A 42-year-old Tea Party activist with a "Don't Tread on Me!" flag hanging from his house refuses to buy health insurance of any kind. The next day he has a heart attack and needs lengthy hospitalization and a triple by-pass surgery. Total cost: $250,000. Assuming the value of the house is only $60,000 and the Tea Partier only makes $30,000 a year as a sales clerk, what is society's responsibility for taking care of the Tea Partier's medical expenses -- which will include $2000 per year in heart medications as well? How should the "free market" work this out?
Originally posted by Soothfast A 42-year-old Tea Party activist with a "Don't Tread on Me!" flag hanging from his house refuses to buy health insurance of any kind. The next day he has a heart attack and needs lengthy hospitalization and a triple by-pass surgery. Total cost: $250,000. Assuming the value of the house is only $60,000 and the Tea Partier only makes $30,000 a year as a ...[text shortened]... $2000 per year in heart medications as well? How should the "free market" work this out?
the 42 yr old needs to tell the hospital "send me the bill".
Originally posted by Soothfast A 42-year-old Tea Party activist with a "Don't Tread on Me!" flag hanging from his house refuses to buy health insurance of any kind. The next day he has a heart attack and needs lengthy hospitalization and a triple by-pass surgery. Total cost: $250,000. Assuming the value of the house is only $60,000 and the Tea Partier only makes $30,000 a year as a ...[text shortened]... $2000 per year in heart medications as well? How should the "free market" work this out?
$250,000 heart surgery wouldn't be on the list of things covered by his insurance.
He's given the treatment he can afford. I hear aspirin does wonders for heart disease.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH He ought to die as he lived: free.
Nope, if he refuses to buy health insurance Big Brother should lock him up and throw away the key. Then when he wishes to be euthenized all the same proponents that say that he must be kept alive will say the state can kill them. 😛
Originally posted by joneschr This hypothetical situation should be impossible.
$250,000 heart surgery wouldn't be on the list of things covered by his insurance.
He's given the treatment he can afford. I hear aspirin does wonders for heart disease.
Originally posted by whodey Nope, if he refuses to buy health insurance Big Brother should lock him up and throw away the key. Then when he wishes to be euthenized all the same proponents that say that he must be kept alive will say the state can kill them. 😛
I'd forgotten he lives here in the US. Good point.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH He ought to die as he lived: free.
never have I heard anything more ridiculous or morally repugnant as this.
It is truly a mystery to me why in the US, still the most prosperous country on the face of the earth, people are allowed to be swindled by greedy corporations in such a disgraceful manner. Here we are talking about a man's life, his most precious possession, and all the laissez-faire advocates can do is parrot the same old thought-terminating cliches which have for so long perpetuated delusions in society ever since the country was founded. It defies explanation why you or uther continue mindlessly referring to vague notions of the free market when faced with questions such as the one presented in the OP.
Shame on you, and shame on all those who espouse similar views.
Originally posted by generalissimo never have I heard anything more ridiculous or morally repugnant as this.
It is truly a mystery to me why in the US, still the most prosperous country on the face of the earth, people are allowed to be swindled by greedy corporations in such a disgraceful manner. Here we are talking about a man's life, his most precious possession, and all the laiss ...[text shortened]... the one presented in the OP.
Shame on you, and shame on all those who espouse similar views.
I don't get what's morally repugnant. The OP's situation was one where a person consciously refuses to purchase something he can afford, on principle. He suffers the fate of his own actions.
If the OP's statement was rephrased to:
"A 42-year-old man can not afford to buy health insurance of any kind. The next day he has a heart attack .."
Originally posted by KazetNagorra I'm not sure whether this attitude is masochistic, misanthropic or nihilist. Sick people "ought to die"? Where do you get these kind of ideas?
A hypothetical situation
09 Dec '10 17:15
Back to Top