3 ms·
It used to be, and should be again, that the hospital owner or physician would foot the bill if you couldn’t pay. Much more direct charity, a beautiful thing.
by a-user-you-like 4y ago
It used to be, and should be again, that the hospital owner or physician would foot the bill if you couldn’t pay. Much more direct charity, a beautiful thing.
Taxing everyone to hell to cover every health expense is immoral.
- dividefuel 4y agoHow is it more moral to force someone to provide care for free than it is to tax the populace to provide universal care?
- a-user-you-like 4y agoI wish those advocating universal taxing for crappy care would take the moral high road and not rob his fellow citizen to pay for his bills. Instead, let his fellow citizen give freely in love. Universal healthcare is such a moral sham, and what we have now in the US is also pretty bad. There is a better way.
- Dylan16807 4y agoIf you really mean donations, you are not going to get that many billions of dollars in donations. This specific "better way" does not exist. If you're trying to get enough hospitals to do this that people don't just go to a cheaper hospital, then almost all hospitals are going to have to raise their prices... and that's effectively the same as a tax. They're "robbing" every patient the same way.
- a-user-you-like 4y agoOf course I mean donations, either through your family, church, or beyond. Of course it’s possible, there’s even a network now called Samaritan’s that facilitates this. The hospital can turn of course offer to foot the bill, but can do so only after you’ve exhausted other options. But none of this is forced.
- Dylan16807 4y agoYou won't get enough. People will go bankrupt, which makes everyone else pay but in a messier and overall worse way than taxes.
- mixedCase 4y agoNot going to defend universal healthcare or healthcare taxes, seeing I'm currently getting fucked by that at this moment, but given the way you wrote that I feel that you need to be pointed out that this results in either: 1) More expensive healthcare, to cover for these cases directly in a fund or via third party insurance. 2) Healthcare scarcity. You can't draw blood from a stone. Healthcare investors/workers at large don't get in to become a charity so your "solution" comes with explicit downsides you should mention.
- a-user-you-like 4y agoIt only results in those if you keep the regulation levels high, which we have now. We need a multi-faceted approach which lets the market lower prices. Local control, local solutions. More efficiency, human touch, love. No solution is perfect, but that’s a world that’s more personal for those helping and being helped. It also is more economically efficient. I’m not saying this is the only solution, but one that starts with robbing your neighbor is the moral low route and we should and can do better.
- Spoom 4y agoForce hospital to provide care for indigents -> hospital raises prices for everyone to cover -> same effect as a tax. I'd much rather just be up front about it.
- a-user-you-like 4y agoNot forcing, the universal crap care option is forcing through robbing his neighbor.
- abofh 4y agoWhere do you think those dollars go? Hospitals aren't that great of an investment, but insurance companies are