3 ms·
Denying healthcare to those who don't take of themselves is a necessary evil to avoid the burden of freedumbs. The obese also experience disproportionately mor
by errcorrectcode 5y ago
Denying healthcare to those who don't take of themselves is a necessary evil to avoid the burden of freedumbs.
The obese also experience disproportionately more classic hits including diabetes, amputations, falls, strokes, heart attacks, and cancers.
Speaking of drunk idiots: from my vantage, I regularly see more than one rider piled on a Lime scooter in the middle of the street in nightclub traffic. Organ donors? Nawh. I think they're too selfish and stupid to opt-in. But big mommy and big daddy consequence-free, unlimited care will spare no expense to patch them back together (i.e., craniofacial trauma, TBI, ortho) if they hit a rock, pothole, curb, bump, or get run over.
- kube-system 5y agoDenying healthcare to people who need immediate emergency care is immoral -- so much so that it's one of the few things that even US law forces hospitals to do. I think it is significantly more of a moral issue to punish people by letting them die in the street than it is a moral problem to require adherence to public health standards to eat in a restaurant. Applied to any other public health concern, this suggestion would be silly. Should we deny people treatment for food poisoning if they want the freedom to break food-safety rules at a restaurant? Should we deny treatment to a traffic accident victim if they were speeding?