NationStates Jolt Archive

In another thread on personal responsibility, we have somehow gotten off the topic and into socialized medicine. It seems that there are many people in this country that feel it is a good idea to expand government yet again.

Let's suppose that you have a life threatening illness but yet, you have made some pretty poor decisions in life and only make a little more than 34,000 a year. Yet the treatment necessary to help save your life will take all that plus a whole lot more. Since your only in your twenties, you decided that your young and healthy and really didn't need to spend that small fortune necessary for proper medical insurance coverage. Now you find that you don't have the money to pay for your treatment and you can't find anyone that will insure you for this illness since it is a preexisting condition.

Should you then be allowed to take a weapon and walk into a doctor's office and force him to treat you for free?

I am hoping that all of you said no. That it wouldn't be right for you to take a weapon into a doctors office and demand treatment. But yet you are asking the government to do that very thing. Socialized Medicine is forcing a doctor to provide service to you without you having to pay for it. The government then threatens that doctor with imprisonment if he doesn't treat you.

But you say that the government will not force the doctor to treat you, the government will simply pay for the treatment? Really, where does the government get it's money? At gun point/threat of imprisonment it takes the money from someone who earns it and gives it to the doctor to pay for your treatment. Are you allowed to take a weapon and force someone to pay for your healthcare? NO. But you think that it's okay for the government to do it?

It's sad and tragic, but sometimes people will get a medical condition that they cannot afford to have treated. That is the way life goes. It is not the governments responsibility nor does it have the right take care of all the catostrophic things that can happen to an individual. It is the responsibility of the individual to take care of themself. if a person needs help there are thousands of charities out there to help. The Government is not a charity nor should it be used as one.

If it was allowed it should be legal for the doctor to wear a gun/guns. If they can take the doctor and make him help them fine its done but if the doctor shoots him/her first thats fine to. Sounds like a pretty good plan to me.

Should you then be allowed to take a weapon and walk into a doctor's office and force him to treat you for free? Well yes actually, if that is what is necessary for you to recieve the medical treatment you need, I am perfectly willing to allow you to do so. I suspect a great many people and organizations would also be willing to allow you to do so. It is perhaps fortunate for the world that this is one of the few areas where almost everyone can agree that the government is the proper permissive force to decide whether or not you should be allowed to do so, and the government should not allow you to behave in this fashion.

gee "great point" there family,

good thing the rest of the country doesnt agree with you (since in your scenario someone is getting shot)

in america, you dont need a gun, at worst you quit your job and go on medicaid.

as a compassionate people we have decided that being poor isnt a good reason to let people die

I really don't like how if you are poor and need medical care, you're SOL.

hey uh cpt oblivious, the government would NOT be taking over the part of the medical industry, they would be taking over the part of the HEALTH INSURANCE industry, paying the hospitals and drs money for what happens to you, some people are too stupid to realise health insurance is a pointless 3rd party pig feeding on teh excess they charge people and dont spend and what they dont pay doctors

no wait im sorry
ALMSOT EVERYONE is too stupid to realise there

let me also note these same people who hold the views of friend are sick sick people who should be locked away for their utter 0 compassion and caring about human life

we have universal health care and yeah, it doesn't work like that.

and hell, if you want to worry about costing the taxpayers money, the u.s. government spends more per capita on health care than canada and other countries with universal health care and half of americans aren't even covered.

Doctors were never meant to be mercenaries like they are in this country. Doctors should be doing what they are doing because they WANT to help people, not because they're going to make a fat load of cash off of it...Sure, they deserve a fair payment, and that's what they'd get under a "Socialized" medicine program. Everybody pays into the medical jar. When a person gets sick, we take some out, pay the Doctor with it, and have them fixed up. It is apparent to me that Doctors who don't want "Socialized" medicine in this country have forgotten "The Hippocratic Oath": First, do no harm...Well, if you see someone who needs help, and you have the ability to provide the help, and you refuse, are you not doing harm? No, doctors are NOT meant to be mercenaries...

It is apparent to me that Doctors who don't want "Socialized" medicine in this country have forgotten "The Hippocratic Oath": First, do no harm...Well, if you see someone who needs help, and you have the ability to provide the help, and you refuse, are you not doing harm? ...Starts well but the "do no harm" part is traditionally taught as justifying inaction when harm might result, and is not part of the Hippocratic Oath. This is purely a lack of action, not a requirement for action. The Hippocratic Oath does however usually require a physician to " treat without exception all who seek my ministrations, so long as the treatment of others is not compromised thereby". Doctors who refuse to treat someone in need solely for their own gain are forgetting the Hippocratic Oath, just not the principal your are citing which is not part ofthe Oath/

Starts well but the "do no harm" part is traditionally taught as justifying inaction when harm might result, and is not part of the Hippocratic Oath. This is purely a lack of action, not a requirement for action. The Hippocratic Oath does however usually require a physician to " treat without exception all who seek my ministrations, so long as the treatment of others is not compromised thereby". Doctors who refuse to treat someone in need solely for their own gain are forgetting the Hippocratic Oath, just not the principal your are citing which is not part ofthe Oath/



I had no idea that was'nt part of the oath..I was allways told or had read that it was the MAIN part of the oath...Guess they lied about it to justify inaction...

If it was allowed it should be legal for the doctor to wear a gun/guns. If they can take the doctor and make him help them fine its done but if the doctor shoots him/her first thats fine to. Sounds like a pretty good plan to me.

What if the doctor says that he will treat you, and then he tells you that you need a shot, and then he shots you full of poison? lol

I really don't like how if you are poor and need medical care, you're SOL.

Well I do like it.

What if the doctor says that he will treat you, and then he tells you that you need a shot, and then he shots you full of poison? lol

Thats the chance you take when you won't pay.

Let's suppose that you have a life threatening illness but yet, you have made some pretty poor decisions in life and only make a little more than 34,000 a year.

Yes, you shouldn't have chosen to be born to a poor family, you stupid bastard!

I had no idea that was'nt part of the oath..I was allways told or had read that it was the MAIN part of the oath...Guess they lied about it to justify inaction...Well Hippocrates may very well have said it, and it is taught as the first rule of medicine, but it isn't part of the oath. It's puprose isn't so much to justify innaction, but to force it ( I used the word and perhaps should have chosen annother). Let's face it, a lot of the drugs and medical practices out there are pretty dangerous, someone who doesn't know what they are doing can easily kill someone. The human body is a very resilant thing, and quite frequently if left alone can recover from a great many illnesses and injuries. If we juxtapose these two ideas, we find that a good first principal for medicine (and medical studnets) is "DO NO HARM", an extreme example is that while defilibration may be a good thing for a person who's heart has stopped it isn't going to be good for the lady with a bad chest cold. So doctors should stop and be sure before they do something that this will not be worse for the patient than doing nothing.

we have universal health care and yeah, it doesn't work like that.

and hell, if you want to worry about costing the taxpayers money, the u.s. government spends more per capita on health care than canada and other countries with universal health care and half of americans aren't even covered.

What an absurd lie. Fully one-third of Canada's tax revenues fund their single-payer healthcare system, and 40 million Americans have no health insurance, some voluntarily.

I really don't like how if you are poor and need medical care, you're SOL.

Do you know any actual poor people? Guess not.

we have universal health care and yeah, it doesn't work like that.

and hell, if you want to worry about costing the taxpayers money, the u.s. government spends more per capita on health care than canada and other countries with universal health care and half of americans aren't even covered.
Half? man I know that you fellows have pretty much given up on keeping people from smoking reefer but I didn't know huffing crack was allowed. The highest estimates put the number of people without insurance at 45 million, but there is a big warning with this number. About 15 million of them are eligable for medicaid (government paid healthcare) but for some reason are not enrolled in medicaid, presumably a fairly large chunk of them just don't need medical care and the rest refuse to be part of the program for philosophical reasons, but they are in fact "covered" by medicaid, they are just not registered in the medicaid program. About 15 million of them live in households earning over $100,00/year and those are US dollars, but they do not have any private insurance despite obviously being able to pay for it - I refuse to speculate on their reasons for not having medical insurance but I will say that if I ever obtain a net worth of over $2,000,000US and don't get subsidised insurance from an employer, I will save money by self-insuring (which isn't counted as having insurance). That leaves the US with 30,000,000 people not covered by insurance, half of whom can afford it - out of a population of 300,000,000 that makes 10%, not anywhere close to half.

I've seen public housing, I don't want public healthcare. Do you honestly think that the GOVERNMENT is going to improve on an already fu##ed up system? Just what we need, the gov't taking more of our money and sinking it into another program that won't work.

Wouldn't forcing a doctor at gunpoint to treat you for a life-threatening condition be a form of self-defense?

Wouldn't forcing a doctor at gunpoint to treat you for a life-threatening condition be a form of self-defense?

The doctor is not the one threatening your life. No.

Healthcare is good, as I always say.

Do you know any actual poor people? Guess not.

Ok I do and they don't have it. So what's your point?

The doctor is not the one threatening your life. No.I don't know about that. If someone is trying to run me over in a car and I smash the window of your house so I can cower inside, it is for self defense even though you are not threatening my life. Likewise if we are climbing seperately on a rock face, and a boulder is going to fall on me, so I climb on your rope to avoid being squased, it is for self-defense even though you are not threatening to squash me (although you might actually so threaten me later, especially if you are on your rope at the time). Likewise if someone is shooting bullets at random through an intersection we both happen to be crossing at the time, and I grab you and interpose your body between me and the shooter it is for self defense, just as it would be self defense ( and probably more effective given the size of my body) if you were a little faster and manged to grab me first. One can say that I do not have the right to involve a third party in my self defense, but it is still self-defense.

We americans come across as soooo compasionate :rolleyes:

Every year we seem to get more I, Me, and Mine.

Luckily the liberterians are minority.

Yep. I love you Americans.

I don't know about that. If someone is trying to run me over in a car and I smash the window of your house so I can cower inside, it is for self defense even though you are not threatening my life. Likewise if we are climbing seperately on a rock face, and a boulder is going to fall on me, so I climb on your rope to avoid being squased, it is for self-defense even though you are not threatening to squash me (although you might actually so threaten me later, especially if you are on your rope at the time). Likewise if someone is shooting bullets at random through an intersection we both happen to be crossing at the time, and I grab you and interpose your body between me and the shooter it is for self defense, just as it would be self defense ( and probably more effective given the size of my body) if you were a little faster and manged to grab me first. One can say that I do not have the right to involve a third party in my self defense, but it is still self-defense.

If you used me as a riot shield I'd give you quite a talking to.

I don't know about that. If someone is trying to run me over in a car and I smash the window of your house so I can cower inside, it is for self defense even though you are not threatening my life. Likewise if we are climbing seperately on a rock face, and a boulder is going to fall on me, so I climb on your rope to avoid being squased, it is for self-defense even though you are not threatening to squash me (although you might actually so threaten me later, especially if you are on your rope at the time). Likewise if someone is shooting bullets at random through an intersection we both happen to be crossing at the time, and I grab you and interpose your body between me and the shooter it is for self defense, just as it would be self defense ( and probably more effective given the size of my body) if you were a little faster and manged to grab me first. One can say that I do not have the right to involve a third party in my self defense, but it is still self-defense.

If you smash the window of my house:
a. You'll probably RAISE my property value.
b. You're not threatening MY LIFE.

You're a bit close on the other 2, however, IMO, the "legal" concept of self-defense is meant to protect you from an assailant.

If you used me as a riot shield I'd give you quite a talking to.
But it would still be self defense. I may like you, but it comes to choice between me and thee, well it's been nice knowing you.

If you smash the window of my house:
a. You'll probably RAISE my property value.
b. You're not threatening MY LIFE.

You're a bit close on the other 2, however, IMO, the "legal" concept of self-defense is meant to protect you from an assailant.I'm not sure you really want to go down this road. If one confines self defense to human assailants than you effectively have to reproduce the concept for life-threatening natural occurances. Instead of person in car trying to run me down I can be caught in a tornado and need to seek shelter in your house. Why should I be allowed to break into your house to seek shelter in one case to preserve my life but not in the other?

If you argue that self defense does not allow one to involve a third party you are better off than arguing that self defense only soes not allow one to threaten a third party. Thus while I cannot legally force a doctor to treat me at gun point for a life threatening condition, under the latter schema I am allowed to break into his office at night and steal drugs from him. This opens a whole different can of worms, like how about if I unknowing steal the only drugs availible to save my life which would otherwise be used to save someone else's life if only I hadn't stolen them from the doctor? Is it legitimate self defense if no one else is threatened, but illegitimate if they are? How can I know that someone elses' life is going to be threatened by my actions?

I am an american...I have no health insurance...I'm on the 'dont get sick' plan...anyway - eff universal healthcare. Worst idea ever. Why do you think the best doctors come to the US from canada? What a stupid idea. I'm betting that I will be ok for now, but I will lay down the extra $1000 when I have kids. If you cannot afford that, you have bigger things to worry about.

In another thread on personal responsibility, we have somehow gotten off the topic and into socialized medicine. It seems that there are many people in this country that feel it is a good idea to expand government yet again.

Let's suppose that you have a life threatening illness but yet, you have made some pretty poor decisions in life and only make a little more than 34,000 a year. Yet the treatment necessary to help save your life will take all that plus a whole lot more. Since your only in your twenties, you decided that your young and healthy and really didn't need to spend that small fortune necessary for proper medical insurance coverage. Now you find that you don't have the money to pay for your treatment and you can't find anyone that will insure you for this illness since it is a preexisting condition.

Should you then be allowed to take a weapon and walk into a doctor's office and force him to treat you for free?

I am hoping that all of you said no. That it wouldn't be right for you to take a weapon into a doctors office and demand treatment. But yet you are asking the government to do that very thing. Socialized Medicine is forcing a doctor to provide service to you without you having to pay for it. The government then threatens that doctor with imprisonment if he doesn't treat you.

But you say that the government will not force the doctor to treat you, the government will simply pay for the treatment? Really, where does the government get it's money? At gun point/threat of imprisonment it takes the money from someone who earns it and gives it to the doctor to pay for your treatment. Are you allowed to take a weapon and force someone to pay for your healthcare? NO. But you think that it's okay for the government to do it?

It's sad and tragic, but sometimes people will get a medical condition that they cannot afford to have treated. That is the way life goes. It is not the governments responsibility nor does it have the right take care of all the catostrophic things that can happen to an individual. It is the responsibility of the individual to take care of themself. if a person needs help there are thousands of charities out there to help. The Government is not a charity nor should it be used as one.
Wow, wonder how you would feel if you got a life threatening illness you couldn't afford. Or your kids (If you have them) or your parents. Or a close friend. You obviously have an extremely capitalist view on medicine. Every single person on this planet has a right to a cure if there is one. Sadly, that's not true... :headbang:

I am an american...I have no health insurance...I'm on the 'dont get sick' plan...anyway - eff universal healthcare. Worst idea ever. Why do you think the best doctors come to the US from canada? What a stupid idea. I'm betting that I will be ok for now, but I will lay down the extra $1000 when I have kids. If you cannot afford that, you have bigger things to worry about.
you do realise you are payign as much or more per motnh for health insurance, and thats in addition to copay and what insurance doesnt cover when you go to the doctor or hospital.

In another thread on personal responsibility, we have somehow gotten off the topic and into socialized medicine. It seems that there are many people in this country that feel it is a good idea to expand government yet again.

Let's suppose that you have a life threatening illness but yet, you have made some pretty poor decisions in life and only make a little more than 34,000 a year. Yet the treatment necessary to help save your life will take all that plus a whole lot more. Since your only in your twenties, you decided that your young and healthy and really didn't need to spend that small fortune necessary for proper medical insurance coverage. Now you find that you don't have the money to pay for your treatment and you can't find anyone that will insure you for this illness since it is a preexisting condition.

Should you then be allowed to take a weapon and walk into a doctor's office and force him to treat you for free?

I am hoping that all of you said no. That it wouldn't be right for you to take a weapon into a doctors office and demand treatment. But yet you are asking the government to do that very thing. Socialized Medicine is forcing a doctor to provide service to you without you having to pay for it. The government then threatens that doctor with imprisonment if he doesn't treat you.

But you say that the government will not force the doctor to treat you, the government will simply pay for the treatment? Really, where does the government get it's money? At gun point/threat of imprisonment it takes the money from someone who earns it and gives it to the doctor to pay for your treatment. Are you allowed to take a weapon and force someone to pay for your healthcare? NO. But you think that it's okay for the government to do it?

It's sad and tragic, but sometimes people will get a medical condition that they cannot afford to have treated. That is the way life goes. It is not the governments responsibility nor does it have the right take care of all the catostrophic things that can happen to an individual. It is the responsibility of the individual to take care of themself. if a person needs help there are thousands of charities out there to help. The Government is not a charity nor should it be used as one.Wow, thats really stupid. People should die rather than other people lose some money? Jesus you're heartless

I'm not sure you really want to go down this road. If one confines self defense to human assailants than you effectively have to reproduce the concept for life-threatening natural occurances. Instead of person in car trying to run me down I can be caught in a tornado and need to seek shelter in your house. Why should I be allowed to break into your house to seek shelter in one case to preserve my life but not in the other?

I guess what I meant to say was, although it isn't necessarily right for you to break my window, I'm sure after I got over the initial shock, I'd be alright because:
a. You're cowering in the corner
b. You've already agreed to buy me a new window
c. I've determined that you mean me and mine no harm
d. I just saved your life (except in the case of the tornado, I live in a mobile home.)

In summary - not OK, but I'll get over it.

If you argue that self defense does not allow one to involve a third party you are better off than arguing that self defense only soes not allow one to threaten a third party. Thus while I cannot legally force a doctor to treat me at gun point for a life threatening condition, under the latter schema I am allowed to break into his office at night and steal drugs from him. This opens a whole different can of worms, like how about if I unknowing steal the only drugs availible to save my life which would otherwise be used to save someone else's life if only I hadn't stolen them from the doctor? Is it legitimate self defense if no one else is threatened, but illegitimate if they are? How can I know that someone elses' life is going to be threatened by my actions?

If you're stealing drugs from the doctor that will save your life, you have to assume they could save someone else's. You're not doing this "unknowingly". "Unconsciensiosly" perhaps...

IMO, "illegitimate" self-defense would be to knowingly and purposefully infringe on someone else's rights, not including those of your assailant. In case of natural disaster, still not right to destroy my property, but what's a broken window to save a life?

IMO, "illegitimate" self-defense would be to knowingly and purposefully infringe on someone else's rights, not including those of your assailant. In case of natural disaster, still not right to destroy my property, but what's a broken window to save a life?
Better phraseology than "involve a third party", "infringe upon the rights of a third party", I'll have to steal it. Once we determine that it is not legitimate to infringe upon the rights of a third party in self defense, we can then rate the severity of the illegitimacy. Thus breaking into a house in save one's life is not legtimate (it is wrong), but not as wrong as forcing a doctor to treat one at gunpoint. This is a far easier than trying to find a point at which it goes from being legitimate to infringe upon a third person's rights to being illegitimate to do so.

Hey I use ME and MY and MINE all the time.
Smart ass! :p

We americans come across as soooo compasionate :rolleyes:

Every year we seem to get more I, Me, and Mine.

Luckily the liberterians are minority.

Hey I use ME and MY and MINE all the time.

If my child was in dire need of medical attention and nobody would see me because I was too poor or too uneducated or too unemployed, you better believe I'm going to force some doctor to treat my kid.

I am an american...I have no health insurance...I'm on the 'dont get sick' plan...anyway - eff universal healthcare. Worst idea ever. Why do you think the best doctors come to the US from canada? What a stupid idea. I'm betting that I will be ok for now, but I will lay down the extra $1000 when I have kids. If you cannot afford that, you have bigger things to worry about.

-Almost falls down laughing-

$1000? If they only cost that much.

A wife and kids will eat up your free money lad! ;)

I would be curious to the amount of Doctors you think run across the border. Don't think I have seen a Candian and I have used quite a few Doctors. Looking for one I can like. When I was a kid I had a doctor that knew the family, what was going on, etc. etc. etc.

The Doctors I get these days never know my name. Can't even bother to look at the chart. Poke, prod, listen, get this drug, runs out the door.....

Interestingly enough the one I found that actually would talk to you was from India. But of course he moved away. :rolleyes:

If my child was in dire need of medical attention and nobody would see me because I was too poor or too uneducated or too unemployed, you better believe I'm going to force some doctor to treat my kid.

Amen Brother!

You can tell who has kids, who wants kids and those that don't.....

Amen Brother!

You can tell who has kids, who wants kids and those that don't.....




Absolutely. The stupidest part about it is that these Uber-Capitalist types ("If you are not worth anything to marketplace, you should DIE!"), is that they are often the same people who CLAIM the "moral highground" on other issues...Yeah, they're for family values allright...Meaning, if you and your family aint VALUABLE, your lives are forfeit.