English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

16 answers

Yes, when necessary for sustaining life of the individuals.

2006-07-12 12:13:53 · answer #1 · answered by pizzagirl 4 · 0 0

Well, if you're talking about the taxpayers paying for it then I assume you're in Canada.. SO.. think of it this way.. should we pay for having siamese twins separated... which will decrease the amount of tax payer money having to be spent on them later.. the health complications with Siamese Twins are huge and more costly then having them separated. If they are separated, then they will require no more costly tax payer medical services than anyone else..

2006-07-14 09:10:38 · answer #2 · answered by Imani 5 · 0 0

No, that's just another medical condition that should be handled like any other medical condition. If the parents have insurance, the insurance should cover this expense (unless it's been excluded from the coverage). If they don't have insurance, it's like every other uninsured calamity -- the parents will have to do the best that they can. Once you have the government start acting as the insurer, it's hard to draw a line between what the government should insure and what it shouldn't insure, and people feel free to take on greater risk. Why care if the government will pick up the tag? Why should taxpayers take on this risk, but not others?

2006-07-16 11:17:19 · answer #3 · answered by noidgood 1 · 0 0

Similarly, should tax payers pay for medical care and treatment of drunks that are bleeding to death?

The alternative would be to allow them to bleed to death, which presents a substantial problem.

There are few patients in an Emergency Room that are as abusive to the system as are drunks. They spit at you, slug you, vomit their diseased blood on you, and you HAVE to make an effort to save them, lest you are guilty of abandonment and negligence. It would seem that drunks have "brought it on upon themselves" and should be socially and econimacally (sp) responsible for their choices. But our emergency medical system allows for mistakes of judgment and the money for treatment comes from the tax payers.

Now, seperating conjoined twins is another factor. Hardly a choice of the parent, giving birth to children with birth defects not apparent by standard diagnostic means is bascially a crapshoot.

We should pay. "We" being the people who are gainfully employed and paying taxes.

I would tend to believe that we should stop paying for stupidity, and that means people that abuse the system for their own benefit and without repercusion. Such as smokers who end up on a ventilator for a couple of weeks, get "healed" then go out and smoke again until they shut down, and they come back and the tax payers pay for it all again.

England made a bold move and started saying "no." If your knees wear out because you are morbidly obese, you DON'T qualify for knee replacement surgery in England anymore. It's all free, but you have to make an effort to improve your own situation before they'll work on you.

I believe this is just and fair. Here in the U.S., you'll get treatment wether you take care of your body or abuse it.

I'm rambling on, so will end.

2006-07-03 11:30:12 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

No, especially if the conjoined twins are from another country. But let me guess - she had no idea she had twins, let alone conjoined twins. Went into labor while "visiting" relatives in the US. Now that the kids have dual citizenship the family has decided to stay in the wonderful country that paid the $500,000 bill for surgery - not to mention post-surgical care.

2006-07-11 00:31:09 · answer #5 · answered by thislifeisnotforme 2 · 0 0

Sure. It is for humanitarian purpose - to save the lives of the twins. It is a much better use of taxpayers' money than defending an illegal immigrant in a criminal case.

2006-07-15 00:48:20 · answer #6 · answered by Belen 5 · 0 0

Everyone should just pay for themselves.

Crap on taxes. And I know, I know.. The government needs funding somehow.. But the government has soooo many companies, isn't it making enough?

Ugh. Government. Need I say more?

2006-07-17 08:58:42 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Why not?....its a humanitarian act.

So what is the special status of taxpayer?
The drunk in the gutter pays taxes.
Sales tax, alcohol tax.

A ten year old kid pays taxes when he buys comic book.

2006-07-15 12:33:09 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Sure why not, It's a mere pittance when compared to the cost of a stealth bomber and, no village it destroyed to boot!

2006-07-03 11:16:32 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

yes, i believe all children around the world, if you can separate them by saving a life and making it better.

2006-07-17 03:25:50 · answer #10 · answered by latindawn 1 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers