Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> do you want first responders checking to see if you can pay your bills before treating you, when literally moments can make the difference between life and death?

You know, for some people, the answer to that is "Actions have consequences. If you were more responsible, you wouldn't be in that mess in the first place. Not my problem."




"Actions have consequences. If you were more responsible, you wouldn't be in that mess in the first place. Not my problem."

"Oh, you got old and need medical assistance? Sorry, not my problem."

"You've been shot? Maybe you shouldn't have looked so suspicious to that cop. Not my problem."

"You have cancer from all the pollutants in the air and water that my company produces, but you can't afford health care because we laid you off? Not my problem."


The point isn't (just) that people should get lifesaving treatment even if they can't afford it, it's (also) that people in life-threatening situations can have a hard time proving that they're capable of paying even when they are. For example:

A man's been hit by a car. The driver calls 911. Do you send an ambulance?

An ambulance arrives. The medical team springs into action, and one of their number looks through the stricken man's wallet for proof of insurance. He doesn't find any. Do you discontinue care?

Suppose instead that he finds an insurance card, but it's stained with blood; a reasonable person couldn't use it to tell whether the injured man's insurance was up to date. Do you discontinue care?

A little imagination should supply you with many similar scenarios. One could invent a method of proving insurance (or assets) both quick and powerful enough to address them all (a universal database keyed to DNA, perhaps), but certainly nothing like that exists today.


All of that's correct and I agree with it. My point was that not everyone would, and those are their arguments.


Then those people wont mind if they're denied treatment after irresponsibly allowing themselves to be hit by a drunk driver.


> Actions have consequences.

So, assuming I'm born with genetic defect that escalates into brain tumors, I shouldn't have been conceived since the my genes gave me 15% higher chance of developing spontaneous brain tumors.

That sounds like a wonderful society.

As correct as it sounds (to quantum theorists at least), some consequences, don't have actions, other than "being born" or "happening".


Right. I actually agree with you, but sarcasm doesn't translate well to every reader.


Few people have the skill to translate complex emotions and ideas into words that convey them properly. Next time you might want to try a "sarcasm" tag, otherwise people might assume you're a sociopath and just covering by claiming it's not you who said it . . .




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: