Quote:
Originally Posted by chumdawg
If you don't have insurance and you go to Parkland for treatment, it's closer to the same thing than you think.
|
This is a flawed example. In the car insurance example, you are required to carry
liability insurance to pay for bodily injury and property damage that you cause
someone else to incur. In the Parkland example, you're assuming that it's the patient's fault they got sick/hurt and don't have the money to pay for treatment. While that might be true in some cases (maybe they ran the red light or smoked the cigarettes), but maybe they didn't. Either way, the example is still flawed because the people at Parkland are still going to receive subsidization under the new legislation. It's not like you're going to be forcing them to buy anything.