Ariz. may require hospitals to check citizenship

I do not think employers should have to prove the citizenship of their employees. Again, I think this fits well into the limited government viewpoint that most conservatives say they hold.

This is a different situation, too. Why? One is charity work and this is not charity work. I am giving to you freely and loving you when I give my services as a doctor. This is a job so there have always been legal distinctions between the two.

Let this be between the doctor and the patient. Either way, it is doctor/patient confidentiality.

Most hospitals are independently operated as non-profit organizations. I agree that government should not be in the charity business. However, I do not want them telling my doctor to violate their patience confidentiality either.

No, but that is a different situation. In one situation there is no harm going to be done to the patient or anyone else. Yet, in this situation there is a moral responsibility to protect the woman.

That was the exact argument used against the freeing of slaves in England. Many said it would bankrupt the UK (and it about did). Yet, the pro-abolitionists said that this does not matter. They felt the moral duty outweighed the finances. I agree. Granted, I think government should get out of the business of charity, but I do not think we should rate who gets cared for because of how much money they have. My solution is not for the rising of government health care, but the rising of charities to take over for government.

 

Yes, I would. However, I think there is a huge distinction between forcing me to play law enforcement by requiring me to ask you if you are an illegal and me turning you in for murder if I found out this was the case.

 

You make no sense.

I believe in being a good samaritan and that government should not require me to be a law enforcement official. I should not be required to ask about your immigration status.

I have no agenda here. I see this as little to no different than when Germany outlawed Jews and forced them to prove they had "registered" because they were a "drain on the German economy."

To me, a Doctor should care for people.

So, answer my question. Would you require a rescue mission who receives USDA food to make sure everyone they feed are not immigrants? No one on the other side has answered this question.

You know my answer to this question. Where do you stand? Would you be the good Samaritan or would you walk on the other side of the street while calling the police?

 

Here'"morally wrong" for you:

Why have so many emergency rooms shut their doors?

Illegal immigrants have inundated the system, worsening the care for everyone.

And that is truly "morally wrong".

 

If you begin to get rid of the many regulations strapping hospitals down, then I do not think you have to worry about the rising cost. As well, prior to the 1970's we didn't have subsidies of hospitals like we do now and the laws allowed for doctors to care for and give charity to patients without some of the negatives of our current system. I think you would more charity by doctors, more charity by individuals, and fewer problems.

I can take a team of Doctors oversees and give care to hundreds for less than I can give care for just a few here. The reason? The Government.

 

I will be glad to address the economics issues here and did slightly in another post. However, I also support and applaud non-profit health clinics and other institutions. Government makes giving to charity in the medical field very difficult. As well, government ensures higher prices by how they fix the number of hospitals in areas and how they prevent smaller clinics from opening. If the free market in charity was allowed to work, there would be some hospitals that close their doors (which is not always a bad thing) but the cost of care would be more competitive and cheaper. Finally, with fewer regulations doctors could actually care for people for less.

It is not immoral for a place to go bankrupt. It is immoral to see a person hurting and not care for them.

 

You would have to play mental gymnastics to get there.

 

No, there is not any gymnastics here. Would you turn me in if you saw me jaywalk? Probably not! Would you turn me in if you saw me go 60 in a 55? Probably not. The nature of the offense is radically different from being here illegally (a crime but one that will not endanger or has endangered a person's life) and murder. If you see no difference in the two, you need to re-evaluate what you see as important morally. Are both wrong (murder and being here illegal)? Yes! Are both offenses the same in severity? No! I would, for instance, never advocate for the death penalty for someone who is here illegally. I would for someone who murders.

 

:laugh:

Of course it isn't. What's immoral is to require them to treat illegals at no cost to the patient and, by doing so, force them into bankruptcy.

Then when they are forced to close, American citizens, as well as the illegals your heart bleeds for, will die because they're not available to treat any of them anymore.

Once illegals find out they can only get "emergency" care in an "emergency", room, they will take their colds and sniffles elsewhere. They will have to pay for it, and they should.

That's the moral thing to do.:smilewinkgrin:

 

This proposed law is stupid. Hospitals should not be in the business of immigration enforcement.

 

Why not have a level playing field?

As a good little liberal, I doubt you would question that the government holds employers responsible for who they hire.

So why not hold hospitals responsible for who they treat? It's the Obamacare way.

 

Coming into the country illegally is a pretty big offense. It is a fact that gang members and terrorists are crossing the border. I'm sorry but it appears that you just do not want to support a law only because you do not like it. Healthcare and all the other issues involved are not really your problem. You don't like the law so you condemn all who support it trying to draw some spiritual offense. I find your position inconsistent and disingenuous.

 

"And they passed by on the other side of the road."

How un-Christian of some in Arizona.

 

I guess that I missed something here.

Where does it say that a hospital is to turn away someone based on their immigration status?

As far as I can tell the law does not say that hospitals are to deny care to anyone - just that they are to inquire as to a person's immigration status.

Big difference.

 

If you cannot see the difference between a man starving in Mexico and coming here so he can feed his family and murder, then it is you, not I, who is disingenuous.

Would you advocate the death penalty for illegal immigration? If you answer yes, you are consistent. If you answer no, you agree with me that the two issues are different.

So, answer my question that I have proposed. Would you be for requiring rescue missions, who receive USDA food, to ask people they serve food their immigration status before serving? Should we force missions to make discovering immigration status before feeding the hungry a requirement for USDA food (which most rescue missions receive).

 

I guess the legislators think it is better that illegal aliens not be treated for contagious diseases and run the chance of those diseases being spread more widely among the general population. After all, if you know you are going to be deported would you go to the hospital for help with VD, STDs, TB, etc.? Many would not and this would put more people at risk. Not a smart move by the state government. Economically it would also drive up medical costs in the state.

 

So, a Doctor is helping a trauma victim, stops, and asked, "Before I can help you, you need to tell me if you are an illegal or not."

How horrible.

BTW, I am not a liberal. I voted for McCain (though, I did not like that he was as liberal as he is), Bush both times, etc. While I disdain the Republican Party, I do so because they hold to liberal policies like this one, playing the nanny state. Or they were just as big of spenders... or they were nation builders, or they were just plain immoral.

I am afraid Christians are more concerned about politics than they are concerned about love. This is the prime example.

SO answer my question, since rescue missions receive USDA food, do you think they should be required to look into someone's immigration status before feeding them food?

 

The church, not the state, is ordered by God not to mistreat the alien in our midst.

America has gotten about as secular as it has ever been in its history.

So, we can not apply Biblical Principles to the secular state.

But, you know what?

If bush had secured the borders obama wouldn;t have had a choice about securing our borders and this wouldn't even be an issue!!!

If we would treat the illegal hoardes as the invaders they are and repel them and keep them out...

The hospitals wouldn't be drowning in a sea of red ink because of drug related violence and illegals needing care...

What's sad is in Georgia I can defend myself against any home invader, except an illegal, because then I am commiting a federal hate crime!

 

Should we ever require charity? NO! however, we if someone gives charitably then we should not become government nannies either.

You have still not answered my question concerning the USDA. Most rescue missions receive food from the USDA. Do you think rescue missions should ask your immigration status before giving you food?

This is a simple question, but people seem bent on avoiding to answer this question. BTW, a friend of mine ran a rescue mission and lost USDA food because shared the Gospel to people before they ate. I think both is an overreach of government. I, as well, believe the hospital questioning is an overreach

So, what is your view on this simple situation? Should we demand rescue missions begin questioning their people?