[FreedomNotSafety]

Which version are you referring to? I like the version that says the doctor will pay for the patients care.

Patients have been refused care to some degree or another going back thousands of years. At no point has a patient ever had a blank check. There will always be a rationing mechanism because patients have unlimited needs but limited means. Self pay or charitable care is the best form of rationing. You can have medical care to the extent that you can pay for it or to the extent someone else will voluntarily pay for it.

If no one will care for you voluntarily then too bad.

The fundamental differences we are discussing are whether or not to force other people to pay for someone else’s care. If a doctor or hospital wants to pay and they can get enough voluntarily given funds to do so then your philosophy is fine.

[Batrachian]

I would never force labor from any free person, not even to save a life, because that is slavery, but neither would I demand a credit check before any important medical service is performed. That's barbaric. Do you deny it? It would be embarrassing to our society for people to die in the streets because they where turned away from the hospital. That should be reason enough to be charitable in this regard. We are conservatives and we value life more than we value the dollar, by an almost infinite degree. First heal the patient, then stick him with the bill. If you do it in the reverse order then you are a money grubbing, inhuman bastard who deserves to be shunned by all civilized society. You then make the same calculation that Hitler and Obama did when they reasoned that it's not economical to keep really sick people alive. Is that the company you want to keep?