3 ms·

As long as you're cool with bleeding to death on the steps of the emergency room, I'm ok with your not having insurance. But expecting US taxpayers to pay for y

As long as you're cool with bleeding to death on the steps of the emergency room, I'm ok with your not having insurance. But expecting US taxpayers to pay for your treatment (indirectly via higher premiums) while complaining about being forced to buy insurance is, at best, inconsistent.

MrZongle2 13y ago
As long as you're cool with bleeding to death on the steps of the emergency room And exactly how common of an occurrence is that in the United States? Yes, one can bemoan the lack of preventative medicine and proper follow-ups, but if you show up at the E.R. of most American hospitals with a life-threatening condition, you're going to get treated regardless of how much you can pay. If we're going to properly fight the problem, hyperbole needs to go out the window.
- maxerickson 13y ago
  You read the parent wrong. Their point was that you can't take a moral stand and refuse healthcare when the standard of care is to treat emergencies.
- zaphar 13y ago
  I'm pretty sure you missed the point. You are right that there is near to zero chance of that occuring. Which is probably what the previous poster meant. Since you can show up with a life threatening issue at a hospital and get stabilizing life saving treatment regardless of your insurance anyone who doesn't have insurance is effectively already leeching.
- TheCoelacanth 13y ago
  > if you show up at the E.R. of most American hospitals with a life-threatening condition, you're going to get treated regardless of how much you can pay. Yes, and taxpayers are going to foot the bill. If taxpayers are going to foot the bill anyway, they might as well do it in a way that is efficient (preventative care) rather than one that is extremely inefficient (emergency care).
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- lonnyk 13y ago
  It depends on the situation. If a hospital is nearby that specializes in X for area A they won't admit you, will send someone outside to you, and get an ambulance to bring you to the other hospital. Source: Second hand knowledge. Take it for what you will.

MrZongle2 13y ago

As long as you're cool with bleeding to death on the steps of the emergency room And exactly how common of an occurrence is that in the United States? Yes, one can bemoan the lack of preventative medicine and proper follow-ups, but if you show up at the E.R. of most American hospitals with a life-threatening condition, you're going to get treated regardless of how much you can pay. If we're going to properly fight the problem, hyperbole needs to go out the window.

maxerickson 13y ago
You read the parent wrong. Their point was that you can't take a moral stand and refuse healthcare when the standard of care is to treat emergencies.
zaphar 13y ago
I'm pretty sure you missed the point. You are right that there is near to zero chance of that occuring. Which is probably what the previous poster meant. Since you can show up with a life threatening issue at a hospital and get stabilizing life saving treatment regardless of your insurance anyone who doesn't have insurance is effectively already leeching.
TheCoelacanth 13y ago
> if you show up at the E.R. of most American hospitals with a life-threatening condition, you're going to get treated regardless of how much you can pay. Yes, and taxpayers are going to foot the bill. If taxpayers are going to foot the bill anyway, they might as well do it in a way that is efficient (preventative care) rather than one that is extremely inefficient (emergency care).
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
lonnyk 13y ago
It depends on the situation. If a hospital is nearby that specializes in X for area A they won't admit you, will send someone outside to you, and get an ambulance to bring you to the other hospital. Source: Second hand knowledge. Take it for what you will.