[alex43578]

I never said they shouldn't get care, but each of those people should pay for insurance to cover the costs of the care they receive.

The single mom, by law, has to have car insurance, but doesn't need health insurance in CA because she will be treated for free. Same with heart attack guy: sounds like he has no assets, so he's insulated from the costs of his care and lifestyle, a clear moral hazard.

[bobbean]

People can't always pay for insurance. The single mom wasn't driving, by the way. You seem make a lot of assumptions about people you don't know. And do you know what happens to the mom when shes's discharged from the hospital with chronic pain? She can't keep a steady job because her pain and her trauma keep her up at night, and shes's forced to call out too frequently. I think the real moral hazard is not taking care of the people around you, and not realizing that the worst possible thing that can happen to you is happening to someone every day, all the time, and those people sometimes need help. This world is full of fucked up, terrible things, and if you're going to sit there and complain that the homeless guy you know nothing about is trying to get a free sandwich and a warm bed on your dime, and that makes you angry, maybe you should look inward and around you and try to figure out what actually matters in life. I'm sure the people who are actually taking your money love you for blaming the homeless.

[alex43578]

The world is full of bad events. That's why we created insurance to help reduce the risk of these uncertain losses.

The single mom, had she bought health insurance, would see a portion of her medical costs covered in part because of the premiums she paid. The $10K out of pocket max under the ACA is onerous, but against the $100K+ potential costs of her ER/ICU/surgery bills, that's fair to everyone else who maintains insurance. You should help pay for what you use.

If you now want to stretch the scenario to all these other contingencies, good news: she's covered by SSI which she would've been paying into if she worked. She also has financial recourse against this driver that hit her (and their insurance that they are legally required to carry, even though CA loves to not enforce this), assuming she wasn't at fault in the accident.

You're right that there's "plenty of people who genuinely need the help", but you also need to help yourself. Pay for insurance, don't do drugs, don't smoke, don't be an alcoholic, and don't eat yourself into Type 2 diabetes. If you do that, you've just slashed all the biggest financial and health risks that are controllable, while saving yourself money and improving your quality of life.

[bobbean]

I read your comment in full before responding, it would have been kind of you to return the courtesy. Unless you're an ai, then cheese eric hair purple toast

[alex43578]

It'd be great if you could argue in support of your straw-single-mom, rather than give up and type literal gibberish. But hey, I'm sure the takers living off your neighbor's work appreciate your complacency.

[protocolture]

>It'd be great if you could argue in support of your straw-single-mom, rather than give up and type literal gibberish

This is a really great demonstration of my point. You clearly don't care about the person the other poster highlighted, and feel not even a remote social obligation to assist. I don't think either of you are arguing from like unobstructed economic truths or whatever, just demonstrating where your lines are morally. For you, normal American, the system is working perfectly. Its designed to be punishing for your neighbors. The thought terminating cliches around whether they deserve your tax dollars are part of the design to help unclutter your worldview while you spin economic wheels for the tax man. That tax money you pay belongs to Israel and not 1 cent should possibly ever accidentally help a fellow American which would be an unmitigated social calamity.

And the other guy doesn't care as much as he makes out either. Its not like he is trying to change the government or whatever, hes just arguing with someone for internet points, points that are absolutely not redeemable for healthcare for anyone.

Its honestly a well designed and implemented healthcare system and both of you are getting exactly what you want out of it. .

[alex43578]

Israel aid, while unnecessary in my view, is a total non-sequitur. The MOU was $3B a year, while foodstamp's administrative costs alone are 2x that. Foodstamps on the whole were about 30x the aid. I'm fine to cut spending in Israel (and any other foreign aid) dollar for dollar with handouts (or hell, even just tie the handouts to drug tests and education/work/volunteer requirements).

Setting that aside, you're right: I don't care about this hypothetical person they dreamed up. I don't even care about the real person potentially in this situation. There is 340,000,000 people, and it's not my job or obligation to care about any of them. Fortunately society has built structures to ensure they are taken care, and I've already listed plenty of them: welfare, SSI, Section 8 housing, WIC, free K-12 education, and the list goes on.

"Don't feel an obligation to assist" is lunacy. We're already assisting the homeless in California to the tune of a decent job's salary in most parts of the country. The most egregious cases are sucking down more in monetary resources than many doctors make in CA.

We don't have an obligation to assist people that won't even help themselves. We're not leaving someone to starve in the woods: we've called out a search helicopter, thrown them rations, and built them a cabin; but they'd rather burn down the cabin and use the fire to smoke fentanyl.

[throw4827944]

Aid to Israel is 0.0006 of the federal budget.

You’re just aping an antisemitic meme.