4 ms·

So then lets say a healthy 22-year-old graduates from college at the top of their class. Life's looking up for them. They've already got a job lined up that sta

So then lets say a healthy 22-year-old graduates from college at the top of their class. Life's looking up for them. They've already got a job lined up that starts in two weeks and they're excited and energetic about entering the workforce and living on their own as adult. Then suddenly, some random guy in a mustang doing 150 in a 30 jumps the curb and runs over our optimistic 22-year-old, and continues speeding into the distance. A random onlooker witnesses the event and calls an ambulance, who rushes them to the hospital. Thanks to the hard work ICU doctors and surgeons spanning days, our 22-year-old miraculously lives, but is in bad shape. They're never gonna walk again, and they're gonna need weeks of physical therapy just to retrain the fine motor skills required to write and type. All of this, for a variety of factors is gonna cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. On top of the massive hospital bill they're about to be saddled with. I take it that our now not-so-healthy 22-year-old should just go fuck themselves then? They've never paid a dime into the system so why should they be entitled to health care?

mothballed 1y ago
>I take it that our now not-so-healthy 22-year-old should just go fuck themselves then? They've never paid a dime into the system so why should they be entitled to health care? No, no one is entitled to the labor of others, not in this scenario where they are 3rd party to the damages. That doesn't even remotely make sense no matter how bad of a sob story you attach to it.
- ThrowMeAway1618 1y ago
  >No, no one is entitled to the labor of others, not in this scenario where they are 3rd party to the damages. That doesn't even remotely make sense no matter how bad of a sob story you attach to it. Absolutely! We should just Brian Kilmeade[0] those folks too, since they're just a burden on society, right? [0] https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2025/09/17/fox-news-brian-kilmeade-homeless-comment/86181269007/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2025/09/17/...
  - mothballed 1y ago
    It's interesting to me you jumped right past charity, loans, work-trade, or any other variety of options and instead went straight to your preferred method of doing things -- either violence (tax man with guns) and if not that you question if they should be executed. I'm just advocating putting the violent methods aside.
    - ThrowMeAway1618 1y ago
      Oh noes! I've been Poe's Law'd again! Mercy, mercy me! Or are you just spouting ridiculous tropes? Charity? Work-Trade? Loans? Paid by whom in that scenario? I'd expect you're more in line with Kilmeade than McCain. Why don't you just admit it? It's all out in the open now, no need to hide any more. You'll be broadly lauded for your economic smarts! Please.
      - mothballed 1y ago
        Your thesis is that people so broadly support additional tax money going to fix the 22 year old that it could be legitimate law, but somehow so few support it that charity or other alternatives (if the very people that support it weren't forced by law) would be a ridiculous trope? You're defeating your own argument.
        ThrowMeAway1618 1y ago
        No. My thesis is that we can reduce total healthcare spending by having a single-payer system that covers everyone. It's not additional tax money, it's money that doesn't need to go to corporate jets and huge pay packages for the C-Suite and large dividends for the shareholders of insurance companies, healthcare providers, pharmaceutical companies and medical equipment manufacturers. And the tens to hundreds of billions we save on that can pay for that 22 year old. But we can't have that, now can we? Better to Brian Kilmeade 'em, eh?
        mothballed 1y ago
- izzylan 1y ago
  This isn't actually a sob story, and I'm not saying he's entitled to labor of others. What I am asking is how your proposed system handles a case such as this. And while it may be an edge case, these are large, broad systems that directly impact the lives of millions of living, breathing people. Such systems must be robust and well-examined. And I'd also like to ask what a society would look like, that invests so heavily in the education of it's young generation, and relies on them to bring innovations and new ideas to the table, only to cut them down the moment they need any sort of assistance. It certainly seems to me like a huge waste of resources. What if healthcare was just an investment in our society? Our young 22-year-old gets healthcare covered not because he's entitled to it but because society is invested in his well-being in order to continue existing and improve itself. Because the ROI of the young being kept healthy and able to work and pay into the system is greater than the cost of the ICU doctors and surgeons and wheelchairs and physical therapy.
  - mothballed 1y ago
    The voluntary way of capturing future ROI with present investment is loans (or if you don't care about ROI, donation). Now I'm not saying that is necessarily the only option but it's the one you're gunning for based upon your economic argument. Based on your criteria it's the most textbook case for an individual loan imaginable, your argument is the 22 y/o needs a loan for some healthcare, that he can more than pay it back, and that both parties will benefit. In the absence of charity, some kind of trade, family or friend assistance, then in any rational market (US market is regulated to hell so no guarantee it works there unless you free that market) it's a no brainer and as sure as an apple will fall from a tree, someone would be happy to make that trade although the kinetics and packaging might be up for debate. I don't see how you can possibly presuppose a requirement for public assistance, in that scenario, in order for the health care to happen. Public assistance is only economically necessary to complete the health care if there is negative ROI and all donation or voluntary options are exhausted.

mothballed 1y ago

>I take it that our now not-so-healthy 22-year-old should just go fuck themselves then? They've never paid a dime into the system so why should they be entitled to health care? No, no one is entitled to the labor of others, not in this scenario where they are 3rd party to the damages. That doesn't even remotely make sense no matter how bad of a sob story you attach to it.

ThrowMeAway1618 1y ago
>No, no one is entitled to the labor of others, not in this scenario where they are 3rd party to the damages. That doesn't even remotely make sense no matter how bad of a sob story you attach to it. Absolutely! We should just Brian Kilmeade[0] those folks too, since they're just a burden on society, right? [0] https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2025/09/17/fox-news-brian-kilmeade-homeless-comment/86181269007/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2025/09/17/...
- mothballed 1y ago
  It's interesting to me you jumped right past charity, loans, work-trade, or any other variety of options and instead went straight to your preferred method of doing things -- either violence (tax man with guns) and if not that you question if they should be executed. I'm just advocating putting the violent methods aside.
  - ThrowMeAway1618 1y ago
    Oh noes! I've been Poe's Law'd again! Mercy, mercy me! Or are you just spouting ridiculous tropes? Charity? Work-Trade? Loans? Paid by whom in that scenario? I'd expect you're more in line with Kilmeade than McCain. Why don't you just admit it? It's all out in the open now, no need to hide any more. You'll be broadly lauded for your economic smarts! Please.
    - mothballed 1y ago
      Your thesis is that people so broadly support additional tax money going to fix the 22 year old that it could be legitimate law, but somehow so few support it that charity or other alternatives (if the very people that support it weren't forced by law) would be a ridiculous trope? You're defeating your own argument.
      - ThrowMeAway1618 1y ago
        No. My thesis is that we can reduce total healthcare spending by having a single-payer system that covers everyone. It's not additional tax money, it's money that doesn't need to go to corporate jets and huge pay packages for the C-Suite and large dividends for the shareholders of insurance companies, healthcare providers, pharmaceutical companies and medical equipment manufacturers. And the tens to hundreds of billions we save on that can pay for that 22 year old. But we can't have that, now can we? Better to Brian Kilmeade 'em, eh?
        mothballed 1y ago
izzylan 1y ago
This isn't actually a sob story, and I'm not saying he's entitled to labor of others. What I am asking is how your proposed system handles a case such as this. And while it may be an edge case, these are large, broad systems that directly impact the lives of millions of living, breathing people. Such systems must be robust and well-examined. And I'd also like to ask what a society would look like, that invests so heavily in the education of it's young generation, and relies on them to bring innovations and new ideas to the table, only to cut them down the moment they need any sort of assistance. It certainly seems to me like a huge waste of resources. What if healthcare was just an investment in our society? Our young 22-year-old gets healthcare covered not because he's entitled to it but because society is invested in his well-being in order to continue existing and improve itself. Because the ROI of the young being kept healthy and able to work and pay into the system is greater than the cost of the ICU doctors and surgeons and wheelchairs and physical therapy.
- mothballed 1y ago
  The voluntary way of capturing future ROI with present investment is loans (or if you don't care about ROI, donation). Now I'm not saying that is necessarily the only option but it's the one you're gunning for based upon your economic argument. Based on your criteria it's the most textbook case for an individual loan imaginable, your argument is the 22 y/o needs a loan for some healthcare, that he can more than pay it back, and that both parties will benefit. In the absence of charity, some kind of trade, family or friend assistance, then in any rational market (US market is regulated to hell so no guarantee it works there unless you free that market) it's a no brainer and as sure as an apple will fall from a tree, someone would be happy to make that trade although the kinetics and packaging might be up for debate. I don't see how you can possibly presuppose a requirement for public assistance, in that scenario, in order for the health care to happen. Public assistance is only economically necessary to complete the health care if there is negative ROI and all donation or voluntary options are exhausted.