Why aren't the right-wing talking heads denouncing emergency care as "socialist"?

The recent mountain-from-molehill "controversy" trumpeted by Fox News and the Rush Limbaughs, Glenn Becks, and Sean Hannitys of the world is the alleged "patient dumping" scheme orchestrated for the University of Chicago Medical Center by that evil mastermind of socialism, Michelle Obama.

Which got me thinking about "patient dumping" and emergent care in general.

It has been a long-standing pillar of medical law that emergency rooms are required to treat all patients, regardless of ability to pay. Service cannot be refused.

My question: Since this practice and belief clearly falls within the "to each according to need" philosophy, why aren't conservative pundits everywhere strenuously attacking it as yet another expression of creeping Socialism?

Because the Reich is grasping at straws.

They have no game, no evidence, no basis in reality, that the Lie & Smear Machine is running full-tilt boogie right about now.

The entire MO of the Reich is to muddy the works, destroy any initiative put forth by the Democrats, period.

There is a small percentage of the frothing base of the Rehtuglican Party that will believe this bullshit, but intelligent Rethuglicans will walk away from it, and have, in fact. They are basically in the Rethuglican Protection Program, sitting this administration out, until there emerges another party to separate the freaks from the not-so-freaky members of the party.

It will require a name change, though. The brand is damaged, rather like Vioxx.

Democrats I know will nearly unanimously associate anyone with an "R" after their name as a drooling, lying, sycophantic Christofascist, so there's basically no mainstream hope for this crowd.

Quote: "Christofascist, so there's basically no mainstream hope for this crowd. "

Yeah, I believe your Father invented the Minivan.

Hey, it's a free country when Democrats are in control.

If it weren't for the anonimity of this site, I would be more than happy to share my family's background, but since there are so many freaks out there with a keyboard, I wouldn't want to expose them to so many of them. Cheers!

And you don't need to capitalize "father" or "minivan"- think you may need some remedial classes in language and syntax, perhaps?

Still haven't learned to use the quote feature I see.

I'm actually waiting for those arch anti-socialists ccbatson, Hitsville, and 4real to weigh in with their reasons for not opposing universal access to emergency care.

Quote: "I would be more than happy to share my family's background, but since there are so many freaks out there with a keyboard, I wouldn't want to expose them to so many of them. Cheers!"?

And she attacks my syntax.

Still haven't learned to use the quote feature I see."

You can say you're a dude all you want, but I'd lay lots of money on you being a female.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

Quote: "I would be more than happy to share my family's background, but since there are so many freaks out there with a keyboard, I wouldn't want to expose them to so many of them. Cheers!"?

And she attacks my syntax.

Still haven't learned to use the quote feature I see."

You can say you're a dude all you want, but I'd lay lots of money on you being a female.

---

Wouldn't you like to find out. :eek:

Is it socialism? To the extent that government does not provide emergency room services, it probably isn't. My understanding is that government, at some level, mandates hospitals to provide such services. Beyond what governments provide in compensation, hospitals just raise paying customer's bills in an attempt to make up for such unfunded mandates. Sometimes, particularly along our southern border and in poor neighborhoods, such hospitals go bankrupt and close. Then, noone is provided with any medical care. If that is socialism, it's not working.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

Is it socialism? To the extent that government does not provide emergency room services, it probably isn't. My understanding is that government, at some level, mandates hospitals to provide such services. Beyond what governments provide in compensation, hospitals just raise paying customer's bills in an attempt to make up for such unfunded mandates.

---

and that is exactly why even a single-payer health insurance system is not socialism, much less the public option. by having this reform, emergency care as primary care would vanish, saving the system HUGE amounts of money

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

My understanding is that government, at some level, mandates hospitals to provide such services. Beyond what governments provide in compensation, hospitals just raise paying customer's bills in an attempt to make up for such unfunded mandates.

---

And here we come to the "from each according to his ability" portion of the formula.

If mandatory emergent care isn't the very poster-child of socialism, then I don't know what is: "From each according to his ability [[i.e., charge the haves more), to each according to his need [[i.e., give care to the have-nots who need it, even if they can't pay)."

Yet I don't hear any strident denunciations of the practice from the right. Why is that?
[[I'll be particularly interested in what "objectivism" has to say on the subject. Cue bats...)

I can tell you what Batts will say, if the poor suckers can't pay, then if they have any titled assets, say a car, or house, then the MIC [[medical industrial complex) will seize it.

Or garnish your wages beyond the day you die.

Now corporations are seeking redress by garnishing the wages and inheritances of the children and grandchildren of so called "deadbeats."

All the more reason to stop buying things from anti-American corporations, and participating in the consumer culture, which will send the clearest message to the establishment.

We are a consumer culture- 70% of our economy is based on buying things. Now that credit is over for the most part, and there is no cash left to buy things, it's unlikely we will recover anytime soon.

All the more reason to push for single payer health care.

If the government owns the hospital, be it Receiving Hospital or a VA hospital, the emergency care is socialism because government owns the means of 'production' in those venues. Otherwise it is just a funded or unfunded government mandate like paying taxes. Single payer care is what Canadian provinces have but not what President Obama is proposing. With a half to three trillion dollars of extra taxpayer stickum, he is instead expanding our existing system. I prefer the Canadian provinces' socialist single payer systems to Obama's pumped up corporatist, unaffordable, federal nightmare. From the viewpoint of a fiscal conservative , provincial health care reduces the size of government while Obamacare expands government cost. This is because combined governments in the US already spend more per capita in the US than Canadian governments spend , per capita, for single payer care. This equation doesn't even include high insurance costs we pay in the US.

So your position is that a behavior can't be socialism unless the actor is the government?
That behavior in the private sector cannot, by definition, be socialism?
Even if that behavior is dictated by government policy or law?
Does that about sum it up?

No. There are different definitions of socialism but a commonly used definition involves the ownership of the means of production.

Maybe you are looking for the term "corporatism" or "economic fascism" but I think that "Government regulations' would suffice when private hospitals are mandated to provide specific services. The hospitals, after all, haven't been nationalized or , in many cases, been provided with enough government compensation to pay for the mandates.

I never cared for EMTALA, and do not understand why Reagan [[yes, Reagan signed this law into office) did what he did.

It was part of the Omnibus Health Care Bill of 1986 [[for those you you interested in doing some reading) that was chock full of little "surprises". Much like HR 3200.

If you use a service, you should pay for a service.

Why the talking heads on both sides haven't spoke about this is beyond me.

What has to end is the idea that socialism is a bad thing. It isn't. It's the right wing dominated press in this country that likes to point fingers at "socialism" as if it's a dirty word.

Rather fascism, corporatism, Republicanism are dirty words as far as I'm concerned, since they work against the benefit of all people, in favor of those with the most money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MCP-001

If you use a service, you should pay for a service.

---

So if you're pregnant but can't afford an obstetrician, you should just squat by the side of the road, squirt it out, and get back to work?
Is that what you mean?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lorax

It's the right wing dominated press in this country that likes to point fingers at "socialism" as if it's a dirty word.

---

Which is precisely why I'm wondering why this issue isn't on their radar already. It seems tailor-made for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elganned

So if you're pregnant but can't afford an obstetrician, you should just squat by the side of the road, squirt it out, and get back to work?
Is that what you mean?

---

You mean like they ALREADY do in that single payer utopia of England?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elganned

Which is precisely why I'm wondering why this issue isn't on their radar already. It seems tailor-made for them.

---

It does. But in doing so, they would be attacking the majority of people without health care who use the emergency room as theiry primary care, and it would put-off the big insurance companies they worship, since they are relying on some portion of the 50 million uninsured as a future customer base.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MCP-001

You mean like they ALREADY do in that single payer utopia of England?

---

Looks like you answered your own question. What do you need us for?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lorax

Looks like you answered your own question. What do you need us for?

---

You obviously haven't read the link yet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MCP-001

You mean like they ALREADY do in that single payer utopia of England?

---

Irrelevant.
This link has nothing to do with "paying for service", nor does it answer the question I asked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elganned

Where did you hear this?

---

Just click on the link [[it's highlighted in my post above).

Or, just click here.

Pretty nasty stuff.

Kinda of makes you look forward to the single payer system that Pres. B.O. wants to cram down America's throat...and shudder as to why people are so clueless as to why there is opposition to it.

The "link" should be labeled the "missing link" since it has nothing to do with this thread, or paying for services rendered.

It's the British version of the National Inquirer- great sourcing, sure to win a Pulitzer.