Is Internet Access A Human Right?

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/perlow/egy...46?tag=nl.e539

Quote:

---

China has blocked searches for #Egypt on its State-approved, State-controlled version of Twitter.

Searches for #Egypt on Sina (with over 50 million users) returns the message, “According to relevant laws, regulations and policies, the search results are not shown.”


As we all know, to the shock and surprise of millions around the world, on January 27 Egypt pulled the plug on its citizens Internet access. Egypt is a very big place, a lot of people were effectively cut off from the outside world.

This is a frightening thing. But I don’t think may people realized just how much it would terrify them on a personal level.

...

That China is attempting an embargo on information about Egypt is not surprising to anyone. Countries that traffic and trade in human rights abuses are studying Egypt right now like it’s time to get an MBA in communication.


They are blocking #Egypt because they are scared. They should be terrified.


The top three countries that censor the Internet are North Korea (#1), China (#2) and Burma (#3). On January 14, Barney Warf, professor of geography at the University of Kansas, published a definitive study of the geography of Internet censorship. Warf cited Myanmar, Iran and North Korea as among the most severe cases of governments that censor people’s access to the Web.

In 2010 a BBC poll found that 4 out of 5 people globally believe that Internet access is a fundamental right.

Anyone want to bet we’re at 5 out of 5 now?

---

Foreign Policy Journal Article about what is missing from the news in Egypt

Quote:

---

The technology component of this cell-phone and Twitter fueled popular wildfire is fascinating not only in that it feels both new and here to stay but that it suggests that democracy itself may have to be updated to stay abreast of contemporary realities. For example, the outrage at shutting down the Internet raises a real question about whether the natural extension of accepted beliefs about both a free press and the right to peaceful public assembly is a new right to virtual public assembly to e-association. Far more people have cell phone than had access to either printing presses or their products (or the ability to read them) in the day that the right to a free press was enshrined as fundamental. [emphasis mine]

---

short answer, no.

Its not, but it damn well should be

No, and neither is cable TV or phone service.

No, it is not a human right but, the constitutional protections against unreasonable seizures [shutting down the internet by government] is something we enjoy as U. S. Citizens.

We also enjoy the freedom [for now] to associate with one another and to engage in commercial markets that sell internet access and the tools and services that allow us that access.

it's not a human right, but using it is necessary to function in today's society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greyforest

it's not a human right, but using it is necessary to function in today's society.

---

not really.

It's a human right

We as human should be entitled to freedom of expression, access to information, etc...
When the Egyptian and Chinese do what they have done, it's goes again what we are (or should be) entitled to.

For anybody saying "NO":

Define "free press"



Given the decline of newspapers and printed word in general, as well as broadcast media, radio, TV, when will access to the wider world of internet news and information be considered a right?

Consider a rough parallel:

You are denied access to newspapers or radio in 1920.

Define "denied access."

If you've been charged for a newspaper, have you been unconstitutionally denied it? I think not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greyforest

it's not a human right, but using it is necessary to function in today's society.

---

Just as access to a printing press was necessary when the first amendment to the US Constitution was added. :stirpot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Define "denied access."

If you've been charged for a newspaper, have you been unconstitutionally denied it? I think not.

---

Where is the line?

If you tax newspapers, based on their contents, with a $500 each tax, does that deny you access?

What's the analogy here? There isn't a $500 tax on newspapers that I know of.

What's the relevance to the broader discussion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blake

short answer, no.

---

+1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Just as access to a printing press was necessary when the first amendment to the US Constitution was added. :stirpot

---

your analogy is flawed. no one needs access to a printing press to read what comes out of them, just as no one needs a webhost to read the internet.

today's society highly embraces the internet as a crucial means of communication and cataloging information. anyone without access to the internet, especially the younger generation, is severely disadvantaged in a first-world country.

excellent post, greyforest.

free press is defined as freely reported on. It's not my fault they don't have access. I believe the same concept as public restrooms should be applied to remedy this so-called malady.

Human rights are always evolving. Ask the next few generations this question and I think you'll get a different answer.

I'm a little confused about how the question relates to the story. I don't think access to the Internet is a human right in the sense that it should be free for everyone to have web access in their homes. But if they do have the means to have access, the information available to them should not be limited by the government.

Anyway, most people still have free access to the Internet in the same place they have free access to books, newspapers, and other information... the Library.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tyson_Chandler

internet = today's press, which is why obama's proposed kill switch is 100% UNCONSTITUTIONAL

---

I didn't realize Egypt adopted the U.S. Constitution.

The press is still free to write what they want, only the public will not have access to it. Therefore Free Press is still protected. I don't remember reading the "free access" clause in the constitution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tyson_Chandler

obama wants a kill switch right here in america based on the chinese model!

---

link?

(to something other than infowars.com\fucknoiamnotreadingthatshit ?)

This is one of those things that sounds 1/4 true. Some grain of truth wrapped in paranoia, seuted in rumor juice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

link?

(to something other than infowars.com\fucknoiamnotreadingthatshit ?)

This is one of those things that sounds 1/4 true. Some grain of truth wrapped in paranoia, seuted in rumor juice.

---

Judge for yourself. I haven't read the article or the legislation but, it's not from InfoWars.com

As Egypt goes offline US gets internet 'kill switch' bill ready

From CBS News:

Renewed Push to Give Obama an Internet "Kill Switch"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

No, it is not a human right but, the constitutional protections against unreasonable seizures [shutting down the internet by government] is something we enjoy as U. S. Citizens.

We also enjoy the freedom [for now] to associate with one another and to engage in commercial markets that sell internet access and the tools and services that allow us that access.

---

Well said Yoni. I agree that ACCESS isn't a right (ie you are not granted access if you don't have it) but unlawful RESTRICTION of said rights shouldn't be legal. It's an interesting question.

This image and that legislation should concern us all...

http://images.theage.com.au/2011/01/...rnet-420x0.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tyson_Chandler

obama wants a kill switch right here in america based on the chinese model!

---

even if that were true, if the internet were shut down, it wouldn't shut down the press.

We would be reading the newspaper the next day about how the internet was shut down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

even if that were true, if the internet were shut down, it wouldn't shut down the press.

We would be reading the newspaper the next day about how the internet was shut down.

---

Most presses are operated by a very few printers that receive content...yep...over the internet.

Today's press files their stories from laptops, blackberries, etc... They wouldn't be back to the "presses" the next day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Most presses are operated by a very few printers that receive content...yep...over the internet.

Today's press files their stories from laptops, blackberries, etc... They wouldn't be back to the "presses" the next day.

---

Mere inconvenience is not an argument for it being a human right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

Mere inconvenience is not an argument for it being a human right.

---

I don't think I was making such an argument. I was arguing that I don't think the press will be back up and running as quickly as was being suggested.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

I don't think I was making such an argument. I was arguing that I don't think the press will be back up and running as quickly as was being suggested.

---

Who suggested that it would be up and running quickly?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

Who suggested that it would be up and running quickly?

---

You did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

even if that were true, if the internet were shut down, it wouldn't shut down the press.

We would be reading the newspaper the next day about how the internet was shut down.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

You did.

---

I guess I did. Touche.

Edit:

We would be reading the newspaper in the following days about how the internet got shut down.

:tu

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

I guess I did. Touche.

Edit:

We would be reading the newspaper in the following days about how the internet got shut down.

:tu

---

Somehow, I think the internet shutting down in the US would involve some form of rioting/protest before we got to the "reading from the newspaper" phase.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Somehow, I think the internet shutting down in the US would involve some form of rioting/protest before we got to the "reading from the newspaper" phase.

---

I think that there would be somebody out there printing the story.

I'm too lazy about this issue to riot myself.

My lazy self will probably read about the internet getting shut down one day and read about the rioting the next day.

I'll probably also read the funny pages. I haven't read Dilbert in years.

and TV news? Will broadcast news take a few days to recover as well? I honestly don't know.

Warning to spittle-flicking retrogrades, New Deal mentioned below as moving America forward.


Stimulus funds help wire rural homes for Internet

Bolstered by billions in federal stimulus money, an effort to expand broadband Internet access to rural areas is underway, an ambitious 21st-century infrastructure project with parallels to the New Deal electrification of the nation's hinterlands in the 1930s and 1940s.

President Barack Obama emphasized the importance of Internet access in his State of the Union address last week.

"To attract new businesses to our shores, we need the fastest, most reliable ways to move people, goods, and information — from high-speed rail to high-speed Internet," Obama said.

In the Depression, it was power to the people — for farm equipment and living-room lamps, cow-milking machines and kitchen appliances. Now, it's online access — to YouTube and digital downloads, to videoconferencing and Facebook, to eBay and Twitter.

"Rural areas all across the country are wrestling with this, somewhat desperately,"

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...nd-rural_N.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

I think that there would be somebody out there printing the story.

I'm too lazy about this issue to riot myself.

My lazy self will probably read about the internet getting shut down one day and read about the rioting the next day.

I'll probably also read the funny pages. I haven't read Dilbert in years.

and TV news? Will broadcast news take a few days to recover as well? I honestly don't know.

---

I didn't say YOU would be rioting... just that somebody would be. Probably all the people who work for businesses that make most of their money off the internet. :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

I didn't say YOU would be rioting... just that somebody would be. Probably all the people who work for businesses that make most of their money off the internet. :lol

---

I know.....my point was that there will be at least one person involved in the "reading from the newspaper" phase.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

I know.....my point was that there will be at least one person involved in the "reading from the newspaper" phase.

---

I didn't say there wouldn't be. I just said that the rioting/protest phases would probably be well underway before you read about the internet being shut down in a newspaper.

In other words, you wouldn't need to read about the internet being shut down in a newspaper, because if it was, government officials would be talking about it that night on TV. :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

I didn't say there wouldn't be. I just said that the rioting/protest phases would probably be well underway before you read about the internet being shut down in a newspaper.

In other words, you wouldn't need to read about the internet being shut down in a newspaper, because if it was, government officials would be talking about it that night on TV. :lol

---

Yeah, I figure that we would for sure be watching it on TV first, but that was part of my earlier question. How much would it affect TV news if the internet was blocked?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

Yeah, I figure that we would for sure be watching it on TV first, but that was part of my earlier question. How much would it affect TV news if the internet was blocked?

---

I think the internet has become more pervasive than you might imagine. Much of broadcast television has infrastructure segments that are reliant on the internet. Particularly now that the government has completed it mandated conversion to digital television.

It wouldn't be total [and, quite frankly, I don't know to what affect it would be] but, a shutdown of the internet will affect broadcast television in many markets.

CNN couldn't exist anymore without Twitter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Define "denied access."

If you've been charged for a newspaper, have you been unconstitutionally denied it? I think not.

---

So then by that thinking you're not being discriminated against by having to have an ID card to vote, right? I agree with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurminator

CNN couldn't exist anymore without Twitter.

---

There would be a tenfold increase in the lies by FOX, without access to the correct information on the internet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proxy

There would be a tenfold increase in the lies by FOX, without access to the correct information on the internet.

---

But where would Fox News and Rush get their news from if not the chain email?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Somehow, I think the internet shutting down in the US would involve some form of rioting/protest before we got to the "reading from the newspaper" phase.

---

You think so? Wouldn't it be mildy humorous to see more urban cities looting TV's to prove there point about media being shut down?

I'd have a hard time believing that the U.S. could every pull off a protest like Tunsia did and only riot/protest to prove their point.

so everybody should be provided internet access (free of charge) 24/7?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaNuMaNiAc

Its not, but it damn well should be

---

There are quite a few things that we would differ on what "should" be a human right. Now I agree that all people of the would should have unrestricted access to such information. That, simply isn't practical though. Sovereign nations will treat their people as they will.

Your Bamabuddy doesn't seem to think it's a first amendment right for us. He wants a law to allow him to shut it down. What do you think of that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

For anybody saying "NO":

Define "free press"

---

I would say it is a right to have access to it, not to have it, here in the USA. Our constitution doesn't apply to the rest of the world though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Where is the line?

If you tax newspapers, based on their contents, with a $500 each tax, does that deny you access?

---

Apply that to those who employ people, and it has the effect of taking jobs away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

link?

(to something other than infowars.com\fucknoiamnotreadingthatshit ?)

This is one of those things that sounds 1/4 true. Some grain of truth wrapped in paranoia, seuted in rumor juice.

---

I've heard it on reliable radio programs. I'm sure it's on the internet somewhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

This image and that legislation should concern us all...

http://images.theage.com.au/2011/01/...rnet-420x0.jpg

---

Are you sure that isn't an image of what are economy will look like with all this liberal tax and spend legislation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sickdsm

You think so? Wouldn't it be mildy humorous to see more urban cities looting TV's to prove there point about media being shut down?

I'd have a hard time believing that the U.S. could every pull off a protest like Tunsia did and only riot/protest to prove their point.

---

Well, I didn't mention looting specifically, but that could certainly be included under the "rioting" category :lol

is healthcare a human right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nkdlunch

is healthcare a human right?

---

Nothing, in which you would have to force others to provide it, is a human right. No person has the right to the fruits or labors of another; that includes health care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Nothing, in which you would have to force others to provide it, is a human right. No person has the right to the fruits or labors of another; that includes health care.

---

Yeah. Fuck helping other people. Everyone born into poverty deserves to die without sufficient aid, and education. It's the American way.

It's the most efficient way to keep minorities down where they belong too, and to keep the whites in power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proxy

Yeah. Fuck helping other people. Everyone born into poverty deserves to die without sufficient aid, and education. It's the American way.

It's the most efficient way to keep minorities down where they belong too, and to keep the whites in power.

---

How can you say that? We are country that was founded on Judeo Christian values.. at least that's what the right continues to complain about.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life*, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

---

*If you can afford it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proxy

Yeah. Fuck helping other people. Everyone born into poverty deserves to die without sufficient aid, and education. It's the American way.

It's the most efficient way to keep minorities down where they belong too, and to keep the whites in power.

---

No one is claiming you should be prohibited from helping anyone. Just that no one has the right to demand it.

Actually, the American way is a lot more charitable than you give credit.

Creating some "right" out of whole cloth so the government can inefficiently administer a program that will undoubtedly fail a good many it proposes to aid, only diminishes the wealth many of us would willingly contribute to care for those who needed it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

---

caveat " Life saving treatment is only if you can afford it"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

No one is claiming you should be prohibited from helping anyone. Just that no one has the right to demand it.

Actually, the American way is a lot more charitable than you give credit.

Creating some "right" out of whole cloth so the government can inefficiently administer a program that will undoubtedly fail a good many it proposes to aid, only diminishes the wealth many of us would willingly contribute to care for those who needed it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life*, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

---

*If the mechanism for preserving life is efficient enough for yoni.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

caveat " Life saving treatment is only if you can afford it"

---

So, if a surgeon is constantly required to give his services away or, if his income is so reduced (due to his forced provision of services) that he can no longer justify the exorbitant cost of his education, liability insurance, and overhead; what do you think will happen?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

So, if a surgeon is constantly required to give his services away or, if his income is so reduced (due to his forced provision of services) that he can no longer justify the exorbitant cost of his education, liability insurance, and overhead; what do you think will happen?

---

He'll quit and go on unemployment? Skip out on his student loans? You tell me

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

So, if a surgeon is constantly required to give his services away or, if his income is so reduced (due to his forced provision of services) that he can no longer justify the exorbitant cost of his education, liability insurance, and overhead; what do you think will happen?

---

what do you think the average salary currently is for a surgeon and in your opinion, what would the average salary be after a "forced provision of services."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

what do you think the average salary currently is for a surgeon...

---

A lot, and worth every penny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

...and in your opinion, what would the average salary be after a "forced provision of services."

---

Lower.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RFK

The future is not a gift: it is an achievement. Every generation helps make its own future. This is the essential challenge of the present

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

A lot, and worth every penny.


Lower.

---

a penny lower won't make anyone feel sympathy for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

a penny lower won't make anyone feel sympathy for them.

---

I don't they're concerned with your sympathy.

Here's something for you to consider. I know a surgeon that not only tithes 10% of his income to religious-based medical charities and his church; he also travels twice a year, for a month, with Doctors Without Borders, to provide free surgery that is restoring people to independent lives.

As his income is reduced, so is his ability to be charitable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

I don't they're concerned with your sympathy.

Here's something for you to consider. I know a surgeon that not only tithes 10% of his income to religious-based medical charities and his church; he also travels twice a year, for a month, with Doctors Without Borders, to provide free surgery that is restoring people to independent lives.

As his income is reduced, so is his ability to be charitable.

---

Quote:

---

He'll quit and go on unemployment? Skip out on his student loans? You tell me

---

So he will still practice medicine... :lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

So he will still practice medicine... :lmao

---

Actually, he's indicated to me, he may not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Actually, he's indicated to me, he may not.

---

So what? Am I supposed to feel sorry for him?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

So what? Am I supposed to feel sorry for him?

---

Nope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Nope.

---

There wil be other doctors if this guy wimps out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

There wil be other doctors if this guy wimps out.

---

Yes there will. Government paid, government educated doctors.

Like I said, if you devalue medical care you'll get less valuable medical care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

I don't they're concerned with your sympathy.

Here's something for you to consider. I know a surgeon that not only tithes 10% of his income to religious-based medical charities and his church; he also travels twice a year, for a month, with Doctors Without Borders, to provide free surgery that is restoring people to independent lives.

As his income is reduced, so is his ability to be charitable.

---

Who requires that surgeons be charitable?

God forbid he may actually have to work 11 months out of the year instead of 10.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

Who requires that surgeons be charitable?

God forbid he may actually have to work 12 months instead of 11.

---

No one. And, I would argue he is working that 12th month...for no pay. There are many that are thanking God for his charity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Yes there will. Government paid, government educated doctors.

Like I said, if you devalue medical care you'll get less valuable medical care.

---

Since when has the govt trained doctors?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

Since when has the govt trained doctors?

---

There will be when you can only get people to go to med school by paying for their education with a government grant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

No one. And, I would argue he is working that 12th month...for no pay. There are many that are thanking God for his charity.

---

so your friend is bitching about having to take a pay cut for doing surgery here in the states which will keep him from performing free surgery in other countries?

FUCK your friend for pulling that shitty card.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

so your friend is bitching about having to take a pay cut for doing surgery here in the states which will keep him from performing free surgery in other countries?

---

Yoni's doctor friend is Josef Mengele

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Yes there will. Government paid, government educated doctors.

Like I said, if you devalue medical care you'll get less valuable medical care.

---

and more lives can be saved.

You think it's okay for a college student to go about without insurance? Do you think it's okay for the working class to go on with their jobs, that on average, demand higher manual labor without the comfort of knowing their sickness and injuries can be helped without thousands of dollars owed in the end?

These are the people suffering. They're the ones that have to pay full price for their medication and treatment.... it doesn't make sense. The poor stay poor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proxy

and more lives can be saved.

You think it's okay for a college student to go about without insurance? Do you think it's okay for the working class to go on with their jobs, that on average, demand higher manual labor without the comfort of knowing their sickness and injuries can be helped without thousands of dollars owed in the end?

These are the people suffering. They're the ones that have to pay full price for their medication and treatment.... it doesn't make sense. The poor stay poor.

---

This is all well and good. But you don't fix the underlying, structural defects in healthcare in this country by shoveling money into the maws of insurance companies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proxy

and more lives can be saved.

You think it's okay for a college student to go about without insurance?

---

Yes. If they don't want insurance, they shouldn't be forced to have insurance. That has nothing to do with medical care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proxy

Do you think it's okay for the working class to go on with their jobs, that on average, demand higher manual labor without the comfort of knowing their sickness and injuries can be helped without thousands of dollars owed in the end?

---

Quality medical care costs money. I'm glad you didn't roll out the canard that they couldn't get medical care but, that they would actually owe money for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proxy

These are the people suffering. They're the ones that have to pay full price for their medication and treatment.... it doesn't make sense. The poor stay poor.

---

Most poor people don't pay a dime for medical care.

forcing someone to get affordable insurance vs. ignoring someone who wants affordable insurance

which one is the lesser evil?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cheguevara

forcing someone to get affordable insurance vs. ignoring someone who wants affordable insurance

which one is the lesser evil?

---

You do, of course, realize that insurance isn't actual medical care, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cheguevara

forcing someone to get affordable insurance vs. ignoring someone who wants affordable insurance

which one is the lesser evil?

---

Newsflash. My insurance aint exactly affordable anymore. Careful how you toss that term around.

Which is the point I was trying to make. We didn't do a fucking thing to address healthcare costs. We practically guaranteed it would become more expensive by reinforcing the Health Insurance as HMO model that forces insurance into a role it was never intended to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

You do, of course, realize that insurance isn't actual medical care, right?

---

It's being used that way, Yoni. That's the gist of the problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

It's being used that way, Yoni. That's the gist of the problem.

---

People without insurance get quality medical care all the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

People without insurance get quality medical care all the time.

---

what about life saving treatment?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

People without insurance get quality medical care all the time.

---

You're serious, right?:depressed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

You're serious, right?:depressed

---

Are you suggesting the care offered at indigent care hospitals and clinics (mostly government owned and operated), isn't quality?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

what about life saving treatment?

---

What about it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Are you suggesting the care offered at indigent care hospitals and clinics (mostly government owned and operated), isn't quality?

---

Let's define quality shall we?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Are you suggesting the care offered at indigent care hospitals and clinics (mostly government owned and operated), isn't quality?

---

Access to quality care prevents a lot of ER visits and hospital stays.

That is no reflection on the quality of the ERs and indigent care hospitals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Access to quality care prevents a lot of ER visits and hospital stays.

That is no reflection on the quality of the ERs and indigent care hospitals.

---

That's what the free clinics are for...I did mention them, didn't I?