This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

2016 Presidential Election

12467109

Comments

  • I don't think I'll suddenly decide that universal health car is the devil and taxes should be lower.
  • I might get shit for this, but I'm just curious. Say that in a small town in the US where there is a small hospital where currently only one surgeon is available. Lets say there is universal health care in the US. Two people are in a near fatal car accident. One is an illegal immigrant, one is a US citizen. They both need immediate attention. Who gets it?
  • MATATAT said:

    I might get shit for this, but I'm just curious. Say that in a small town in the US where there is a small hospital where currently only one surgeon is available. Lets say there is universal health care in the US. Two people are in a near fatal car accident. One is an illegal immigrant, one is a US citizen. They both need immediate attention. Who gets it?

    Were they both injured in the same accident?

    Anyway I'll get shit for this, but I'm going to go with the US citizen.
  • edited April 2015
    Yeah that was what I was trying to say, their injuries occurred at the same time.
    Post edited by MATATAT on
  • edited April 2015
    edit
    Post edited by pence on
  • pence said:

    Rym said:

    I don't think I'll suddenly decide that universal health care is the devil and taxes should be lower.

    image
    only instead of being vaporized you buy a "don't tread on me" flag.
  • MATATAT said:

    I might get shit for this, but I'm just curious. Say that in a small town in the US where there is a small hospital where currently only one surgeon is available. Lets say there is universal health care in the US. Two people are in a near fatal car accident. One is an illegal immigrant, one is a US citizen. They both need immediate attention. Who gets it?

    Whoever showed up first. Or, whoever the doctor best things he/she can save.

    It's a meaningless distinction. The question is:

    " Two people are in a near fatal car accident. One is a living human being, and the other one is also a living human being. They both need immediate attention. Who gets it?"

  • Also there's still a 'take a third option' in that the local hospital could arrange transportation for one or the other to another hospital.
  • edited April 2015
    MATATAT said:

    Yeah that was what I was trying to say, their injuries occurred at the same time.

    Then roll a die.

    image
    Post edited by Andrew on
  • Rym said:

    MATATAT said:

    I might get shit for this, but I'm just curious. Say that in a small town in the US where there is a small hospital where currently only one surgeon is available. Lets say there is universal health care in the US. Two people are in a near fatal car accident. One is an illegal immigrant, one is a US citizen. They both need immediate attention. Who gets it?

    Whoever showed up first. Or, whoever the doctor best things he/she can save.

    It's a meaningless distinction. The question is:

    " Two people are in a near fatal car accident. One is a living human being, and the other one is also a living human being. They both need immediate attention. Who gets it?"

    The point was to try and see if anyone puts meaningful distinctions on societal relations.

    Also there's still a 'take a third option' in that the local hospital could arrange transportation for one or the other to another hospital.

    That's why I was saying they would need immediate medical assistance.
  • "Lemme create this meaningless and innately stupid hypothetical to try and pick a fight about politics"
  • edited April 2015
    Wow you sound just like me.

    It wasn't to start arguing, it is a stupid hypothetical, I was just curious if people would hold any camaraderie with their nation.
    Post edited by MATATAT on
  • MATATAT said:


    That's why I was saying they would need immediate medical assistance.

    "Immediate" can mean "going to die within minutes if there's no intervention" or it can mean "we have to get them somewhere ASAP before their condition deteriorates."
  • How about we shoot both of them and not waste the doctor's precious time? Execute the whole town. It's too small to be worth existing to the national economy anyway.

    Cherry pick out the Galts and shoot the rest. Burn the town down, or turn it into a prison.
  • So we're all a bunch of Green Democratic Libertarian Socialists pretty much.
  • Rym said:

    How about we shoot both of them and not waste the doctor's precious time? Execute the whole town. It's too small to be worth existing to the national economy anyway.

    Cherry pick out the Galts and shoot the rest. Burn the town down, or turn it into a prison.

    As a Libertarian: Fuck John Galt and the horse he rode in on.
  • So the gist is on basic human necessities there are no boundaries, but on everything else there should be national boundaries?
  • MATATAT said:

    So the gist is on basic human necessities there are no boundaries, but on everything else there should be national boundaries?

    National boundaries are overrated and are becoming slowly obsolete thanks to the Internet.
    But what we meant is that virtually all government services and protections should be equally provided to people in the US regardless of citizenship.
  • But what we meant is that virtually all government services and protections should be equally provided to people in the US regardless of citizenship.

    I'm not sure I would go that far, but in terms of immediate healthcare; yes.

  • They already do this! If you get ambulanced to a hospital and you're dying, they save your life, no questions asked.
  • Starfox said:

    They already do this! If you get ambulanced to a hospital and you're dying, they save your life, no questions asked.

    But you also have to pay for it basically without insurance I believe.
  • OH LOOK there's a law covering this exact thing, EMTALA.
    Hospitals have three obligations under EMTALA:

    1. Individuals requesting emergency care, [...] must receive a medical screening examination to determine whether an emergency medical condition (EMC) exists. The participating hospital cannot delay examination and treatment to inquire about methods of payment or insurance coverage, or a patient's citizenship or legal status.
    2. The emergency room (or other better equipped units within the hospital) must treat an individual with an EMC until the condition is resolved or stabilized and the patient is able to provide self-care following discharge. [...] Inpatient care provided must be at an equal level for all patients, regardless of ability to pay.
    3. If the hospital does not have the capability to treat the condition, the hospital must make an "appropriate" transfer of the patient to another hospital with such capability. [...] Hospitals with specialized capabilities must accept such transfers and may not discharge a patient until the condition is resolved and the patient is able to provide self-care or is transferred to another facility.
    Wow, sure covers all our objections to the made-up-never-real scenario!
  • edited April 2015
    EMERGENCY MEDICAL CONDITION

    So like if you break your arm, or you are in a car crash, the doctors will always immediately help you. Then afterwards they'll be like yo how you paying for this?

    Also, like I said, I believe you pay for it out of pocket if you are a foreigner regardless of medical insurance. Although I might be wrong on this since I've never had to deal with it.
    Post edited by MATATAT on
  • I've had similar results here in the UK. Green party for all!

    https://voteforpolicies.org.uk/
  • edited April 2015
    image
    Post edited by PyreKing on
  • MATATAT said:

    It wasn't to start arguing, it is a stupid hypothetical, I was just curious if people would hold any camaraderie with their nation.

    So why even bother with the contrived scenario? First, the medical profession has a procedure to deal with exactly this sort of thing. Second, the US has a law to deal with exactly this sort of thing. The hypothetical has been totally solved, inasmuch as it pertains to the real world, with actual patients. Why not just lead with the question you are really asking? It feels like xenophobia and thinly-veiled racism.
  • edited April 2015
    Starfox said:

    MATATAT said:

    It wasn't to start arguing, it is a stupid hypothetical, I was just curious if people would hold any camaraderie with their nation.

    So why even bother with the contrived scenario? First, the medical profession has a procedure to deal with exactly this sort of thing. Second, the US has a law to deal with exactly this sort of thing. The hypothetical has been totally solved, inasmuch as it pertains to the real world, with actual patients. Why not just lead with the question you are really asking? It feels like xenophobia and thinly-veiled racism.
    You are missing this so much. Okay, for one, the scenario was meant to present an immediate situation. It's stupid and unrealistic. But the point was to say which side would you side with. It's just a Goku vs. Superman scenario. Second, I said nothing about the doctors point of view. I've been aware of that law for YEARS. Furthermore its supposed to be part of the Hippocratic Oath that a doctor should always help under any circumstances. It's not racist nor xenophobic, I meant to present it as a situation with no right answer to see what people would say.

    Like I said I knew I was gonna get shit for this because people either don't want to answer the question or pick it apart with "reality". In reality there's many things even a single doctor could do to save both people.

    Just use your imagination guy goddamn.
    Post edited by MATATAT on
  • Alright, so possible answers are "the US citizen", "the illegal immigrant", or "whoever needs it more"? I certainly think there's a right answer.

    And you really don't think there's racist undertones there? Really?
  • Yeah Canadian is a race.
Sign In or Register to comment.