6 ms·

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 sever

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.
- rossenberg79 7y ago
  Logically 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 ago
Here'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 ago
  I 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 ago
I 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).

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.
rossenberg79 7y ago
Logically 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 ago

Here'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 ago
I 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 ago

I 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).