As tax payers we pay for peoples health care that don't care if they pay their bills. Not all addicts are dead beats but when they get "sick" they can run up a large medical bill that, most of the time, doesn't get paid by them. If they use drugs, it takes more drugs an usual to take care of them in the hospital and they require more care than the average person.
2007-12-19 06:40:26 · 10 answers · asked by Mickey 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I think we should make catastrophic health care coverage available to all for an affordable price.
We should put an end to the special deals large insurers get which foist real costs off on to the uninsured and the taxpayers.
We should reduce government interference in health care.
We should encourage the free market in all aspects of health care. We've seen what LASIK (insurance rarely covers it) and plastic surgery (most appears to be elective) cost compared to things the insurers control. With the number of people with drug addiction problems out there, there is no reason why there can't be real treatment options and real competition.
As to just ER visits as the results of drug abuse, again, if we made insurance companies pay their fair share that would reduce costs for the uninsured (which most hard-core drug addicts would likely be), which does ultimately end up on the backs of the taxpayers (even if they get signed up for Medicaid).
We're going to incur costs no matter what, because if someone comes in and appears high, he is not necessarily an addict. We have people slipping others stuff. People can have another medical problem where you have to examine them before you realize it's not drugs (psych problems, even diabetes at times, etc.). And what about alcohol, which is legal and the most abused drug? If someone had three beers, we treat him; if he downed 12, we let him die?
Part of the problem is owing to the meddling of the ACLU and their shrieking about the "rights" of the homeless, addicts, etc. It's very hard to institutionalize a person who IS a danger to himself or others. There is a shortage of decent outpatient treatment, halfway houses, etc. A lot of addicts have something else major going on with them--such as another (beyond addiction) mental issue. IF we could get them treatment, there would probably be less incidents of their using, thus fewer trips to the ER.
Does the government have to pay for it? Actually, no. This is a perfectly decent area for charitable work, BUT the government needs to stop interfering constantly and listening to lawyers who can't get enough litigation to enable a mentally incompetent person out there where he can be a crime victim, injured, or harm others.
There is no easy answer or perfect solution to this very real problem. Hindsight allows us to see who appears to be a "hopeless" addict. There is no such luxury when the ambulance rolls into the ER.
2007-12-19 20:59:09 · answer #1 · answered by heyteach 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Do you think that you should foot the bill if a smoker gets lung cancer and can't afford to pay for health care? No, I didn't think so. Or what about a alcoholic who needs a liver transplant? We only demonize drug if they are not on the governments list, but everyone is entitled to health care, and it should be universal, regardless, so that this argument can't go on anymore.
2007-12-19 07:45:19 · answer #2 · answered by Akissyha B 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no, simply beacuse they should pay the bills themselves, and the average american, who can't afford bills, even if they have a steady job, are forced to go into debt, and so should the drug addicts.
2007-12-19 06:49:46 · answer #3 · answered by Maureen M 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, I did not tell them to do drugs, why should I pay for a self inflicted health problem.
2007-12-19 06:48:57 · answer #4 · answered by Jan Luv 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Everyone should receive free health care.
2007-12-19 06:51:16 · answer #5 · answered by Citizen1984 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, I think they should remain untreated if they can't afford to pay and allow society to bear the burden of the crimes they commit to feed their habits.
Clarification for the irony-impaired: That was sarcasm.
2007-12-19 06:50:37 · answer #6 · answered by John R 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes, and they need ot after they are better they will need rehab. I wish them success in kicking the habit. Have some compassion You sound hard of heart
2007-12-19 06:49:18 · answer #7 · answered by Nora 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. If they paid huge sums of money to get illegal drugs, they can pay huge sums of money to get cured.
2007-12-19 06:48:10 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I have always thought that drug addicts should get one free chance in cleaning up. After that, if they overdose...oh well.
2007-12-19 06:45:22 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
no
2007-12-19 06:53:45 · answer #10 · answered by happywjc 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋