Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn? • Hacker News Board

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#271

Post by EvanAnderson » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 9:27 PM UTC

yamtaddle wrote: post #238

EvanAnderson wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not done for "PR". US hospitals are required to treat emergency cases, by law. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act[0], passed under President Reagan, codifies the mandate. (This is, to my mind, what caused the United States to end up with socialized medicine-- albeit a socialized medicine system where we don't get to have public discourse about how it works.) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Em…

We don't have "socialized medicine". You can go to the ER without insurance and with signs & symptoms of a heart attack and they'll try to keep you from dying, but they won't give you the triple-bypass and medicine you need to keep it from happening again in a month—unless they think you'll be able to pay for it.

Without making any moral argument one way or the other: If people who can't pay and would otherwise die are given "free" treatment then we have socialized medicine. The costs are spread over everyone else.

Uninsured and under-insured people are cited as one reason why treatment costs are so high. Whether these cases actually contribute to costs in a substantive way doesn't stop the mandate to provide free emergency care being used as a political football.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#272

Post by that_guy_iain » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 9:27 PM UTC

Aunche wrote: post #245

that_guy_iain wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

> "They didn't pay, so they die". The problem with these emotionally charged characterizations is that they can be used against you. Conservatives will use the rationing caused by large cancer backlog in the UK as evidence for "death panels."

The funny thing is they're using the UK which is literally going nuts over the state of the NHS. The UK is extremely unhappy with the backlogs. And almost certainly they'll be getting reduced once a new goverment is voted in during the next general election. The really funny part, I bet a lower percentage of the captia die from cancer in the UK than the US. Because they can get some sort of treatment. And of course a system that treats everyone is going to have longer wait times than one that treats only a percentage of the population. And the ability to pay to avoid wait times is still there. Turns out having public and private hospitals pays off.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#273

Post by WarChortle » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 9:27 PM UTC

dantheman wrote: post #249

WarChortle wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The US has the highest preventable death rate in the developed world. >> They also have by far the highest obesity rate in the developed world. So... I am sure that is one reason of the highest preventable death rate. doesn't invalidate GP point. > I'm supportive of universal healthcare, but this is a huge exaggeration. Sadly in a way its not an exaggeration at all, will doctors and nurses literally watch you die o…

Completely agree, maybe if the USA got rid of the FDA and the whole concept of prescription medicine we'd be able to buy cheap medicine without the all the protectionism that the state bolts on.

No post body was provided.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#274

Post by linuxdude314 » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 9:32 PM UTC

vxNsr wrote: post #254

rqtwteye wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Hospitals will stabilize anyone, regardless of ability to pay.” They will stabilize you and then kick you out to the curb quickly. And depending how they felt that day they will send you an outrageous bill.

This is false, a hospital cannot kick you out, you need to agree that you are ready to leave.

That’s BS. I’ve been to the hospital plenty of times in USA and have never been asked if I’m ready to leave.

Patients get discharged when doctors say so.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#275

Post by ejb999 » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 9:33 PM UTC

dantheman wrote: post #34

afterburner wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this is the same story I read a long time ago, one of the reasons the firefighters didn't intervene is because their health insurance wouldn't cover any injuries, due to the house not being part of their unit's responsibilities. Universal health care might have changed the firefighters' minds. On the other hand, perhaps other liabilities would not have been covered too, so maybe not.

I think it was a fundamental lapse of judgement and incompetence on the firefighters side. They should have had a plan for uninsured fires nearby, and been able to execute it. What is the marginal cost of putting out a fire for the uninsured, I'm sure its quite low - equipment is paid for, staff is payed for, etc. So they should be able to make a substantial profit by charging $20k for putting it out, or whatever amo…

>>They should have had a plan for uninsured fires nearby, and been able to execute it.

They did have a plan, and they did execute on it - exactly as they advertised.

...and if they decided to risk it, and put out the fire anyway - and tied up all their pumps hoses ladders and trucks, and then another call comes in a few miles away - from someone that did pay for coverage - how much liability would they have for tying up all of their equipment at a fire they are not supposed to be fighting, and thus unable to respond to the fires they are supposed to be responding to?

People in this country should be free to make stupid decisions - and free to suffer the consequences of those stupid decisions.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#276

Post by EvanAnderson » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 9:33 PM UTC

Aunche wrote: post #245

that_guy_iain wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

> "They didn't pay, so they die". The problem with these emotionally charged characterizations is that they can be used against you. Conservatives will use the rationing caused by large cancer backlog in the UK as evidence for "death panels."

In the US we prefer our "death panels" to be handled by insurance companies, hospital administrators, and pharmaceutical companies. Rather than having public discourse about rationing of care we privatize our death panels and they operate in relative secrecy.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#277

Post by linuxdude314 » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 9:36 PM UTC

thegrimmest wrote: post #244

rqtwteye wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Acting like a grownup means that you realize that not all things that happen to people are their own fault and that you yourself can’t totally avoid bad things no matter how careful you are. It also means to understand that some things can be handled much better by a shared effort instead of everybody on their own. That’s why we have police, firefighters and the military.

I think this is exactly where reasonable people disagree. Some (myself included) feel that acting like a grownup means exactly that everything that nature (not other people) inflicts on you is your responsibility . This includes your house catching on fire or your person contracting a disease.

No reasonable person thinks this.

If you truly believe this, your perspective have been warped by the culture you are immersed in.

It sounds like you don’t find value in living in a society.

Try living in a different culture than USA for 6 months to a year and I suspect your eyes will be opened.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#278

Post by jasonhansel » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 9:37 PM UTC

constantcrying wrote: post #29

leetrout wrote: post #6

And here we are in modern times where we do, indeed, let buildings burn. > No pay, no spray: Firefighters let home burn > Firefighters in rural Tennessee let a home burn to the ground because the homeowner hadn't paid a $75 fee. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/wbna39516346

> And here we are in modern times where we do, indeed, let buildings burn. The linked article aside, letting buildings burn down is in fact standard procedure for fire fighters. A sufficiently dense fire is extremely hard to stop as long as it can fuel itself and a controlled burn down is often the only reasonable way to end a fire. It's not like anything would be recoverable in any case.

I would hope, at least, that firefighters would always prioritize saving lives over saving property.

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#279

Post by AlexTWithBeard » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 9:38 PM UTC

that_guy_iain wrote: post #143

Even with this information included. I think the moral of the story is America has some very serious third-world problems. The reason things like this go on in America and not in any other developed country is that Americans just accept it. "They didn't pay, so they die." Here is how much they accept it, firefighters literally stood and watched a building burn down instead of playing with their toys. Not only that, t…

The question is: on one hand, any sane adult should be able to make whatever decision they want regarding their own health and property (some text in small font goes here).

On the other hand no sane adult will refuse medical insurance: it's an outright suicidal behavior, unless you have a seven-digit sum in your account.

So...?

Re: Did insurance fire brigades let uninsured buildings burn?

#280

Post by pdonis » Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 9:38 PM UTC

autoexec wrote: post #239

pdonis wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you have this backwards. Acting like a grownup means taking responsibility for your own actions and not expecting the government, or any institution, to magically make sure nothing bad ever happens to you. Paying for services like firefighting is fine; but being forced to pay for things because some government bureaucrat decrees it is not. And acting like a grownup also means letting people take the consequences…

Quoted post unavailable.

Adults know that making sensible collective agreements where necessary is not the same thing as government. Governments never limit themselves to that. Certainly the US government doesn't--even though that's exactly what it's supposed to do under the Constitution.

Also, allowing people to suffer bad consequences from their own choices does not mean being indifferent. It just means refusing to adopt a "cure" that is worse than the disease.

Adults also know that collective agreements to provide the means to help those who are in trouble through no fault of their own are called "charity", and are best done by private institutions made up of people who genuinely want to help others (and there are plenty of those in the US just as there are everywhere), not government departments staffed by bureaucrats.