4 ms·
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 ot
by 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 agoI'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 agoMaybe 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 agoBut 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 agoYou 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.
- rossenberg79 7y agoLogically maybe we shouldn’t, but humans aren’t known for doing everything logically. If you know someone is in trouble and you have the ability to rescue them it is human nature to do it, no matter the cost.
- minikites 7y agoHere's a non-healthcare example. Christmas trees are the source of many house fires. Should the fire department refuse to come to a house fire caused by a Christmas tree since putting one up is purely decoration and has no other function?
- ksdale 7y agoI mean, should they? It seems like you're asking rhetorically, but in a world where society bears the cost of firefighting, it doesn't seem unreasonable to outlaw Christmas trees on pain of not fighting Christmas tree fires. Once again, my original point was not that people should be left to die, but rather that it doesn't seem horrifically immoral, as the parent was suggesting, to believe that people should have to face the consequences of choices they knowingly make, especially where there are real costs to real people to mitigating those consequences.
- ksdale 7y agoI think you're right that people aren't very good at weighing the risks, and that's a good argument for forcing people to pay into a healthcare system. I also just think it's important to acknowledge that we're explicitly not trusting people and instead deciding what is best for them, as opposed to a situation like extreme sports, where we allow people to risk their lives. I think it's a fine position to take, but I think it's slightly hypocritical to allow extreme sports, but not allow people to make their own healthcare decisions (though once again, a perfectly valid position as a matter of policy).