Tobacco companies beat hospital lawsuit

Linky

It's a given that I'm going to side with the hospitals in this case, but do you think about this?

Frankly, with the prevalence of anti-smoking advertisements and the health issues of smoking being so commonly taught, I'm siding with the tobacco companies. The health risks of smoking are well-publicized, and a hospital has as much cause to sue Big Tobacco for creating a dangerous product as it does Budweiser and Ford.

Why not just refuse to treat uninsured smokers? I mean, if you smoke without insurance and subsequently get diseases because of it, maybe you should have thought about that beforehand.

Then the Federal Government comes in and says...you're breaking the law that says you have to treat people.

Then perhaps that law should be repealed.

Sarcasm? Rather letting the uninsured die, I say we need free universal health care.

Taxed, duh.

edited 30th Apr '11 5:39:54 PM by LoveHappiness

You do know it's not technically free, correct?

Shichi: Think very carefully about the nature of changing that particular law. It is there for a very very good reason.

edited 30th Apr '11 5:40:14 PM by TuefelHundenIV

I know, that was taking it to an extreme. There needs to be some sort of balance between making people take responsibility, and treating the ill no matter what.

I think of universal healthcare as that which is accessible and affordable to most people, not neccessarily something which is absolutely free.

Reluctance to charge some reasonable fees is holding back the NHS, at the very least.

edited 30th Apr '11 6:06:47 PM by Shichibukai

In this particular case, given the information I've been given, I actually think I side with the tobacco company. The way it's written, the hospital was trying to sue an easy target and lost the case. Since I don't know what claims the tobacco company allegedly made downplaying the effects of smoking, or how much more than the hospital sued for uninsured smokers cost in damages, I'll side with who the little information I have supports.

I'm okay with repealing the "uninsured get treatment" law.

What if you have the cash to pay for the treatment then?

What if they can't find your ID?

Too many questions that lead to problems.

The first one is obviously not an issue. The purpose of insurance is that you can pay, if you've got the cash, by all means. The ID is a trickier means. I suppose a better one would be 1) you're uninsured and 2) it's your own damn fault.

We treat illegal immigrants without insurance in the Emergency room, unless that stops along with it I'm siding with Big Tobacco.

It's a slippery slope, you can't start agreeing to not treat certain people for certain things without endangering lives and possibly endangering more when they start to pick and choose who to treat. It obviously wasn't anyone who swore the hippocratic oath and actually cares that made this suggestion.

The problem with that is...very few people carry that much, and even with credit cards, how many can carry that amount on their balance, when it's not even known in advance? Are you going to check somebody's credit rating when they need surgery NOW? It's just too much trouble.

Of course, we also have all the billing issues which result in overcharges and mess-ups because the insurance companies want preferential treatment, and it's just not pretty.

I'm going to have to insist on a better solution than one that's going to get people killed because you think you're saving money. Especially when you probably won't save any money.

Health care is over priced as it is.

I assumed you meant "out of pocket" rather than having fat wads of cash on hand.

Well, the point I was making is that unless somebody is carrying wads of cash, you can't know how much they can cover, which is even further complicated by how unpredictable health care costs can be.

Sure, there ARE situations where one can know and prepare in advance, but too many other situations aren't.

Oh, also forgot to mention how many people don't have ANY option available to them for any kind of insurance. They might be willing to pay, but nobody will take their money.

edited 30th Apr '11 10:37:33 PM by blueharp

@OP: I side with the tobacco companies. They've been sued enough already, and put up with enough BS from the Nanny State as it is. That hospital wanted to make some quick easy cash and it didn't work. I've got no sympathy for them.

Well, I suppose you could send in ID through a cell signal during the ambulance ride.

How does "nobody will take their money" make sense? It's fucking money.

Insurance companies prefer to take money without having to pay it out. They like to pick their customers to be the less troublesome ones.

Which is one reason why the recent laws force them to modify their practices.

And ID? What if the ID is gone? And none of the ways to identify somebody really work that fast.

edited 1st May '11 9:29:50 AM by blueharp

That's why the government wants to put microchips in everyone, man, it's a conspiracy so they can choose who to give proper healthcare on the spot! IT'S A CONSPIRACY MAN!

Well, tobacco companies have tried to misrepresent risks as much as they could get away with. The question is whether what they think they can get away with is more than what they can actually get away with. (Historically, they've done some pretty sketchy things, but I'm not sure what the present-day state of the industry is.)

edited 1st May '11 9:31:42 PM by feotakahari

I support microchiping people.

Yeah, but what company hasn't? More people die from automobile accidents each year than lung cancer, but they don't make auto manufacturers slap huge warnings on cars.