Re: Society Should Let Uninsured Patient Die
Hey, this is silly. Under any national health insurance system, a person is free to go beyond the coverage and pay the tab (if they can) for further treatment. If they can't, they don't get further treatment. That's the way it is now, except that there's no initial coverage for uninsured people. As now, charities are free to underwrite extra care if they chose. Of course, they don't.
Originally Posted by Concordia 33
I sit on a foundation that until recently gave grants to small (501)(c)(3) charities, such as food pantries, legal aid, elder services, etc. I was impressed that most of them were run by religious outfits, with very impressive volunteer support. Very few were run by secular humanists, although the Unitarians did run a homeless shelter. HOWEVER, I didn't find any of these religious charities who opposed national health care. To a man (or woman) they were greatly oppressed by the helplessness of their clients, and their own lack of funds to help the large number of people that were obliged to abandon. They operated their charities not because they liked it but because they were horrified at the condition of their clients and stepped in to help. They certainly didn't think that those who they couldn't afford to help should go hang, or should wait around for another charity to snap them up (as, in fact, they did).
If you really think of government as a big charitable foundation ("what's the difference" you ask) and you don't object to charities, then what's the objection to national health care? Isn't it that "underserving" people might benefit? Or is there something else?
Well, Mr. Botard, do you still deny all rhinocerotic evidence?