Thread: Individual mandate is unconstitutional...

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

What a fallacious Appeal to Emotion. Where are people in America dying in the streets? The idea that the ONLY thing keeping this from happening is benevolent government is not supported by any reference to any actual time period in the history of the world.

/facepalm

Now you're back to your deliberate attempts to obfuscate. I'll just take that as part of your continued pattern of an inability to answer the question.

Unsurprising.

Originally Posted by pramjockey

/facepalm

Now you're back to your deliberate attempts to obfuscate. I'll just take that as part of your continued pattern of an inability to answer the question.

Unsurprising.

I did answer the question. You asked me what the solution was other than letting people die in the streets. I answered there is no problem, people are not dying in the streets and they never were due to this issue.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

I did answer the question. You asked me what the solution was other than letting people die in the streets. I answered there is no problem, people are not dying in the streets and they never were due to this issue.

sigh

So, when you remove the obligation to treat those who are in need of immediate care, what do you suppose will happen?

Originally Posted by pramjockey

sigh

So, when you remove the obligation to treat those who are in need of immediate care, what do you suppose will happen?

Not much. just like not much changed after the law was passed initially. The only thing that did change was that it provided justification for even more bad laws to make up for it as an unfunded mandate.

Given that your argument is based primarily on this fear of droves of people dying in the streets, do you have any objective data to show that that was going on before the law was passed? I remember when the law was passed, and at the time, it seemed like a solution without a problem. I was opposed to it then because I could see it leading to exactly the kind of bullshit we're facing now.

Originally Posted by dblack

Not much. just like not much changed after the law was passed initially. The only thing that did change was that it provided justification for even more bad laws to make up for it as an unfunded mandate.

Given that your argument is based primarily on this fear of droves of people dying in the streets, do you have any objective data to show that that was going on before the law was passed? I remember when the law was passed, and at the time, it seemed like a solution without a problem. I was opposed to it then because I could see it leading to exactly the kind of bullshit we're facing now.

People might not be "dying in the streets", but they may end up dying in ER rooms. We have seen some of that already.

Originally Posted by dblack

Not much. just like not much changed after the law was passed initially. The only thing that did change was that it provided justification for even more bad laws to make up for it as an unfunded mandate.

Given that your argument is based primarily on this fear of droves of people dying in the streets, do you have any objective data to show that that was going on before the law was passed? I remember when the law was passed, and at the time, it seemed like a solution without a problem. I was opposed to it then because I could see it leading to exactly the kind of bullshit we're facing now.

Well, I provided some statistics right here:

How to handle the "opt out?"

But that thread has been conveniently ignored.

Originally Posted by Occam's Razor

People might not be "dying in the streets", but they may end up dying in ER rooms. We have seen some of that already.

Psst....people die. Really. Been happening for a long time now. Don't see it changing anytime soon.

I don't care what law is created - people will die. There is nothing you can do to change that. Ya know what? Some of them are going to die in emergency rooms too. Of course, considering why they end up there, i really don't see that as all that odd.

Is this a cold way to view it? Perhaps to the foolish who believe that somehow, someway, if the right law is passed people can magically be granted immortality.

Originally Posted by EricOKC

Psst....people die. Really. Been happening for a long time now. Don't see it changing anytime soon.

I don't care what law is created - people will die. There is nothing you can do to change that. Ya know what? Some of them are going to die in emergency rooms too. Of course, considering why they end up there, i really don't see that as all that odd.

Is this a cold way to view it? Perhaps to the foolish who believe that somehow, someway, if the right law is passed people can magically be granted immortality.

So fascinating the callousness towards unnecessary death after birth, yet the amazing focus on preventing any and all "death" before birth that some have.

Originally Posted by EricOKC

Psst....people die. Really. Been happening for a long time now. Don't see it changing anytime soon.

I don't care what law is created - people will die. There is nothing you can do to change that. Ya know what? Some of them are going to die in emergency rooms too. Of course, considering why they end up there, i really don't see that as all that odd.

Is this a cold way to view it? Perhaps to the foolish who believe that somehow, someway, if the right law is passed people can magically be granted immortality.

There's a difference between deaths that are due to circumstance and deaths due to having an ineffective system.

Originally Posted by pramjockey

Well, I provided some statistics right here:

How to handle the "opt out?"

But that thread has been conveniently ignored.

That's not what I asked for. I wanted to see what problem the law supposedly solved. You claim there would be an epidemic of these kinds of incidents without EMTALA. I'm just looking for something to back up that claim. Do you have any indication that people were "dying in the streets" before the law any more than they were after? Or that hospitals would adopt the draconian practices you're imagining if the law were reversed?

Originally Posted by dblack

That's not what I asked for. I wanted to see what problem the law supposedly solved. You claim there would be an epidemic of these kinds of incidents without EMTALA. I'm just looking for something to back up that claim. Do you have any indication that people were "dying in the streets" before the law any more than they were after? Or that hospitals would adopt the draconian practices you're imagining if the law were reversed?

Actually, yes. The law was passed for a reason.

In some areas an ambulance wouldn't even roll if you couldn't prove a hospital would accept you, because the last thing the ambulance team needed was to ride from hospital to hospital looking for one that would allow them to unload a patient.

YouTube - SICKO: Patient Dumping

YouTube - Taxi Drivers Describe Patient Dumping

The 1985 law hasn't stopped it.

Originally Posted by Dick Martin

The 1985 law hasn't stopped it.

Well, there ya go.

Originally Posted by dblack

Well, there ya go.

I am not sure what that response means.. ??