5 ms·

If I can't afford my lunch after being given so many opportunities to earn it myself, then it would be unfair for me to ask my countrymen to foot the bill. It'

If I can't afford my lunch after being given so many opportunities to earn it myself, then it would be unfair for me to ask my countrymen to foot the bill. It's my problem, not theirs. I would have an extreme moral aversion to seeking a handout, even if that aversion is to my own personal detriment. Perhaps I should be trying to maximize every possible opportunity offered to me. But I just can't stomach the idea of taking money away from other people to pay for my own personal problems.

benburleson 13y ago
The thing is, what you think is your "own personal problem" doesn't really affect only you. If your neighbors can help keep you healthy and productive, there's a benefit in that for them as well.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  "If your neighbors can help keep you healthy and productive, there's a benefit in that for them as well." Economically and socially, of course, but epidemiologically as well!
dangerlibrary 13y ago
If you go to the emergency room with an untreated, preventable illness that has become critical, and you can't pay the bill, other people wind up footing the bill anyway. Maintenance is cheaper than repair.
- webXL 13y ago
  Except mandatory "maintenance" doesn't lead to fewer repairs in this case. Google Oregon Medicare study and Emergency Room usage. A comment from reason.com sums it up nicely: "Emergency rooms are required by law to treat it. If you are poor, they are unlikely to ever collect the bill for doing so. So why would a poor person wait days or weeks to see a doctor then they can go down to an emergency room and see one in hours? Moreover, if you are being forced to pay for health insurance, you are more likely not less likely to seek treatment since you will rationally think "well I am paying for it so I might as well use it.". The idea that making people buy insurance will reduce overall healthcare costs has always been an insane one." http://reason.com/blog/2014/01/02/no-obamacare-wont-reduce-emergency-room#comment_4219297 http://reason.com/blog/2014/01/02/no-obamacare-wont-reduce-e...
  - d23 13y ago
    > So why would a poor person wait days or weeks to see a doctor then they can go down to an emergency room and see one in hours? Because if you don't have a life threatening condition, you're not going to see a doctor in "hours" in the emergency room. You're going to be triage'd to the lowest possible slot, and it's my understanding that if they believe you can just be sent on your way, they'll do that. You can't go in for an ear ache. > Moreover, if you are being forced to pay for health insurance, you are more likely not less likely to seek treatment since you will rationally think "well I am paying for it so I might as well use it." The idea that making people buy insurance will reduce overall healthcare costs has always been an insane one. First of all, there are plenty of respected folks who don't think that's "insane". Presumably more respected than "John" from the comments section. But regardless, that's what co-pays and deductibles are for. Let's also not forget that going to the doctor is still not a joy ride. There's forms, and there's a wait. I have health insurance, and I don't take a trip to the doctor's office like it's the local candy shop. Why would the poor, who feel the impact of a co-pay even more than I do?
    - DrStalker 13y ago
      In Australia you can go in to emergency for anything, but you'll be waiting until there's nothing more urgent in front of you. If you are triaged as having a trivial condition and you insist on a doctor instead of the triage nurses advice you're in for a looooong wait. You're spot on about doctor visits not being fun. We also have free GP access and people will see a doctor if they have a reason but most people would rather stay home and rest than go out to the Doctor's just because they have a sniffle.
    - webXL 13y ago
      My wife has had a couple mysterious illnesses that sent her to the ER. She saw a doctor within a couple hours. In both instances, there wasn't any life threatening issue. Granted the ER was pretty empty, but waiting a few more hours rather than weeks wouldn't have been a big deal. Copays aren't that big of a deal when you're in extreme pain. Ours was $100 per ER trip. Surely that would dissuade people with ear aches. Had it been a 20% coinsurance charge, then we probably would have tried urgent care first, or waited longer. But you can see how having insurance (or a certain type of insurance) can affect your behavior, in a way that's not so predictable. Many policy makers were surprised by the results of the Oregon Medicare Study as are many people learning about moral hazard for the first time. It's counter-intuitive.
oinksoft 13y ago
Claiming poverty while not accepting public assistance in the same breath is absurd, unless this is a poverty vow. In any case you represent the corner of the corner, people who would rather take a tax penalty for ethical reasons than accept vouchers. Most people in your position are falling over themselves at the prospect of decent health coverage.
- ensignavenger 13y ago
  Really? The plans that I have seen that could be purchased with the subsidies is no where near what I would call decent! It may vary by State, and I have only seen the "sample plans" that have been published.
rtpg 13y ago
How can you complain about the lack of a free luck, but then not take the free lunch when pointed out that it is indeed present? People want everyone to be covered, which is how Obamacare got pushed through in the first place. You not getting covored can potential end up costing us more in the healthcare system (healthcare costs being the biggest reason for personal bankruptcy) if you don't take this and use it.
- sillysaurus2 13y ago
  (healthcare costs being the biggest reason for personal bankruptcy) This is interesting. Is this true? I apologize if it sounded like I was complaining. I only meant I chose this life. How is it reasonable for me to choose this, and then force other people to pay for me? The other alternative is that I should feel like a shitty human for choosing not to maximize my earning potential and getting myself into this position in the first place. But part of having freedom of choice is the freedom to choose poorly. It's my own life, a life I'm not burdening others with. If I break my arm, can't afford to pay for it, and then become bankrupt as a result, then I have suffered a personal penalty which society will remember and will punish me for. And while I may have temporarily burdened others by not being able to pay for my emergency care, I've still been penalized as a result, which seems quite fair. Whereas taking a handout to cover the same expense feels like I got something for nothing. I admit that there are some good arguments in this thread, though, so perhaps I should reevaluate my moral perspectives. But it's extremely difficult for me to become comfortable with the idea of encroaching on other people's lives by force.
  - dangerlibrary 13y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankruptcy_in_the_United_States#Personal_bankruptcy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankruptcy_in_the_United_States... Relevant bit: "Although the individual causes of bankruptcy are complex and multifaceted, the majority of personal bankruptcies involve substantial medical bills"
  - rtpg 13y ago
    http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/25/why-people-go-bankrupt-personal-finance-bankruptcy.html http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/25/why-people-go-bankrupt-pers... Here's a citation on the bankruptcy statistic. Its corroborated by many other sources (and many other studies). No matter what your intentions on the topic, if you end up in the emergency room for a preventable condition (which will lead to more treatment), you will end up costing everybody much more than simply taking the vouchers... take that fact as you will, but statistically speaking it's very likely you'll end up "costing" society more by not participating in the healthcare system.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
hahainternet 13y ago
> If I can't afford my lunch after being given so many opportunities to earn it myself, then it would be unfair for me to ask my countrymen to foot the bill. No it wouldn't. I provide it to my countrymen no matter their condition. > Perhaps I should be trying to maximize every possible opportunity offered to me. But I just can't stomach the idea of taking money away from other people to pay for my own personal problems. You live in a world where your tax money already is pooled and so you already do take money from people to pay for things as simple as the roads you drive on, or the emergency services you use. There's no moral argument to not participating. You've paid the taxes and you have a right to the return.
duaneb 13y ago
> then it would be unfair for me to ask my countrymen to foot the bill. That's in your head. Realistically it's in everybody's interest to keep their countrymen happy.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  That's true, but obviously the trade-off isn't one-to-one (or better) through all of happiness-cost space. It's important to ask where a particular expenditure falls.
dllthomas 13y ago
I second the "maintenance is cheaper than repair". If you neglect your health now, and buy into health insurance later, you're asking future me to bear higher premiums and everyone is worse off - you and others. As one of your fellow countrymen presently footing the bill (in that I'm paying taxes and I have good health insurance with no subsidy), I assure you that helping get you covered is no skin off my back. "But I just can't stomach the idea of taking money away from other people to pay for my own personal problems." If you're found unconscious somewhere because of an untreated ailment, the "cost to other people for paying to for your own personal problems" will be dramatically higher. If you're conscious, you could maybe refuse emergency assistance, though I'd encourage you not to. If you really need to make it up to your fellow citizens, meet your civic responsibilities: put thought and research into voting, serve - honestly and intelligently - on juries when called, etc. We ask some of you, it's fair for you to take what you're given without being exploitative.

benburleson 13y ago

The thing is, what you think is your "own personal problem" doesn't really affect only you. If your neighbors can help keep you healthy and productive, there's a benefit in that for them as well.

dllthomas 13y ago
"If your neighbors can help keep you healthy and productive, there's a benefit in that for them as well." Economically and socially, of course, but epidemiologically as well!

dangerlibrary 13y ago

If you go to the emergency room with an untreated, preventable illness that has become critical, and you can't pay the bill, other people wind up footing the bill anyway. Maintenance is cheaper than repair.

webXL 13y ago
Except mandatory "maintenance" doesn't lead to fewer repairs in this case. Google Oregon Medicare study and Emergency Room usage. A comment from reason.com sums it up nicely: "Emergency rooms are required by law to treat it. If you are poor, they are unlikely to ever collect the bill for doing so. So why would a poor person wait days or weeks to see a doctor then they can go down to an emergency room and see one in hours? Moreover, if you are being forced to pay for health insurance, you are more likely not less likely to seek treatment since you will rationally think "well I am paying for it so I might as well use it.". The idea that making people buy insurance will reduce overall healthcare costs has always been an insane one." http://reason.com/blog/2014/01/02/no-obamacare-wont-reduce-emergency-room#comment_4219297 http://reason.com/blog/2014/01/02/no-obamacare-wont-reduce-e...
- d23 13y ago
  > So why would a poor person wait days or weeks to see a doctor then they can go down to an emergency room and see one in hours? Because if you don't have a life threatening condition, you're not going to see a doctor in "hours" in the emergency room. You're going to be triage'd to the lowest possible slot, and it's my understanding that if they believe you can just be sent on your way, they'll do that. You can't go in for an ear ache. > Moreover, if you are being forced to pay for health insurance, you are more likely not less likely to seek treatment since you will rationally think "well I am paying for it so I might as well use it." The idea that making people buy insurance will reduce overall healthcare costs has always been an insane one. First of all, there are plenty of respected folks who don't think that's "insane". Presumably more respected than "John" from the comments section. But regardless, that's what co-pays and deductibles are for. Let's also not forget that going to the doctor is still not a joy ride. There's forms, and there's a wait. I have health insurance, and I don't take a trip to the doctor's office like it's the local candy shop. Why would the poor, who feel the impact of a co-pay even more than I do?
  - DrStalker 13y ago
    In Australia you can go in to emergency for anything, but you'll be waiting until there's nothing more urgent in front of you. If you are triaged as having a trivial condition and you insist on a doctor instead of the triage nurses advice you're in for a looooong wait. You're spot on about doctor visits not being fun. We also have free GP access and people will see a doctor if they have a reason but most people would rather stay home and rest than go out to the Doctor's just because they have a sniffle.
  - webXL 13y ago
    My wife has had a couple mysterious illnesses that sent her to the ER. She saw a doctor within a couple hours. In both instances, there wasn't any life threatening issue. Granted the ER was pretty empty, but waiting a few more hours rather than weeks wouldn't have been a big deal. Copays aren't that big of a deal when you're in extreme pain. Ours was $100 per ER trip. Surely that would dissuade people with ear aches. Had it been a 20% coinsurance charge, then we probably would have tried urgent care first, or waited longer. But you can see how having insurance (or a certain type of insurance) can affect your behavior, in a way that's not so predictable. Many policy makers were surprised by the results of the Oregon Medicare Study as are many people learning about moral hazard for the first time. It's counter-intuitive.

oinksoft 13y ago

Claiming poverty while not accepting public assistance in the same breath is absurd, unless this is a poverty vow. In any case you represent the corner of the corner, people who would rather take a tax penalty for ethical reasons than accept vouchers. Most people in your position are falling over themselves at the prospect of decent health coverage.

ensignavenger 13y ago
Really? The plans that I have seen that could be purchased with the subsidies is no where near what I would call decent! It may vary by State, and I have only seen the "sample plans" that have been published.

rtpg 13y ago

How can you complain about the lack of a free luck, but then not take the free lunch when pointed out that it is indeed present? People want everyone to be covered, which is how Obamacare got pushed through in the first place. You not getting covored can potential end up costing us more in the healthcare system (healthcare costs being the biggest reason for personal bankruptcy) if you don't take this and use it.

sillysaurus2 13y ago
(healthcare costs being the biggest reason for personal bankruptcy) This is interesting. Is this true? I apologize if it sounded like I was complaining. I only meant I chose this life. How is it reasonable for me to choose this, and then force other people to pay for me? The other alternative is that I should feel like a shitty human for choosing not to maximize my earning potential and getting myself into this position in the first place. But part of having freedom of choice is the freedom to choose poorly. It's my own life, a life I'm not burdening others with. If I break my arm, can't afford to pay for it, and then become bankrupt as a result, then I have suffered a personal penalty which society will remember and will punish me for. And while I may have temporarily burdened others by not being able to pay for my emergency care, I've still been penalized as a result, which seems quite fair. Whereas taking a handout to cover the same expense feels like I got something for nothing. I admit that there are some good arguments in this thread, though, so perhaps I should reevaluate my moral perspectives. But it's extremely difficult for me to become comfortable with the idea of encroaching on other people's lives by force.
- dangerlibrary 13y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankruptcy_in_the_United_States#Personal_bankruptcy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankruptcy_in_the_United_States... Relevant bit: "Although the individual causes of bankruptcy are complex and multifaceted, the majority of personal bankruptcies involve substantial medical bills"
- rtpg 13y ago
  http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/25/why-people-go-bankrupt-personal-finance-bankruptcy.html http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/25/why-people-go-bankrupt-pers... Here's a citation on the bankruptcy statistic. Its corroborated by many other sources (and many other studies). No matter what your intentions on the topic, if you end up in the emergency room for a preventable condition (which will lead to more treatment), you will end up costing everybody much more than simply taking the vouchers... take that fact as you will, but statistically speaking it's very likely you'll end up "costing" society more by not participating in the healthcare system.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

hahainternet 13y ago

> If I can't afford my lunch after being given so many opportunities to earn it myself, then it would be unfair for me to ask my countrymen to foot the bill. No it wouldn't. I provide it to my countrymen no matter their condition. > Perhaps I should be trying to maximize every possible opportunity offered to me. But I just can't stomach the idea of taking money away from other people to pay for my own personal problems. You live in a world where your tax money already is pooled and so you already do take money from people to pay for things as simple as the roads you drive on, or the emergency services you use. There's no moral argument to not participating. You've paid the taxes and you have a right to the return.

duaneb 13y ago

> then it would be unfair for me to ask my countrymen to foot the bill. That's in your head. Realistically it's in everybody's interest to keep their countrymen happy.

dllthomas 13y ago
That's true, but obviously the trade-off isn't one-to-one (or better) through all of happiness-cost space. It's important to ask where a particular expenditure falls.

dllthomas 13y ago

I second the "maintenance is cheaper than repair". If you neglect your health now, and buy into health insurance later, you're asking future me to bear higher premiums and everyone is worse off - you and others. As one of your fellow countrymen presently footing the bill (in that I'm paying taxes and I have good health insurance with no subsidy), I assure you that helping get you covered is no skin off my back. "But I just can't stomach the idea of taking money away from other people to pay for my own personal problems." If you're found unconscious somewhere because of an untreated ailment, the "cost to other people for paying to for your own personal problems" will be dramatically higher. If you're conscious, you could maybe refuse emergency assistance, though I'd encourage you not to. If you really need to make it up to your fellow citizens, meet your civic responsibilities: put thought and research into voting, serve - honestly and intelligently - on juries when called, etc. We ask some of you, it's fair for you to take what you're given without being exploitative.