5 ms·

There’s no contradiction here. It may or may not be bad policy, but it’s not a contradiction. Nobody’s a victim when a kid falls and breaks an arm while skateb

There’s no contradiction here. It may or may not be bad policy, but it’s not a contradiction. Nobody’s a victim when a kid falls and breaks an arm while skateboarding, but we have programs like CHIP to help kids have access to healthcare to get that arm treated, regardless.

seanmcdirmid 3y ago
> Nobody’s a victim when a kid falls and breaks an arm while skateboarding, but we have programs like CHIP to help kids have access to healthcare to get that arm treated, regardless. The kid is going to be fine after they are in a cast for a few weeks/months. A fentanyl addict, even with million of dollars over a few years of treatment, is more than likely never going to be OK again. Both involve moral hazard (if society is responsible for the consequences), but the consequences of both aren't similar at all.
- BriggyDwiggs42 3y ago
  I’m gonna doubt that a million dollars couldn’t put a fent addict on their feet again. That’s a bold claim.
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    This is optimistic, the more common case is that the treatment still fails no matter how much money is dedicated to the task.
- notyofriend 3y ago
  This is the real issue. If you “fall” to heroin it’s not economically viable to help you get up. The cost per success is in the millions of dollars and even success is a pretty degrading state of existence. It’s not like insurance people who fall never paid in, it happens too often for that or charity care. It’s just not possible to treat everyone