I'm amazed sometimes the things people say here. The idea of withholding medical care based on citizenship comes very close the criteria for evil, with the drawback that it's largely incorrect, too (non-citizen residents, legal and illegal pay taxes at many levels of government for far less in return comparably than citizens).
What is the maximum amount we should spend to save a human? A million? A billion?
Should society absorb any cost to save a human even if it gets exponentially more expensive with each subsequent procedure? Or should there be a cutoff where you are basically told "Sorry, you've exceeded the threshold and have to either pay for it yourself or die"
It would seem that the cost of being stingy here is that the medical care system is more expensive for less performance in the US. Cut off your nose to spite your face exemplified.
This is a non-sequitur, and not related to the original topic which was: Should non-citizens be disallowed from receiving ER care without paying for it themselves?
Additionally, we already had that system in place, it was called "lifetime limits" and it was typically $1-2m on the best healthcare plans.
> I would view that as a horrible compromise, because it would result in poor people receiving worse health care than wealthy people.
It's impossible for that not to be the case. It's even the case in countries with single payer, because rich people who live there and don't want to wait for an appointment or want something that isn't covered will just go to a country that can give them what they want and open their wallet. Even without leaving the country, they can hire private nurses and so on when they aren't covered by the national health system.
Moreover, why is this supposed to be a problem? "Money buys things" is the purpose of money.
There are things a rational national health system wouldn't pay for because they aren't economical, but a rich person would buy for themselves for much the same reasons they buy a Tesla instead of a Dodge. Which means they have a safer car because they have more money. Should we prohibit expensive safer cars because poor people can't afford them?
I think the idea being that generally, two people going to the same ER one being broke and the other being loaded are going to get a similar level of emergency care. Long term maybe not but you aren't going to get the bronze plan of gunshot care while the guy next to you is enjoying platinum.
I think most people believe its morally repugnant that your value as a human being is related to how much money you have. Because choosing to serve one person over another based on money rather than their medical need is exactly that.
Ie: I broke my toe and I have insurance, so I get ER treatment, but that guy who has no insurance and is internally bleeding to death from a street stabbing (and is hispanic, doesn't have insurance and maybe isn't american?) is pushed behind me in line. That is the real life scenario that at least one person is advocating here.
I agree, I think that ER's work more or less like that now (not necessarily the rest of the hospital), I'm concerned for the future this not always being the case.
I think as the governments become more starved (not made more efficient by reducing costs, starved by simply cutting funding without optimizing it logically) that important government services will have to replaced with tiered private companies. As regulations are removed, the same thing occurs.
What if a speed of ambulance was built into your insurance? How do you know what response time is right for you and your family (as it will be framed)?