tsunami
Council Member
I was, essentially, wondering how much the usual conservative reaction to the ACA is a genuine difference in how much health care conservatives think people who can't afford it should be able to get, vs genuine concern about methods and/or a knee-jerk reaction to something put in place by liberals.
So, assuming that the person in question is a citizen of your country who needs some sort of medical care that they cannot afford, and they are not individually and specifically entitled to care paid for by others (eg veterans)--that is, assuming we're just talking about a random poor person who needs health care that he or she can't afford--they should get:
A. Nothing. They can just go die in a ditch.
B. Only bare-minimum emergency care (eg stopping the bleeding, setting broken bones)
C. Fairly basic, bare-bones care (eg antibiotics and insulin, but not any new, expensive drugs)
D. The basic standard of care those with money can reasonably expect, though not necessarily experimental or extraordinary-measures treatments (eg standard HMO care)
E. Anything that money can buy
Please pick one, and if you wish defend your choice. Also, any other thoughts?
So, assuming that the person in question is a citizen of your country who needs some sort of medical care that they cannot afford, and they are not individually and specifically entitled to care paid for by others (eg veterans)--that is, assuming we're just talking about a random poor person who needs health care that he or she can't afford--they should get:
A. Nothing. They can just go die in a ditch.
B. Only bare-minimum emergency care (eg stopping the bleeding, setting broken bones)
C. Fairly basic, bare-bones care (eg antibiotics and insulin, but not any new, expensive drugs)
D. The basic standard of care those with money can reasonably expect, though not necessarily experimental or extraordinary-measures treatments (eg standard HMO care)
E. Anything that money can buy
Please pick one, and if you wish defend your choice. Also, any other thoughts?