From: ahk@chinet.com

Stephen Sprunk  wrote:
>On 24-Apr-15 08:25, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>Charles Ellson  wrote:
>>>"Adam H. Kerman"  wrote:
>>>>Charles Ellson  wrote:

>>>>>Is compulsory motor insurance "socialism" ?

>>>>Your analogy sucks. There's no comparison between a requirement
>>>>to have liability insurance with single-payer health insurance.
>>>>For one thing, liability is to other people and perhaps that is
>>>>society's business.

>>>If you are ill beyond self-help you become a medical liability upon
>>>others

>>...
>>An injured or ill person can receive life-saving care (but not full
>>treatment) in a hospital emergency room without ability to pay, but
>>that's a condition of federal law for receiving payments through
>>socialized medicine or having received past grants for new facilities
>>or having a nonprofit tax status.

>... which pretty much every hospital has received at some point, so in
>practice it is a liability upon society.

That's a hell of a lot of cost shifting. Any medical provider accepting
Medicare must accept Medicaid. My state tends to be years behind in
paying providers. You're not acknowledging reality even when the patient
is receiving socialized medicine.

Also, Medicare's cost structure is just paying for the wrong stuff, sigh,
but that'a another discussion.

>>Otherwise just showing up at an emergency room shouldn't impose a
>>duty of care upon the hospital.

>IMHO, there is a moral obligation, even if not a legal one.

I don't think any institution other than a charity has a moral obligation.
I need transportation. I can't just show up at a stable and grab a horse.

>>In a free society, why shouldn't that be a choice an adult can make
>>for himself, as the only person he would harm is himself?

>Sometimes the adult can't afford the care they need, e.g. because they
>are banned from buying insurance due to their immigration status, which
>means there is no real choice available to them.

The immigrant is aware of that and chose to come here anyway, probably
from a country in which he might have lacked care anyway.

>Maybe you'll choose to blame the adults for such,

I'm not blaming anyone but you, for setting up a straw man when you lack
an argument. Making a choice is an obligation and duty upon an adult.
There isn't always enough money for all needs. It should be up to the
adult to decide what to spend his own money on.

>which is debatable,

It's not debatable; it's a straw man. You set it up because you lacked
an argument.

>but should such adults' children die from treatable injuries or diseases
>due to their parents' choices (or lack thereof)?

Golly! A straw man AND moving the goalposts! Classic Usenet stuff there.

--- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
 * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)