The leftists are at it again. At the last GOP debate, Wolf Blitzer of CNN (those paragons of fairness -- both Blitzer and CNN) asked the candidates what would they do if a 30-year old who had refused to buy heatlh insurance if though his salary indicated he could afford it in spades came in needing life and death emergency treatment. Admittedly, the candidates had a tough time answering the question. They did so because you can't answer that question with a one-word answer, or even one sentence. So, the audience helped out, "Let him die." Blitzer beamed from big ear to big ear as he figured he had scored a coup for CNN, the Democrats, the liberals, the leftists, the socialists -- or collectively, the idiots, in my books.
Of course the answer in a first-world country is not "let him die". It is much more complex than that. I am neither a doctor nor a politician nor an economist, but if I were on a panel to adjudicate this one, I'd suggest that something closer to the right approach would along these lines (and I know many of you could improve on this):
1. Give him the necessary medical treatment to keep him alive immediately (as doctors are required to do regardless of ability to pay).
2. Then freeze all his assets, garnish his wages, have access to his bank accounts, etc.; that is, do everything you have to until and in order to recoup the costs of the service to the state, both during and after his treatment.
3. Give him one warning and then he's on his own for future emergencies -- if he has no insurance when he comes in again and the computer says "he's done this before" -- then you let him "rest in peace". It is a crime against the state and mankind to deliberate make decisions that require someone else to pay the piper when you get sick. (Remember we are not talking about those that cannot afford insurance -- we're talking about the guy that drives a Beamer but chooses not to buy insurance.) This is not that much different than letting a homeless person die on the street be freezing to death because he refuses to go to a shelter in sub-zero weather.
Now, some of you may say to me, "Wow, as a Christian, you sound pretty extreme." Maybe, but if you had a choice between using $500,000 worth of medical treatment on a rich guy or on people that couldn't afford insurance due to poverty -- and you were a Christian, which would you choose to help?
Furthermore, the Bible tells people to "count the cost before you go to build a tower". Let me spell that out a little differently for you. Life has responsibilities. If God blesses you with money, you need to use it to take care of some of those responsibilities rather than using it as you please. That's part of counting the cost when you live the life in the fast lane.
I believe in mistakes and I believe in forgiveness. But I don't believe in "beating the system" and getting away with it. Even God does not let us do that -- when we die, if we had no opted for Him, we're goners. As far as I'm concerned it's a free world. You're free to have insurance or not. When you opt not to, you are also opting not to get treated. It's no different than opting for divorce -- chances are you'll see your kids a lot less, if at all.
I just wanted you to have this other 'conservative' perspective before you read the opposite arguments from the article we've linked to. And we do want your input after that.
"Let him die": A debate question exposes the incoherence—and cowardice—of the Republican candidates' opposition to Obamacare. - By Jacob Weisberg - Slate Magazine
Thanks for dropping by. Sign up to receive free updates. We bring you relevant information from all sorts of sources. Subscribe for free to this blog or follow us by clicking on the appropriate link in the right side bar. And please share this blog with your friends. Ken Godevenos, Church and Management Consultant,
Accord Consulting.
It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.
