the Polo Grounds

Back to the forum index
Open in thread

I think it boils down to two options.

by Joe ? @, North Endzone Goal Line, Sunday, December 03, 2017, 14:50 @ scriptcomesfirst

A person gets hit by a car. He is unconscious and rushed to the emergency room, where significant medical intervention is needed to save his life.

The first option is that the doctors (either ethically or legally) must perform the lifesaving intervention on him with no idea of his status with regard to an ability to pay (whether insured, or wealthy enough to pay it out of pocket). In the event that he's unable to pay, the cost gets subsidized by those who do pay for insurance (or pay out of pocket) in the form of higher care costs, which drives up premiums.

The second option is that the doctors must wheel that guy back out onto the curb until he can prove his ability to pay. In the time it takes him or his family (assuming he is able, or his family can be identified) to prove that, maybe he dies. That's the cost of the "spirit of freedom" to allow people to not carry health insurance, in this case. To me, this is pretty bankrupt morally and ethically.

Because forcing me to pay through increased cost of care and higher premiums for those who willfully choose not to get insurance, but still consume health care in situations where the cost is likely the highest (emergency situations) isn't exactly speaking well of of the "spirit of freedom" either, in my mind. Why should the responsible people, who spend money and plan to protect themselves, be forced to cover for the people who refuse to do so?


Complete thread:


386919 Postings in 33492 Threads, 205 registered users, 97 users online (11 registered, 86 guests)
powered by my little forum