DomKen
Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004 From: Chicago, IL Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TexasRogue quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen quote:
ORIGINAL: TexasRogue quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen Let's say for instance that you aren't poor but something happens. Say for insatnce you're 43 with an $85k salary and nearly $100k in the bank and invested. Now ponder getting a serious kidney infection that forces you onto dialysis (3 times a week at $1500 per session or $234k per year). Should you simply die when your savings are exhausted? Or is it possible that society acting through its government should provide assistance? Seriously? Making that kind of $$$, they didn't have health coverage? I would hope that someone so short-sighted would have to jump through enough hoops that they were financially devastated for years to come before they got assistance. Maybe that would teach them not to put the burden on the rest of society, but on themselves. Actually the health insurance company dropped the company's group policy right after they got the first dialysis bill and only a few days before the HCR law made such illegal. Since the claim was filed before the insurance company dropped coverage, it sounds like there should be some legal recourse. It's a contractual obligation to pay out on covered incidents that occur during coverage. I'd find a good contract lawyer if I were them. LOL. My former company talked to several law firms that specialize in insurance law. Before the HCR law took effect an insurance provider could drop a policy, even a group policy, at any time and with no need to give a reason. So they had to pay for one dialysis treatment. Now back to the original question, in your libertarian fantasies, what should happen to me? Should I get to die the extremely unpleasant death from kidney failure when my savings are exhausted or do you see that perhaps there is a good use for tax money?
|