|
|
|
|
|
by thowawayyy
2011 days ago
|
|
I didn't mean to suggest that there shouldn't be the option to freely chose alternative treatment options under a free market model, in cases where you're not happy with what a single payer model would cover. Rather my point was that when you need urgent or critical medical care there should be a baseline assurance of a solution to your predicament as you may not be in a position to shop around. Your analogy with restaurants is not a good one, since you are unlikely to be in a situation where you're about to starve to death, and the only restaurant in town has 3 Michelin stars, grocery stores don't exist, and passers-by are not qualified to give you food :) |
|
In a different thread I pushed the lack of a contract argument, and got back a more fitting legal theory that hospitals are allowed to charge you under the idea that you not paying would be "unjust enrichment" - they treated you, incurred expenses doing so, and therefore its your responsibility to compensate them. But that still doesn't support them charging you some arbitrarily high price, rather just expecting to be reimbursed for their costs. And so such bills should actually be constrained by the lowest rate they have with contracted insurances.
As for the analogy, I've been pretty hangry to the point where I wouldn't have been able to form a contract. It was also just a more straightforward example than the overall food market still functioning even though we're all just three weeks away from starvation.