What do you do with the uninsured who are dying of a cureable disease?

Jarod

Well-known member
Contributor
So the question has been asked and I am sure many of the hard core conservatives are dying for a chance to clarify.

Lets say a middle class man, with a wife and kids and a reasonable income chooses to not get health insurance for himself. Lets just say he buys a boat instead. This man gets a type of cancer that is usually cureable, but that cure is very expensive, it will take a three year corse of treatment that will cost about 1.6 million in total.

What do we do with this man? Does he get the treatment? Do we let him die?
 
Its clear to me we have to do one of two things, tax the guy extra for failure to get health insurance (the new health care plan) or let him die. Doing it the way we currently do, we treat him anyway and the taxpayers all pay a hefty price for it.
 
So the question has been asked and I am sure many of the hard core conservatives are dying for a chance to clarify.

Lets say a middle class man, with a wife and kids and a reasonable income chooses to not get health insurance for himself. Lets just say he buys a boat instead. This man gets a type of cancer that is usually cureable, but that cure is very expensive, it will take a three year corse of treatment that will cost about 1.6 million in total.

What do we do with this man? Does he get the treatment? Do we let him die?

Cure them, bill them. They chose to take a risk and knew they might be personally responsible for their health care costs when they chose not to get coverage.
 
Now, here's a question for you. What if they understand their risk and decide to risk death instead of saddling their family with such a large bill? Do you support his choice, based on the fact that he understands he risked and "lost"?
 
Now, here's a question for you. What if they understand their risk and decide to risk death instead of saddling their family with such a large bill? Do you support his choice, based on the fact that he understands he risked and "lost"?

That is the question I was asking. Do you let them die when they took the risk? Remember those kids will grow up with out a parent, and kids who grow up without a parent are more likely to be a cost to society.
 
Cure them, bill them. They chose to take a risk and knew they might be personally responsible for their health care costs when they chose not to get coverage.

Thats what we do now, and the vast majority dont pay so the system does not work, thats why health care is so expensive for the rest of us.
 
I'll answer your question with a question of my own. I have, on a very reliable tip, placed a very large wager on a professional sports match. I in the end have lost said wager and lose the mortgage and bill money. Which government office should I go to to avoid the consequences of my actions?
 
I'll answer your question with a question of my own. I have, on a very reliable tip, placed a very large wager on a professional sports match. I in the end have lost said wager and lose the mortgage and bill money. Which government office should I go to to avoid the consequences of my actions?

You have not answered my question..... A mortgage and bills are not the same as a life.
 
I'm with Ron Paul on this one, when did we decide we have to take care of everybody?

So is your answer that we should let the guy die? Dont be afraid to say it, what is your answer, dont hide behind Ron Paul...
 
Thats what we do now, and the vast majority dont pay so the system does not work, thats why health care is so expensive for the rest of us.

Sounds like you're complaining about how much YOU have to pay....would you rather let them die to lower YOUR costs....
 
None of who's business? Does he get treated at the hospital or not? Does the government pay to save his life or not? Does he live or die?

Didn't Jesus mention this kind of compassion in the Parable of the Good Samaritan?
 
Back
Top