|
|
| Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better (466092) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > OTChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Wed Jun 24 11:43:07 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by LuchAAA on Wed Jun 24 01:19:21 2009. If you're pro-choice, like most liberals areI believe in a person's autonomy, yes, as against unreasonable restraint; and I also believe in the harm principle. you would agree that people should have the choice between getting health coverage, or not getting it. I am not of the view that one should be mandated to carry full blown health insurance. However, there is a potential caveat. The problem is with freeloaders, especially with respect to catastrophic coverage. These people often have little accumulated wealth (other than their homes), have little liquid assets (cash and things quickly convertible to cash equivalents) on hand, and then they come in on account of some emergency. So that can't pay for the procedure that they have. The freeloading comes in because believe me, the hospital doesn't bat an eyelash before resolving to collect it from everyone else in increased costs. Depending on how prevalent this problem is, I may be open to an effective catastrophic coverage mandate; I am not sure. If so, then I would like several ways to be able to meet it, maybe a catastrophic health crisis savings account with high limits, let some people post a bond maybe and there can be a market for that, etc. I would use the same arguments made by the pro-choice crowd: It's my body and I deserve the privacy of being able to choose what I want to do. If people can kill a fetus, without gov't intervention, I don't see why people can't go without healthcare. The analogy is not complete. The state has no obligation unless it undertakes to do so, to provide a woman with an abortion unless it is medically necessary. By contrast, the state is viewed as having an obligation not to let someone without health insurance and sufficient funds go with medically necessary treatment. |
|
(There are no responses to this message.)
|
|