4 ms·

In some countries if you don't give care to someone who is in danger of dying you are yourself responsible for murder. This is what these health insurance comp

In some countries if you don't give care to someone who is in danger of dying you are yourself responsible for murder. This is what these health insurance companies are doing routinely. Murder by inaction and calling it anything else is playing in their hands. The fact that courts are costly and slow is exactly why these companies use them to "delay".

Ajedi32 2y ago
> In some countries if you don't give care to someone who is in danger of dying you are yourself responsible for murder. So everyone in said countries is guilty of murder because they're not donating 100% of their time and energy to helping cure cancer? That's not at all how this works. You can't just legislate infinite resources into existence. And infinite resources is exactly what it would take to give everyone a 100% perfect standard of care. Deciding what's covered and what isn't is literally the whole job of an insurance company. Otherwise we could just put money into a pot and let anyone take out any amount they feel like, whenever they feel like it, for whatever purpose they deem necessary at their sole discretion. (And if that sounds like a good idea to you, I'd urge you to think things through a bit more carefully before you waste your money by trying it.)
gruez 2y ago
>In some countries if you don't give care to someone who is in danger of dying you are yourself responsible for murder. That's the case in US as well? If you show up to an ER they have to at least stabilize you.
- gverrilla 2y ago
  Not american. But how people will get to the ER in the first place? Not sure if true, but I heard people will run away from ambulances in the US because the costs are so high.
thegrimmest 2y ago
> In some countries if you don't give care to someone who is in danger of dying you are yourself responsible for murder. Certainly not murder, involuntary manslaughter maybe. In any case, what is the basis for this obligation? You would concede that, as a consequence of imposing involuntary obligations on their citizens, these countries are less free? And you would also concede that reasonable people can disagree about the priorities of their values, and that valuing personal autonomy over collective well-being is a reasonable position? > Murder by inaction and calling it anything else is playing in their hands. What about doctors and nurses who refuse to work for free? Should we also shoot them? What about pharmaceutical companies that refuse to invest billions into drug development, or hospitals that refuse to purchase expensive facilities and equipment, without without a reasonable expectation of a return on their investment? Are they murderers too? This worldview of holding people accountable for failing to intervene is simply not tenable. People are responsible for their direct actions. If you injure someone, you are responsible for your actions and the outcome they produced. If you simply come across an injured (or sick) person, you are in no way more obligated to them than you are to such a person on the other side of the world. You also seem to be operating from the presumption that insurance companies do not add any value to the system, and that careful scrutiny of claims is motivated only by greed. I beg to differ. I want to be insured alongside other people with a similar risk profile to myself (eg. no drinking/drugs/smoking, daily exercise, good sleep, healthy body composition) to the exclusion of others. I want my insurance company to carefully scrutinize its applicants and claimants, on my behalf, to ensure that my interests are being well-represented. Insurance does not mean absolution from personal responsibility.

Ajedi32 2y ago

> In some countries if you don't give care to someone who is in danger of dying you are yourself responsible for murder. So everyone in said countries is guilty of murder because they're not donating 100% of their time and energy to helping cure cancer? That's not at all how this works. You can't just legislate infinite resources into existence. And infinite resources is exactly what it would take to give everyone a 100% perfect standard of care. Deciding what's covered and what isn't is literally the whole job of an insurance company. Otherwise we could just put money into a pot and let anyone take out any amount they feel like, whenever they feel like it, for whatever purpose they deem necessary at their sole discretion. (And if that sounds like a good idea to you, I'd urge you to think things through a bit more carefully before you waste your money by trying it.)

gruez 2y ago

>In some countries if you don't give care to someone who is in danger of dying you are yourself responsible for murder. That's the case in US as well? If you show up to an ER they have to at least stabilize you.

gverrilla 2y ago
Not american. But how people will get to the ER in the first place? Not sure if true, but I heard people will run away from ambulances in the US because the costs are so high.

thegrimmest 2y ago

> In some countries if you don't give care to someone who is in danger of dying you are yourself responsible for murder. Certainly not murder, involuntary manslaughter maybe. In any case, what is the basis for this obligation? You would concede that, as a consequence of imposing involuntary obligations on their citizens, these countries are less free? And you would also concede that reasonable people can disagree about the priorities of their values, and that valuing personal autonomy over collective well-being is a reasonable position? > Murder by inaction and calling it anything else is playing in their hands. What about doctors and nurses who refuse to work for free? Should we also shoot them? What about pharmaceutical companies that refuse to invest billions into drug development, or hospitals that refuse to purchase expensive facilities and equipment, without without a reasonable expectation of a return on their investment? Are they murderers too? This worldview of holding people accountable for failing to intervene is simply not tenable. People are responsible for their direct actions. If you injure someone, you are responsible for your actions and the outcome they produced. If you simply come across an injured (or sick) person, you are in no way more obligated to them than you are to such a person on the other side of the world. You also seem to be operating from the presumption that insurance companies do not add any value to the system, and that careful scrutiny of claims is motivated only by greed. I beg to differ. I want to be insured alongside other people with a similar risk profile to myself (eg. no drinking/drugs/smoking, daily exercise, good sleep, healthy body composition) to the exclusion of others. I want my insurance company to carefully scrutinize its applicants and claimants, on my behalf, to ensure that my interests are being well-represented. Insurance does not mean absolution from personal responsibility.