[bastawhiz]

It's outrageous because the government pays for medical care so that people don't suffer. It's an inherently compassionate reason. I can't imagine a justifiable position where you think someone should suffer because they can't afford care that the government would otherwise pay for, regardless of the reason for their ailment and regardless if it's a stupid reason. And doubly so if the reason you're denying them care is because they had an elective or cosmetic procedure that almost certainly didn't contribute to their risk factor for the condition they're suffering from. Triply so if it's something debilitating, like blindness.

Even from a common sense perspective, someone who is blind and on disability because they had a risky procedure is unquestionably worse for the country and society than someone who is able to return to work and pay taxes.

What you're advocating for is literally just pettiness. It doesn't benefit anyone. It's not saving the taxpayers money. It's not reasonable in any way.

[gruez]

>It's outrageous because the government pays for medical care so that people don't suffer. It's an inherently compassionate reason.

I don't see why universal or government provided healthcare has to be for "compassionate" reasons. It's perfectly consistent to interpret it as an insurance program, where you pay a premium to avoid catastrophic costs. Indeed in many countries that's how healthcare is structured (eg. [1]).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland

[bastawhiz]

Is avoiding catastrophic costs not a compassionate reason? Why should someone not be eligible/worthy to avoid catastrophic costs? If someone is paying their premium (be it from a Medicare/Medicaid plan or from their tax dollars), why should they not be covered?

Should we also refuse to rescue people who went hiking in deep wilderness or boating in unsafe waters? Or negotiate the release of citizens taken prisoner by hostile foreign regimes or gotten seriously ill while vacationing against government advice? Since when is it good policy to refuse help to people who have made poor choices or taken risks?

[gruez]

>Is avoiding catastrophic costs not a compassionate reason?

Different people can have different reasons for supporting a program. The fact that you think government provided healthcare is "compassionate" doesn't mean that other people can't think that it's a purely transactional arrangement similar to home or car insurance. A grocery store providing food is arguably "compassionate", in the sense that it stops you from starving, but no one would claim "grocery stores are inherently compassionate".

>Why should someone not be eligible/worthy to avoid catastrophic costs? If someone is paying their premium (be it from a Medicare/Medicaid plan or from their tax dollars), why should they not be covered?

Most other forms of insurance often contain a clause saying that it doesn't cover intentional or negligent damage. If you're doing doughnuts in a parking lot and crash into a pole, that won't be covered by your car insurance.

>Should we also refuse to rescue people who went hiking in deep wilderness or boating in unsafe waters?

AFAIK in some circumstances people get billed for those rescues, so it's not as good as an example as you think it is.

> Or negotiate the release of citizens taken prisoner by hostile foreign regimes or gotten seriously ill while vacationing against government advice? Since when is it good policy to refuse help to people who have made poor choices or taken risks?

At some point.. yes? These sorts of scenarios exist on a spectrum. The state department is probably not going to send in Seal Team Six to extract some kid who traveled to Syria to join ISIS but got cold feet. On the other end of the spectrum are stuff like "preventable" car accidents: most car accidents are arguably preventable (eg. rear ending a car because you were following too close), however such accidents are nonetheless covered by car insurance. Drawing the line at "elective cosmetic surgery" isn't "outrageous".