Political Theory

Re: people in need of emergency care

Kelvin Silva — Sat, 04 Aug 2012 06:38:01 GMT

Thats true. You never know some courts might have irrational judges etc.

But in general they do.

Re: people in need of emergency care

Bert — Sat, 04 Aug 2012 05:27:47 GMT

common sense rules in private courts remember that

That's not an objective fact.

Re: people in need of emergency care

vive la insurrection — Sat, 04 Aug 2012 05:12:47 GMT

I'm in ER care. It's not needed. There is such a thing as implied consent. It's a pretty intuitive custom that would arise in a culture that has a category of ER care if you ask me.

Re: people in need of emergency care

Kelvin Silva — Fri, 03 Aug 2012 02:04:54 GMT

Fuck the contract, save a life, deal with money later.

Its like those stupid idiots who sue people who rescue their life. It would never go down in a private court; common sense rules in private courts remember that.

If we degrade down to the level of bureaucrats where we need a contract to save someones life, aren't we holding the risk of liability more precious than saving a person's life? That seems wrong to me.

Re: people in need of emergency care

cab21 — Thu, 02 Aug 2012 21:18:35 GMT

i think the story shows how doners will get together and help people they feel did a good thing. people will be able to weigh situations better and only use services if it makes more sense. fact of the matter right now is that if neither the family of the rescued person nor the lifegard paid, the bill would be passed on to taxpayers or people with insurance rather than being written off. there is a big oppurtunity cost when a ampulance is used when a taxi or friendly driver could have taken them to the hosital if it was even needed.

scenario seems to be is this is not a onduty lifeguard and there was no priar contract with the lifegaurd, the boy, and emergency services.

in this case the rescue person did receive medical care and services

Re: people in need of emergency care

Think Blue — Thu, 02 Aug 2012 16:38:31 GMT

Lady Saiga:

I sort of think that admission to a facility in the first place implies consent for treatment and acceptance of the institution's privacy practices and billing procedures. If the patient was unconscious on admission, the individual who assumed responsibility for them and arranged for the admission would be at fault if they made a bad decision. In that case, the patient could to a reasonable extent expect their caretaker to accept responsibility for consequences like unwanted bills, especially if the patient had specific wishes regarding emergency care that were previously documented and ignored by the caretaker.

I thought this might had been a theoretical situation, so I didn't give it a second thought. Then I came across this link:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/lifeguard-gets-2-600-bill-rescuing-boy-surf-130832240.html

Question: What is the legal scenario in the State of Washington (or within the United States) where a lifeguard can be charged the medical bills for someone he rescued?

In the above link, the lifeguard saved the boy's life and there were no apparent injuries.

By legal scenario, I mean in reality though the U.S. legal system, not a theoretical ancap construct.

Edit: I misread the article. The lifeguard himself had a headache after the rescue, so it seems the lifeguard received medical treatment as well.

Re: people in need of emergency care

Think Blue — Fri, 27 Jul 2012 15:55:42 GMT

This is somewhat related:

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/rock-center/48347105

Re: people in need of emergency care

Lady Saiga — Fri, 27 Jul 2012 13:45:44 GMT

Signed consent is pretty difficult to obtain in emergency situations on a regular basis. In terms of the current system, signature is obtained to verify that the patient authorizes the provider to be compensated through private billing, or by their insurance or equivalent government program such as Medicare or Medicaid. It also verifies that the patient has been informed of the provider's privacy practices. In terms of authorizing the medical care, the ordering physician's signature is considered the important one. The patient's signature on intake documents would not preclude their being able to sue for having received treatment they did not want.

I sort of think that admission to a facility in the first place implies consent for treatment and acceptance of the institution's privacy practices and billing procedures. If the patient was unconscious on admission, the individual who assumed responsibility for them and arranged for the admission would be at fault if they made a bad decision. In that case, the patient could to a reasonable extent expect their caretaker to accept responsibility for consequences like unwanted bills, especially if the patient had specific wishes regarding emergency care that were previously documented and ignored by the caretaker.

Businesses like hospitals routinely write off bills just like other types of businesses, as a PR effort as well as in cooperation with various charitable organizations. There's no reason to think a hospital in a libertarian society would not evaluate accounts for the same reasons.

Re: people in need of emergency care

Phi est aureum — Fri, 27 Jul 2012 10:37:53 GMT

Well, absolutely! Most would want to live in a community where people voluntarily give charity to an organization that will then pay out to those that provide service to those in dire need/emergencies. In fact, it is very likely that that would happen in a free society. Churches used to take care of these situations before government mandates and high taxes. Possibly churches and other charitable organizations were better funded because people had more money (due to less taxes). It's easy to see that the higher the taxes are, the less extra money people will have to give charitably. So it's highly likely that there would be communities that had a working system like you describe, one based upon voluntarily giving (charity) and not forced theft (taxation).

Re: people in need of emergency care

Aristophanes — Fri, 27 Jul 2012 08:40:27 GMT

One of the reasons why signed consent is needed is to prevent lawsuits from "unofficial" medical care. If you don't get a signature and your treatment goes awry then the person might try to sue you.

Re: people in need of emergency care

cab21 — Fri, 27 Jul 2012 08:33:20 GMT

ok, if this is about compensation and the money involved and obligations. looks like some see it as a good act paid for by bad acts.

i think communities can get together and volunteer to pay for a service and then make deals with each other on how to handle situations. if there is a outsider that needs help, they can save the outsider and perhaps the outsider would like to donate or be grateful for the work done to save his life, but it does not put a obligation to pay on him or the rest of the community, as all funds will be put in voluntarily through trade or donation.

allowing a system of voluntary purchase of service or voluntary donation is a solution that avoids the cognitive dissonance i have over a system that would do good by saving lives, yet also does bad by forcing a system of payment or compensation on people. i want people to treat each other because they see it as a value to help others, and that means no obligations towards adults.

i would want to live in community that takes care of each other and works together to help each other in emergency situations and values that enough to give money to those to train and enable people to save each others lives. that's part of society running to have a willingness to create reciprocal win win relationships with people that includes contributing to each others help out of a desire and pleasure to do so. having virtue and good will run a society creates a healthier society than having people provide what they don't want to provide and provide it inspire and feel violated that they had to provide . we can only give by giving, not by taking.

Re: people in need of emergency care

Phi est aureum — Fri, 27 Jul 2012 02:29:04 GMT

do you think they need to get a signed form of consent before giving this person care?

Only if they EXPECT compensation.

how much of a difference does it make if the person helping is a private person or a government official?

Quite possibly, a lot. A private person who does this without a contractual obligation by the patient to pay can likely expect that there will be no means to get compensation through legal force. A government official may acquire compensation through force by means of taxes. Thus, the government might force the burden of payment upon people that did not receive the medical attention.

is it more wrong if a government official saves someone's life?

The saving of a life isn't morally wrong. The legal theft (taxation) from people not involved to pay the provider of care is morally wrong (theft is never moral, IMO).

if we just had private business, and one saved a persons life without having a contract first, would that be wrong?

No, because without a contract, there is no requirement for the patient to pay (just like there is no requirement for a private person to provide services, free or otherwise, without a contractual obligation). This would be called charity.

Re: people in need of emergency care

nirgrahamUK — Fri, 27 Jul 2012 01:58:55 GMT

what do you think? and why do you think it? and what are the possible downsides to your proposals?

people in need of emergency care

cab21 — Fri, 27 Jul 2012 01:52:56 GMT

so if a person finds a person in need of emergency care, such as just suffered a heart attack, gone unconscious, bleeding, or drowning, do you think they need to get a signed form of consent before giving this person care? how much of a difference does it make if the person helping is a private person or a government official? is it more wrong if a government official saves someone's life? if we just had private business, and one saved a persons life without having a contract first, would that be wrong?