okay – the quote button on a posting quotes the whole post. If you want to break up a post and reply to particular parts, you go to the end of your first selection and type {/quote} (but with SQUARE brackets.) That ends the quote function for that selection.
At the start of the next selection, cut and paste {QUOTE=Trader;2489769} (but again with SQUARE brackets)
Use the “Preview Post” button to check out your post if you aren’t sure you got it right.
B
boppaid
Guest
What we were talking about is a family where the parents make bad financial decisions. These decisions mean that the parents cannot afford health insurance. Is that a good enough reason to remove the children from their parents? Is that what you are referring to above as “negligent and abusive” enough to take a child away from his or her parents??
B
boppaid
Guest
Yes. Do you think it’s right to rip a family apart for poor financial decisions? That was what I was asking.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
What poor decisions did they make?
I just posted a real example of a problem my wife and I are struggling with – where a wife took the kids, left her husband, and went to live with a convicted felon. She and her lover had an accident while driving drunk. As a result of using up all her sick leave and vacation time to be with her lover, she is hospitalized and has no income.
Is that the sort of poor financial decision you had in mind?
T
Trader
Guest
Your original description was “For that matter, what about the children of continuously ignorant or hard-headed parents who continue to make poor choices?”
That is really not enough information to decide an individual case.
What if they refused to take their sick child to a doctor or ER because of their own pride or embarassment? Real children have died from that. Is that a poor choice or negligent homicide?
How many children should be sacrificed for that pride before you decide that the family is already torn apart?
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
I think we’re back to the mythical hardworking poor person trying to raise 6 kids and care for his invalid mother on minimum wage .
E
emily47017
Guest
i thought it might be time for a thread about the “deserving poor”: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=170693
W
whatevergirl
Guest
The reality of healthcare also has much to do with people coming off the streets–entering emergency rooms…ranging from gun shot wounds to diseases, who have no insurance, and who are not being turned away. How can we be loving as Catholics, yet say that people who don’t have healthcare …should be turned away in a crisis? There is such a plethera of problems with the current system, beyond this…but arguing over whether or not St Paul was a skilled tent maker isn’t going to resolve them…today, anyways.
Let’s play nice in the sandbox, gentlemen…hmm?
Let’s play nice in the sandbox, gentlemen…hmm?
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
What happens is that the overworked staffs struggle valiantly to help the flood of people who can’t or won’t pay.
Then the staffs run out of money or they burn out, or both.
And they have no choice but to stop.
This happens whenever someone attempts to provide a service for free.
On top of which, the people seeking free service, then become indignant when the freebies stop.
Wildly indignant.
Why, how dare they!!!
They feel they are entitled. And make demands.
And that’s what happens.
This pattern repeats constantly in everything ranging from health care to Web sites to social/service clubs.
Then the staffs run out of money or they burn out, or both.
And they have no choice but to stop.
This happens whenever someone attempts to provide a service for free.
On top of which, the people seeking free service, then become indignant when the freebies stop.
Wildly indignant.
Why, how dare they!!!
They feel they are entitled. And make demands.
And that’s what happens.
This pattern repeats constantly in everything ranging from health care to Web sites to social/service clubs.
T
Trader
Guest
I thought I had read every post in this thread at least once, and I don’t recall anyone saying that a gunshot victim should be turned away unless he has insurance, not even the “mean ones” like me and the other guy who posts a lot. It would be a violation of medical ethics and a criminal offense in most statesThe reality of healthcare also has much to do with people coming off the streets–entering emergency rooms…ranging from gun shot wounds to diseases, who have no insurance, and who are not being turned away. How can we be loving as Catholics, yet say that people who don’t have healthcare …should be turned away in a crisis? There is such a plethera of problems with the current system, beyond this…but arguing over whether or not St Paul was a skilled tent maker isn’t going to resolve them…today, anyways.
Let’s play nice in the sandbox, gentlemen…hmm?
Personally I just don’t see how it is wrong to expect every adult to live in a way that allows him to take care of his own business. “We are all responsible” has become another way of saying, “No one is responsible.”
Who should be responsible for the medical bills of the gunshot victim? How about the guy shot him? Does anyone disagree with that? If it was a justified police shooting the state gets to collect whatever it can from the person who is really responsible.
T
Trader
Guest
How about another difficult case I had to think about last year. A seriously overweight and active alcoholic is suffering from kidney failure. His brother is a excellent match and willing to donate a kidney. The operation will cost more than a half million dollars and the patient has insurance that will pay no more than $200,000 for the procedure. Should the government–that is, the taxpayer–pay for the operation and follow-up care above the $200,000 in private insurance?
B
boppaid
Guest
Oh no! I agree with you…that would be grounds for Child Protective Services to come in and consider removing the children! Yikes! The types of poor financial decision-making I had in mind was people who never furthered their educations, and still work at places where they cannot obtain health insurance because of their reluctance (& ability) to further their schooling. (Obviously some cannot, due to time, money, and mental ability constraints. Those who can, though, and don’t is what I was considering an example of “poor financial decisions”.
B
boppaid
Guest
Okay. Therein lies our confusion here.
I mean to say “who continue to make poor financial choices”. I’m sorry. I should have included that. I figured you’d know what I meant because the issue at hand was finances and health insurance. When I re-read my post, I understand your confusion. Sorry!
B
boppaid
Guest
Vern, that’s not really fair. I’ve provided many examples in this thread alone of similar people. They are not mythical. They are real people, really struggling. Go back and reread their stories.
B
boppaid
Guest
Fair enough. But who should be responsible to pay for the guy who comes in the er with no health insurance bleeding to death because of some sort of accident where another individual is not involved? That’s the kind of incident (among many others) where I think that health care is a RIGHT.
M
Man
Guest
We already made up with the sandwich talk.Let’s play nice in the sandbox, gentlemen…hmm?
I said he should use an egg, but his bread was moldy.
You have so much to learn about men.
M
Man
Guest
I disagree. Health care cannot, per se, be a fundamental right.
Somebody brought up the situation of hospitals flooded with patients. In cases such as this, normally there is triage, and the most serious, but survivable conditions are seen first, or some mixture of those who have serious injuries, but that can also be handled fairly expediently are taken care of.
The Holy See (zenit.org/article-20181?l=english)), it appears, regards the physician as a sort of Good Samaritan, and this would defend my position. Thus, though it is the obligation of the physician to provide the services he* can, it is not the obligation of society to care for each individual, or do so at the same level, etc.
Thus, the health of the medical profession and the health of society are strongly connected. It is therefore necessary that we cultivate physicians and health care workers in our society. As it is they who are obligated to do the work. Society, then, is required to do what it needs to to support and cultivate them.
That is already part of our current system. Most physicians and hospital survive and many thrive. However, in some areas that are in decay, physicians and hospitals decay and disappear.
*I purposely refuse to defile the beautiful eloquence of the English language to be PC. Thank you.
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
What if we modify the scenario …
The gunshot wound injured person (person is a sole provider for a family of six and works off the books and has no medical insurance) victim is in an extreme rural area. He has been hunting and gets careless and shoots himself. The nearest medical anything is several hours away. He has no cell phone.
Who is responsible for providing his health care?
OR, putting the gun aspect aside ], a tree branch breaks and hits him and he is seriously injured. Fully conscious. Not trapped under something. Or maybe cuts his foot on a sharp rock.
It would appear that he should have been more prudent to start with. Some basic prevention. Looked around and avoided that dead tree. Or worn sturdy boots (not low quarter sneakers) with lace-up sides at the ankles.
But, basically, he is responsible for his own “health care”. First aid kit, some basic first aid knowledge,
Then there is the discussion over “first responders”… but emergency service crews are not REALLY the first responders. They are the second responders … the first responders would be the injured persons and those in the immediate vicinity.
The gunshot wound injured person (person is a sole provider for a family of six and works off the books and has no medical insurance) victim is in an extreme rural area. He has been hunting and gets careless and shoots himself. The nearest medical anything is several hours away. He has no cell phone.
Who is responsible for providing his health care?
OR, putting the gun aspect aside ], a tree branch breaks and hits him and he is seriously injured. Fully conscious. Not trapped under something. Or maybe cuts his foot on a sharp rock.
It would appear that he should have been more prudent to start with. Some basic prevention. Looked around and avoided that dead tree. Or worn sturdy boots (not low quarter sneakers) with lace-up sides at the ankles.
But, basically, he is responsible for his own “health care”. First aid kit, some basic first aid knowledge,
Then there is the discussion over “first responders”… but emergency service crews are not REALLY the first responders. They are the second responders … the first responders would be the injured persons and those in the immediate vicinity.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
The reality of health care is that there is no correlation between health insurance and access to health care.The reality of healthcare also has much to do with people coming off the streets–entering emergency rooms…ranging from gun shot wounds to diseases, who have no insurance, and who are not being turned away. How can we be loving as Catholics, yet say that people who don’t have healthcare …should be turned away in a crisis? There is such a plethera of problems with the current system, beyond this…but arguing over whether or not St Paul was a skilled tent maker isn’t going to resolve them…today, anyways.
Let’s play nice in the sandbox, gentlemen…hmm?
The reality of health care is that paperwork costs exceed the actual costs of delivering treatment.
The reality of health care is that junk lawsuits dramatically increase costs.
The reality of health care is that rising malpractice costs – driven by junk lawsuits – are making some specialties (like obstetrics) increasingly rare.
The reality of health care is that there are legal obstacles in the way of getting low cost health insurance – you can’t shop across state lines, small businesses can’t band together to bargain for employ health plans, and so on.
- Status