Homeland Security monitoring journalists

[peggy]

You know this is a great post. I am a retired RN. 35 years in the business. I don't know anyone in the business who based their care decisions on ability to pay. Most really hate the "bean counters" aka government and insurance but really liked their jobs and their patients. Most physicians get out of medical school with really big big loans. And to work them off they often take extra shifts at the ER, work long hours on their feet doing tricky surgical procedures and on the side provide free care in clinics or to just released prisoners. If you are not in the biz you have no idea how many people daily work long hard hours and do everything they can to provide care. Add to that constant learning to keep up certifications and liscences as well as attorneys who will do anything to make a buck. Watch daytime TV recently? the amount of lawyer ads are astonishing. "ever take this medicine, ever have this procedure... if so call 1-800-screwyourmd and I'll make you rich.

But back to the original post. The thing I can't understand is how we can be perplexed that the government is tracking journalists. The American people stood by when Guantanamo prisoners were held without trial. There are detention centers where "illegals" are held without proper representation and they are pretty much hidden from view. As long as we stand by and let atrocities happen they will spread and happen to many more.

And thank you for your service! I do know lots of medical people, several in my family, and not one feels a gun to their head! They all work long hours and really do care for their patients. i know some people think doctors and nurses do it for the money, but I've been there when they lost a patient, even one that was expected to die. They may seem all business at work, but they are very much emotionally invested.

[peggy]

Au contraire peggy. If you read closely you will see that exactly the opposite is true meaning that statement really is your proverbial strawman. There is no doubt in my mind that almost any medical professional would make the conscious choice to help anyone in need. But we are not talking about the moral obligation felt by individuals. We need to pay very close attention to those four little words, "make the conscious choice". What those good people would choose to do is a given. It is the fact that the government holds a gun to their head and tells them they WILL render aid or else (!) that is the problem. Again, the end result might be nearly the same, but the road leading there is quite different.




The two are not in opposition the way some would like to believe. As a little tag onto flowerseverywhere's post, it is worth mentioning that much of the charitable work being doled out by medical staffs is being done in facilities they did not build, with equipment they did not pay for, aided by drugs they did not buy, etc. The labor is only one aspect of a "free" clinic or other charitable program. Like them or not, those profit driven, evil empires of the healthcare world make some pretty substantial resource donations in a lot of places. And they do it without anyone telling them they have to.

gregg, are you really saying ERs should be able to turn people away? Heart attack patients? Car accidents? Really? I find that pretty horrific. Where would they go? I mean really, where would they go?
If a man was beating and raping your daughter, and another man saw it and did nothing, is that ok? Even if he knows the rapist would then turn his violence on him? Would you say the second man had no obligation to render aid? Is this where we are setting the bar now?
#1, no ER nurse or doctor has a gun to their head to treat anyone cause this is what they do. They treat people and I'm pretty sure they would be highly offended by the suggestion that they are being forced to treat people.
#2, I don't ever want to hear about the 'values vote' again cause, if this is the party line, there are no values there. From cheering a man dying cause he didn't buy insurance to booing a gay soldier, that branding that was so carefully cultivated is totally out the window. And the moral majority are apparently the democrats/liberals.

Some things in life are simply not negotiable. I can't necessarily list them, but I sure know them when I see them. And thank goodness our government agrees.

[peggy]

So you'll agree that every citizen has not only the right, but the obligation to bear arms?

Well, according to this act all males should! I do believe there have been some states who actually wanted to enforce this! But then, in my neck of the woods, I think most have guns already, so people here are well within the law!

[creaker]

gregg, are you really saying ERs should be able to turn people away? Heart attack patients? Car accidents? Really? I find that pretty horrific. Where would they go? I mean really, where would they go?

Actually that was one of the primary reasons Reagan signed the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act and put the mandate on hospitals to provide emergency treatment - patients who couldn't pay were pushed from one facility to another untreated until literally some of them died.

It's a very different world now - many of the county/charity type hospitals that took these people back then are gone.

[Gregg]

Actually that was one of the primary reasons Reagan signed the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act and put the mandate on hospitals to provide emergency treatment ...

Thank you creaker, that is exactly the type of legislation we are talking about.

If a man was beating and raping your daughter, and another man saw it and did nothing, is that ok? Even if he knows the rapist would then turn his violence on him? Would you say the second man had no obligation to render aid? Is this where we are setting the bar now?

Does the witness have a moral obligation, as a human being, to do something if he is able? Yes. Does he have the right to first consider his own safety, or that of his family, before deciding on a course of action? Yes. Does he have the right to not get involved if that is his choice? Yes. Should our government legislate morality by telling him he has to intervene? No. Heros are NOT created through legislation.

You need to step back from the sensationalist claims that would have us believe the uninsured would be dying in droves in hospital parking lots. Even if they would (they wouldn't) its not what this argument is about and it has NOTHING to do with what choice medical personnel would make on their own. There is a very unique difference between the government passing laws to dissuade people from doing harm (murder, rape, etc.) and passing laws telling them they have to do good.

They treat people and I'm pretty sure they would be highly offended by the suggestion that they are being forced to treat people.

Offended or not, they ARE being forced, or rather their employers are being forced, to treat people. See creaker's reference above. Why do you insist on making the front line medical folks, the doctors and nurses, into martyrs of some kind? Theirs is NOT an accidental profession. My family includes two doctors, three nurses, one about-to-be-doctor (resident) and two with medical administration positions so I get to hear quite a bit about such topics. They are, without fail, compassionate and caring people. They are not, and would never consider themselves to be, some kind of soldiers in a war for government induced morality.

[creaker]

Gregg,

Do you think things like police, fire, national guard, etc. should be limited in scope to things like law enforcement, protecting property, preventing fires from spreading to other structures, etc. and not be expected to do things like provide assistance or save lives? How about the expected obligations placed upon positions like teachers? Or parents?

[Gregg]

Creaker, I appreciate where you're heading, but need to answer in a few parts....

First: police officers, firemen, (public school) teachers, the National Guard, social workers, etc. are public servants. I have no problem with the idea that their expected conduct should be spelled out by the members of the society who pay them for their service. Since, in theory, all citizens pay into the pool that is used to supply the services it is logical and correct to take measures to insure those services are provided equally to anyone in need and at least up to the minimum standards deemed appropriate and/or necessary by the society.

Second: parents are COMPLETELY different than teachers. Parents are NOT public servants. If the society decides evolution is the correct approach toward teaching our kids and I decide I want to teach creationism to my kids would you have me locked up or would you concede that I have a right to teach my kids the way I see fit? The society has every right to decide what it wishes a publicly supported curriculum to teach, but I maintain it has no right to tell me, as a parent, what I can and can't teach my kids away from school.

Third: lab techs, hospital administrators, chiropractors, dental hygienists, neurosurgeons, ER nurses, hospital chaplains... none of those, outside of a few government institutions like the VA, are public servants. Just as important, if not even more so, most hospitals, private clinics, doctor's offices and almost all other healthcare facilities are NOT public facilities. They are private. Privately built and owned, privately funded, privately administered and operated. Just like the government has no business coming into my home and telling me what to teach my kids, it has no business coming into someone's office and telling them how to conduct their business. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not an emergency room staff is morally obligated treat someone who is hurt. No, the moral outrage SHOULD be directed at the interference by the government into private lives.

[creaker]

Maybe the primary issue then is that hospitals should be more along the lines of public institutions if the expectation is they will provide public services?

[Gregg]

That certainly is one of the more lucid options on the table. There are, of course, reasonable arguments for and against. Being on the side of smaller government my own preference involves trying to find a solution through the markets. Starting from where we are right now it would be difficult to absorb the healthcare system into the government with anything short of a Hugo Chavez approach. Nothing is perfect, but I do think our healthcare system works pretty well. We just need to get more people participating in it.

[peggy]

That certainly is one of the more lucid options on the table. There are, of course, reasonable arguments for and against. Being on the side of smaller government my own preference involves trying to find a solution through the markets. Starting from where we are right now it would be difficult to absorb the healthcare system into the government with anything short of a Hugo Chavez approach. Nothing is perfect, but I do think our healthcare system works pretty well. We just need to get more people participating in it.