Should all Medicaid patients be unable to ever sue a physician for their free care?

[LADoc00]

Ive been thinking that there should be a law that prevents low income folks from suing healthcare providers for free care offered. The same should be true for prisoners etc.

What are peoples thoughts on this? Should someone be able to sue for quality of something they paid literally nothing for?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[bauber]

Yes, let's marginalize the poor even further because they are poor.

 

[theKingLT]

Ive been thinking that there should be a law that prevents low income folks from suing healthcare providers for free care offered. The same should be true for prisoners etc.

What are peoples thoughts on this? Should someone be able to sue for quality of something they paid literally nothing for?

Way I see it, if it worked like that then you would also be saying that if a company sells me a drink with lead in it and I get sick, then all they have to do is give me my $2.00 back for the drink so that it's essentially free and all liability goes away

 

[octopusprime]

Ive been thinking that there should be a law that prevents low income folks from suing healthcare providers for free care offered. The same should be true for prisoners etc.

What are peoples thoughts on this? Should someone be able to sue for quality of something they paid literally nothing for?

well it seems to work for the military...

 

[LADoc00]

Yes, let's marginalize the poor even further because they are poor.

Hold it, the alternative is the poor are simply left to fend for themselves, do you want them DEAD or do you want them alive but unable to file frivolous lawsuits?

A majority of lawsuits in my area are filed by PRISONS in the California Dept of Corrections. They file them because they have access to legal resources while in prison and near limitless amounts of time to harass people who otherwise are sent to help them. This has resulted in a huge number of specialists simply refusing to see them.

Read that again and then respond.

Dont come here and get all Social Justice on me without the slightest clue of what you are talking about.

What part of the country you in Bauber? Let's meet up and discuss. Im toting like 50 lbs of salt today so you picked a good day to comment.

 

[bronx43]

Ive been thinking that there should be a law that prevents low income folks from suing healthcare providers for free care offered. The same should be true for prisoners etc.

What are peoples thoughts on this? Should someone be able to sue for quality of something they paid literally nothing for?

Depends. Are you referring to a physician offering completely pro bono services like a free clinic in an underserved area? Or are you referring to you working for an organization that takes Medicaid and you still got your $ per wRVU?

For the former, I assume there would/should be legal protection, similar to those offered to good Samaritans. Otherwise, it would significantly discourage people from doing acts of kindness like this.
For the latter, no. Absolutely not.

 

[y2k_free_radical]

Hold it, the alternative is the poor are simply left to fend for themselves, do you want them DEAD or do you want them alive but unable to file frivolous lawsuits?

A majority of lawsuits in my area are filed by PRISONS in the California Dept of Corrections. They file them because they have access to legal resources while in prison and near limitless amounts of time to harass people who otherwise are sent to help them. This has resulted in a huge number of specialists simply refusing to see them.

Read that again and then respond.

Dont come here and get all Social Justice on me without the slightest clue of what you are talking about.

What part of the country you in Bauber? Let's meet up and discuss. Im toting like 50 lbs of salt today so you picked a good day to comment.

In my experience our medicaid patients are the most demanding,hardest to please,most judgmental and most likely to sue.

 

[bauber]

I agree there should be a shield from frivolous lawsuits for docs who provide charity care however I do not think a law that bans people from filing a suit because they are poor/received charity care is the right way to do that. Poor folks, prisoners, etc are still entitled to quality care regardless of their ability to pay in my opinion. There will always be examples of waste, fraud, and abuse in our system but an outright ban wouldn't be the best way to deal with that.

And I'd love to meet for a scotch but I'm 1000s of miles away.

 

[maxxor]

Maybe we should get Fed Tort claims act coverage for these situations?

 

[Torsed]

Can you imagine having some god awful cancer in the prison system?

Instead of saying peeps can’t sue (lawyers would never take that right away)....deny the poor access to the courts / civil rights etc we should focus on real hardcore medical review panels (not every state has these) and tort reform in my opinion.

 

[deleted480308]

I agree there should be a shield from frivolous lawsuits for docs who provide charity care however I do not think a law that bans people from filing a suit because they are poor/received charity care is the right way to do that. Poor folks, prisoners, etc are still entitled to quality care regardless of their ability to pay in my opinion. There will always be examples of waste, fraud, and abuse in our system but an outright ban wouldn't be the best way to deal with that.

And I'd love to meet for a scotch but I'm 1000s of miles away.

How about a ban on govt “charity” programs?

No one has a right to something they didn’t earn or have voluntarily gifted to them

 

[Guest8]

How about a ban on govt “charity” programs?

No one has a right to something they didn’t earn or have voluntarily gifted to them

People have the rights that the government they live under provide to them. And the people choose representatives to best fit the rights they want in their lives. Americans have so far chosen that they do want their government - through the taxes we pay - to provide for the least among us. I'm one of those people.

 

[chooks]

People have the rights that the government they live under provide to them.

On the contrary, one of the core tenents of the US is that rights are NOT provided by the government. They are God (capitalized for historical purposes) given and not dependent on the government at all. There were substantial and vigorous debates about whether to even include a Bill of Rights as there are those who believed that this would give the false appearance of provisioning by the government or that explicit enumeration would be seen as a limitation to a set of rights that are not necessarily limited due to their divine provenance. Or something like that. I haven't had coffee yet.

And the people choose representatives to best fit the rights they want in their lives.

I would also argue this is not necessarily true.

Let the flames begin.

 

[Guest8]

On the contrary, one of the core tenents of the US is that rights are NOT provided by the government. They are God (capitalized for historical purposes) given and not dependent on the government at all. There were substantial and vigorous debates about whether to even include a Bill of Rights as there are those who believed that this would give the false appearance of provisioning by the government or that explicit enumeration would be seen as a limitation to a set of rights that are not necessarily limited due to their divine provenance. Or something like that. I haven't had coffee yet.



I would also argue this is not necessarily true.

Let the flames begin.

The belief may be that rights are "god given", but the reality is that government provides them, allows them to happen, and enforces their existence. Hence, we value certain things that many nations do not, and we enshrined them into our Constitution and Bill of Rights. And hence why we had to keep adding Amendments to insure that those rights are in writing and in law. Without government enshrining and protecting your "rights", you essentially have zero rights - you only have what you can fight for individually, which is basically nothing.

 

[deleted480308]

People have the rights that the government they live under provide to them. And the people choose representatives to best fit the rights they want in their lives. Americans have so far chosen that they do want their government - through the taxes we pay - to provide for the least among us. I'm one of those people.

The govt does not grant rights. Rights are yours as a human regardless of govt, the govt can grant legal privileges

The belief may be that rights are "god given", but the reality is that government provides them, allows them to happen, and enforces their existence. Hence, we value certain things that many nations do not, and we enshrined them into our Constitution and Bill of Rights. And hence why we had to keep adding Amendments to insure that those rights are in writing and in law. Without government enshrining and protecting your "rights", you essentially have zero rights - you only have what you can fight for individually, which is basically nothing.

The point of the constitution was to restrain the govt from interfering in the rights you have as a human, not to get the govt to give you rights. The govt does not give rights

 

[Guest8]

The govt does not grant rights. Rights are yours as a human regardless of govt, the govt can grant legal privileges

The point of the constitution was to restrain the govt from interfering in the rights you have as a human, not to get the govt to give you rights. The govt does not give rights

Tell that to any non-democratic nation in the world. Tell it to China. Tell it to Saudi Arabia, Russia, the Philippines, etc etc. Like I said, it's nice to say we have inherent rights as humans. But in reality we only have what government and others allow us to have. We live in a country that allows many, many rights. But the majority (really the overwhelming majority) do not. Without government support for those rights, they mean nothing.

 

[deleted480308]

Tell that to any non-democratic nation in the world. Tell it to China. Tell it to Saudi Arabia, Russia, the Philippines, etc etc. Like I said, it's nice to say we have inherent rights as humans. But in reality we only have what government and others allow us to have. We live in a country that allows many, many rights. But the majority (really the overwhelming majority) do not. Without government support for those rights, they mean nothing.

You don’t understand the words you are using. Someone violating a right doesn’t mean you don’t have a natural possession of that right, only that that right you still have is violated.

 

[Guest8]

I definitely understand the words I'm using. Rights are relative. What we call "rights" in the West aren't considered rights in many other parts of the world. What we consider a violation of a "right" other parts of the world consider completely normal. You're using your interpretation of rights as if they're universal, but there is no such thing. Unless you're religious, in which case there's no point arguing, you just believe what you believe.

 

[LADoc00]

There is a huge difference between "holding truths that to us are self-evident" and rights being granted by theology.

The very fact we had actual slavery should be something of a worrisome sign and show the cracks in the wall of government giving you any sort of rights..

In reality you have rights to absolutely nothing, hence why slavery in a myriad of forms, still exists. If you wake up thinking there are people out there that will take away what small rights I do have and I need to actively work and train and arm myself to protect against this, you will be in vastly better shape.

Im not saying we should take away healthcare from prisoners, only that we need to prohibit them from attempting to claim malpractice for the very least ensure there are still actual good doctors ever willing to help them. There should be exactly ZERO argument on this. I am telling you prisoners, impoverished people (legal and illegal) are in real danger of NO ONE helping them, ever due to this. And then they will die, their rotting corpses filling the air with a rancid stench that will choke the happiness out of my morning routine and no one wants that. No one.

 

[Dro133]

There is a huge difference between "holding truths that to us are self-evident" and rights being granted by theology.

The very fact we had actual slavery should be something of a worrisome sign and show the cracks in the wall of government giving you any sort of rights..

In reality you have rights to absolutely nothing, hence why slavery in a myriad of forms, still exists. If you wake up thinking there are people out there that will take away what small rights I do have and I need to actively work and train and arm myself to protect against this, you will be in vastly better shape.

But this is exactly why governments need to exist to protect the rights of citizens. Like you said, we had actual slavery in this country, and slavery still exists in a myriad of forms; do you honestly think that slaves would have been better off had they simply "actively worked and trained to arm and protect themselves"? People who are enslaved and exploited are by definition less powerful than those who exploit them, and no manner of self-armament would have protected those slaves from becoming enslaved. Moreover, it's not ethical from a moral standpoint to expect all groups to be able to protect themselves from this form of subjugation, and having this expectation is dangerous because it could lead one to justify subjugation by saying "well, they should have been able to protect themselves".

Slavery continued to exist in America because the government allowed it to however, once the government began to outlaw it, that's when it finally broke down. If there was no pressure from the government, there would have been no financial incentive for slave-owners to stop owning slaves, and it would have remained in practice until it was no longer financially beneficial.

 

[deleted480308]

But this is exactly why governments need to exist to protect the rights of citizens. Like you said, we had actual slavery in this country, and slavery still exists in a myriad of forms; do you honestly think that slaves would have been better off had they simply "actively worked and trained to arm and protect themselves"? People who are enslaved and exploited are by definition less powerful than those who exploit them, and no manner of self-armament would have protected those slaves from becoming enslaved. Moreover, it's not ethical from a moral standpoint to expect all groups to be able to protect themselves from this form of subjugation, and having this expectation is dangerous because it could lead one to justify subjugation by saying "well, they should have been able to protect themselves".

Slavery continued to exist in America because the government allowed it to however, once the government began to outlaw it, that's when it finally broke down. If there was no pressure from the government, there would have been no financial incentive for slave-owners to stop owning slaves, and it would have remained in practice until it was no longer financially beneficial.

You are quoting things under my name that I didn’t say

 

[deleted480308]

I definitely understand the words I'm using. Rights are relative. What we call "rights" in the West aren't considered rights in many other parts of the world. What we consider a violation of a "right" other parts of the world consider completely normal. You're using your interpretation of rights as if they're universal, but there is no such thing. Unless you're religious, in which case there's no point arguing, you just believe what you believe.

Rights are not relative. Legal entitlements are, the physical ability to exercise a right is.....having the right is not

 

[Dro133]

You are quoting things under my name that I didn’t say

Apologies, technical difficulties. Fixed.

 

[Guest8]

Rights are not relative. Legal entitlements are, the physical ability to exercise a right is.....having the right is not

Well you feel free to list these universal rights that exist, and I'll feel free to point out that none of them are universal. At all.

 

[LADoc00]

But this is exactly why governments need to exist to protect the rights of citizens. Like you said, we had actual slavery in this country, and slavery still exists in a myriad of forms; do you honestly think that slaves would have been better off had they simply "actively worked and trained to arm and protect themselves"? People who are enslaved and exploited are by definition less powerful than those who exploit them, and no manner of self-armament would have protected those slaves from becoming enslaved. Moreover, it's not ethical from a moral standpoint to expect all groups to be able to protect themselves from this form of subjugation, and having this expectation is dangerous because it could lead one to justify subjugation by saying "well, they should have been able to protect themselves".

Slavery continued to exist in America because the government allowed it to however, once the government began to outlaw it, that's when it finally broke down. If there was no pressure from the government, there would have been no financial incentive for slave-owners to stop owning slaves, and it would have remained in practice until it was no longer financially beneficial.

Circular argument though. Slavery exists because there is a governmental apparatus to protect it. Slavery doesnt come out of a vacuum, if we were running around hunting and gathering you wouldnt want slaves as you gotta to feed and house them all.

In the apocalypse no one is taking slaves aside from sex slaves, its wayyyyyy too much work.

People are less powerful because they are weak, ergo make yourself strong. You only have control over yourself, so make yourself dangerous.
This is truly self evident:
1.) the price of slave today when adjusted for inflation in the U.S. is LESS than the price of a slave in the colonies circa 1845.
2.) a majority of slaves today are in agriculture and domestic labor not sex, sound familiar?

Government is USELESS, beyond useless actually because they will actually tell you there is no problem so you let your guard down and well then you end up a slave!

I am 100% certain there is a level of armament, training and steely will that will make it so utterly prohibitive to enslave you no entity on this planet would ever try,

Never make excuses for your personal weakness and expect "government" to help you because in the moment of your most dire need, they will fail you. Trust me.

~Honey Badger

 

[deleted480308]

Well you feel free to list these universal rights that exist, and I'll feel free to point out that none of them are universal. At all.

If you are familiar with the concept of negative rights, we can start there

 

[Guest8]

If you are familiar with the concept of negative rights, we can start there

That's the disconnect right there. You want to discuss concepts when I'm discussing reality.

 

[deleted480308]

That's the disconnect right there. You want to discuss concepts when I'm discussing reality.

You’re ducking the conversation. The reality is that no one has a right to claim a “positive” right. We all have a lot of negative rights. Do you actually know what those terms mean?

 

[WEBB PINKERTON]

You two have the "right" to email each other to continue this useless discussion. You are filling the thread up with this stupid back and forth.

 

[deleted480308]

You two have the "right" to email each other to continue this useless discussion. You are filling the thread up with this stupid back and forth.

I don’t take discussions private but I appreciate the suggestion. I get that we might disagree on how relevant this is but what “rights” a person has really do influence the main question of the OP

 

[yaah]

Man this takes me back to SDN circa about 10-15 years ago when half the discussions devolved into libertarian arguments about safety and security (and often weapons), sometimes with some Russophilia or casual bigotry thrown in. Thank you all for not resorting to the latter yet.