3 ms·

Lots of people affirmatively believe that the uninsured should die: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2011/09/let-him-die-a-debate-question-exposes-the-incoh

Lots of people affirmatively believe that the uninsured should die: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2011/09/let-him-die-a-debate-question-exposes-the-incoherence-and-cowardice-of-the-republican-candidates-opposition-to-obamacare.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2011/09/let-him-die-a-de... >What should happen, the moderator asked hypothetically, if a healthy 30-year-old man who can afford insurance chooses not to buy it—and then becomes catastrophically ill and needs intensive care for six months? When Dr. Paul ducked, fondly recalling the good old days before Medicare and saying that we should all take responsibility for ourselves, Blitzer pressed the point. “But, Congressman, are you saying the society should just let him die?” At that point, the rabble erupted in cheers and whoops of “Yeah!”

ksdale 7y ago
I feel like these are two vastly different questions though, whether, on the one hand, society should let people who cannot afford healthcare die, and on the other hand, whether society should allow people to choose how their dollars are spent in a way that may lead to bad healthcare outcomes (like dying from something that's preventable given enough dollars). In your quote, they seem to explicity mention that the person can afford insurance but chooses not to buy it. I mean, we don't make it illegal for people to do a ton of extreme sports where they might die. I don't see much of a difference between, say, climbing Mount Everest and a healthy, wealthy person deciding to spend thousands of dollars on something other than health insurance, knowing that they might not be able to pay the piper. Both are instances of someone choosing current enjoyment and weighing it against the chance of a life-threatening outcome. The real problem seems to be when people have no choice. Of course everyone wants to not die, and of course no one wants to pay for healthcare, but we can't have both, so we have to find a middle ground that involves preventing deaths and paying for healthcare, and it doesn't seem horribly immoral to me to allow people to make the choice to trade their future health for money now (or enjoyment, in the case of mountain climbing or sky diving or whatever). Once again, the problem lies in the lack of choice from the get go.
- lgeorget 7y ago
  I'm not sure the analogy is accurate though. People doing extreme sports are (usually) aware of the risks and take them consciously. Even those who suffer severe injuries usually say it was worth it and they knew it was something that could happen. On the other hand, the uninsured person is just gambling, and regrets not being insured the day they needs hospitalization.
  - RobertoG 7y ago
    Maybe a more accurate analogy would be: somebody fall in the mountain doing something risk of what was totally aware, should we go to rescue her or left her to die?
    - ksdale 7y ago
      But even then, it's not immoral to talk about the very real tradeoffs involving the search and rescue personnel and resources that could be devoted to doing other things, and this indeed comes up when someone is doing something particularly dangerous in the mountains and ends up requiring a spectacular rescue. These rescues are always followed by arguments about who should bear the cost and what should happen if people can't pay. And surely nobody has the obligation to go into the mountains to save someone who was knowingly taking the risk. We live in a world where search and rescue already exists, so it seems natural and obvious to say that they should try and save everyone they can, but are they responsible for a death if they save so many people in a week and decide they can't go out again? In my prior post, I wasn't trying to suggest that we should willy-nilly leave people to die, just that we don't live in a world of infinite resources and that I don't personally believe it's horribly immoral to let people make choices even when those choices can have terrible consequences, assuming they know the risks.
      - lgeorget 7y ago
        You have a point. Actually, in the case of search-and-rescue that's already a moral decision that is made each time. In case the rescue mission itself is seemed to dangerous for the team, it's not attempted.

ksdale 7y ago

I feel like these are two vastly different questions though, whether, on the one hand, society should let people who cannot afford healthcare die, and on the other hand, whether society should allow people to choose how their dollars are spent in a way that may lead to bad healthcare outcomes (like dying from something that's preventable given enough dollars). In your quote, they seem to explicity mention that the person can afford insurance but chooses not to buy it. I mean, we don't make it illegal for people to do a ton of extreme sports where they might die. I don't see much of a difference between, say, climbing Mount Everest and a healthy, wealthy person deciding to spend thousands of dollars on something other than health insurance, knowing that they might not be able to pay the piper. Both are instances of someone choosing current enjoyment and weighing it against the chance of a life-threatening outcome. The real problem seems to be when people have no choice. Of course everyone wants to not die, and of course no one wants to pay for healthcare, but we can't have both, so we have to find a middle ground that involves preventing deaths and paying for healthcare, and it doesn't seem horribly immoral to me to allow people to make the choice to trade their future health for money now (or enjoyment, in the case of mountain climbing or sky diving or whatever). Once again, the problem lies in the lack of choice from the get go.

lgeorget 7y ago
I'm not sure the analogy is accurate though. People doing extreme sports are (usually) aware of the risks and take them consciously. Even those who suffer severe injuries usually say it was worth it and they knew it was something that could happen. On the other hand, the uninsured person is just gambling, and regrets not being insured the day they needs hospitalization.
- RobertoG 7y ago
  Maybe a more accurate analogy would be: somebody fall in the mountain doing something risk of what was totally aware, should we go to rescue her or left her to die?
  - ksdale 7y ago
    But even then, it's not immoral to talk about the very real tradeoffs involving the search and rescue personnel and resources that could be devoted to doing other things, and this indeed comes up when someone is doing something particularly dangerous in the mountains and ends up requiring a spectacular rescue. These rescues are always followed by arguments about who should bear the cost and what should happen if people can't pay. And surely nobody has the obligation to go into the mountains to save someone who was knowingly taking the risk. We live in a world where search and rescue already exists, so it seems natural and obvious to say that they should try and save everyone they can, but are they responsible for a death if they save so many people in a week and decide they can't go out again? In my prior post, I wasn't trying to suggest that we should willy-nilly leave people to die, just that we don't live in a world of infinite resources and that I don't personally believe it's horribly immoral to let people make choices even when those choices can have terrible consequences, assuming they know the risks.
    - lgeorget 7y ago
      You have a point. Actually, in the case of search-and-rescue that's already a moral decision that is made each time. In case the rescue mission itself is seemed to dangerous for the team, it's not attempted.