I have been reading stories about the oral arguments in the Supreme Court yesterday in Gonzales v. Oregon. It is often said that predictions cannot be made based on oral arguments. Bunk. In every appellate case in which I have been involved or observed, it was easy to discern at least the general state of play. And from what I have read, it looks like a closely divided court. Indeed, the swing vote may be Justice O’Conner or her replacement.
Justice Ginsberg’s response to the truth that non controlled substances could be used in assisted suicide thereby permitting Oregon’s law to continue on got me thinking about something. She responded that these other methods might not be so gentle. Whether true or untrue, that becomes a policy decision, not a judicial one.
Ginsberg is an elite member of the elite, as are most members of the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary. This is why, particularly with social or cultural issues, the courts so often reflect the cultural values of the upper strata. (Again, this is a general statement, not an all-inclusive one).
Assisted suicide is a policy of privilege. Contemporary proponents are relatively few, but very committed. They tend to be upper middle class or higher–often women. Barbara Coombs Lee, a former managed care vice president wrote the Oregon law. Kathryn Tucker, the attorney for the gooey euphemistic euthanasia group Choices and Compassion (formerly Hemlock Society), is an attorney for an elite corporate firm. Betty Rollins, the television journalist, has for years pushed assisted suicide after helping kill her mother and she is part of the Manhattan ruling class. Dr. Timothy Quill, qualifies. They also are almost always white and have social structures in place so they can be sure they will not be pushed out of the lifeboat. (The prime exception is Jack Kevorkian, who while non elite, was embrace wholeheartedly by the elites. For example, he was feted at Time magazine’s 75th anniversary where Tom Cruise rushed up to shake his hand.)
Opponents, with some exceptions, are not elitists. Disability rights advocates, are prime examples. They understand that gaining access to quality health care is the real challenge for many Americans and that assisted suicide targets the disabled. Pro lifers are hated by the elites. The Catholic Church, while certainly wealthy, is under constant attack by the cultural elites, particularly in the media. Advocates for the poor who see a great threat to indigent, uninsured patients if we transform killing into a medical treatment are not part of the ruling class. Civil rights advocates, such as LULAC, the largest Latino civil rights organization in the country advocate for farm workers and others and oppose assisted suicide.
I believe under the law, the U.S. Government should win this case. But assisted suicide litigation has always been steeped in the politics of privilege, leading to some overtly political results. So, I am taking no bets.
JamesK How about some facts with your “opinions”
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) protects needy people from being “dumped” by hospitals. The United States is one of the MOST generous providers of care to the medically indigent in the world. In border states, Mexican ambulances drive up to American hospital emergency rooms and dump patients. In MEXICO there is NO OBLIGATION to provide emergency medical treatment without prepayment. This is something that travelers need to be cognizant of. If you were to slip and break and leg in Mexico you had better be ready to pay for medical care in pesos UP FRONT or you won’t be let in the door. Mexico also uses its armed forces to patrol its southern border and mandates the use of Spanish as its national language.
Sourcehttp://www.emtala.com/faq.htm
What is EMTALA?
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act is a statute which governs when and how a patient may be (1) refused treatment or (2) transferred from one hospital to another when he is in an unstable medical condition.
EMTALA was passed as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986, and it is sometimes referred to as “the COBRA law”. In fact, a number of different laws come under that general name. Another very familiar provision, also referred to under the COBRA name, is the statute governing continuation of medical insurance benefits after termination of employment.
EMTALA is also known as Section 1867(a) of the Social Security Act. It is included as part of the section of the U.S. Code which governs Medicare.
EMTALA applies only to “participating hospitals” — i.e., to hospitals which have entered into “provider agreements” under which they will accept payment from the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) under the Medicare program for services provided to beneficiaries of that program. In practical terms, this means that it applies to virtually all hospitals in the U.S., with the exception of the Shriners’ Hospital for Crippled Children and many military hospitals. Its provisions apply to all patients, and not just to Medicare patients. (See Section 15 below.)
The avowed purpose of the statute is to prevent hospitals from rejecting patients, refusing to treat them, or transferring them to “charity hospitals” or “county hospitals” because they are unable to pay or are covered under the Medicare or Medicaid programs. This purpose, however, does not limit the coverage of its provisions — see Sections 15 and 16 below.
EMTALA is primarily but not exclusively a non-discrimination statute. One would cover most of its purpose and effect by characterizing it as providing that no patient who presents with an emergency medical condition and who is unable to pay may be treated differently than patients who are covered by health insurance. That is not the entire scope of EMTALA, however; it imposes affirmative obligations which go beyond non-discrimination. See Section 16 below.
———————————–
Note 51: My point was the consistency of attitude of those within the “Culture of Life” about caring for those without insurance, not whether hospitals did in fact support them or not. Weren’t you recently yammering about “disease-ridden, socialist-supporting” migrant workers clogging up hospital waiting rooms? But, I’m sure they’re all in emergency rooms because of a broken fingernail.
As World Net Daily says: “Logic cannot support the premise that health care is a right. Health care is a service that is administered by another human being with the requisite skills and knowledge.”
As I stated, if it’s not a right, it’s a privilege, logically speaking, right? In this case, no insurance, no rational right to be cared for. At least this is how it is being presented.
I’m certainly aware that there are intrinsic problems with socialized medicine. The problems are more practical and financial than moral, however.
Health Care
Is providing health care for everyone practical in terms of supply and demand (available physicians versus needs of the public)? Probably not. Is it even fiscally sound given the current costs of health care? Probably not. I’m not arguing that it is.
What I’m not going to do is frame this issue within a moral context, as if someone who works at Starbucks or busses tables at some diner is somehow morally and/or intellectually deficient and thus deserving of their situation. The person might just happen to have a job that is not in high demand or that can even afford benefits for their employees. I am fortunate to have a job in the tech industry where employers are willing to fork over triple-digit hourly bill rates, so my firm can handle paying for health coverage. There are, however, college grads that are still working at Barnes & Noble, I can assure you, and who are lucky to get paid vacation, let alone health coverage.
This issue is a tough one because of the many moral and financial considerations, and it highlights the fact that life really is not “fair”. Let’s not oversimplify it by insisting that this all about “enabling” or coddling a slacker minority, however.
The question isn’t whether we can afford to provide universal health care coverage in the US, but whether we can afford not to.
It is increasingly evident that rising private health care costs are putting American businesses at a competitive disadvantage against foreign rivals. General Motors and Ford are struggling under the weight of hefty health care costs for employees and retirees and Delphi, a major maker of auto parts just declared bankruptcy, citing heavy employee compensation costs.
The argument that US employers have to cut health care benefits for their employees further to remain competitive is false, when you consider that all of our major rivals in the global market place, like Europe, Japan, South Korea and Cannada provide universal health care to their citizens. Thier automakers don’t have to worry about employee health care costs because their government picks up the cost.
Economist Brad DeLong writes, “In every major car-making country, auto workers get health care. The difference is that in every major car-making country besides the United States there’s a systematic government policy in place trying to make sure that everyone gets health care. This is good policy…. America’s private sector welfare state is, indeed, breaking down. But our public sector one isn’t breaking down. It’s being bankrupted as a matter of deliberate public policy by officials who want to wreck it in order to better afford tax cuts for extremely wealthy individuals…. [T]o pretend that nefarious “globalization” is responsible for it all is absurd. Universal health care is a staple of much more trade-dependent countries than the United States.”
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/