zlacker

>>NaOH+(OP)
Viewed from 10,000ft it could even be cheaper in the long term, as an overall outcome. Personal attention, guidance through the system, vs constant background EMT interventions, more costly health outcomes, Policing and ultimately incarceration risks.

I don't like reductive economics logic over what is a humane response, but I do like that it may not only be nicer, but actually financially sensible.

>>ggm+Z8
If they could get the guy with asthma regularly seeing a PCP, the money the public is spending on his constant ER trips would more than pay for housing and the time the ranger has to spend on helping him.

>>sarche+1a
If

(Also note that if that's your general policy then you effectively allow anyone to blackmail you to get whatever they want, just by making it slightly more expensive to not give them what they want)

>>lmm+Vc
Do you have a moral objection to a homeless man with asthma getting a primary care provider paid for by the government?

>>freeon+Ly
I have a moral objection to the government providing more support to a socially disruptive person than they give to someone who is more prosocial. I'm all for a government-provided healthcare that's free for everyone, but prioritising person A because they're more disruptive than person B is morally bankrupt.

>>lmm+PB
It's not about morality, it's about incentives. Under the current system in the US, if you're broke and you have no insurance:

1. The ER is free to you, because they legally cannot refuse to treat you based on your ability to pay.

2. A regular doctor's visit costs $250 and your medicine costs $5-$500/month depending on what you need, because those businesses won't give you things they don't think you'll pay for.

One need not be morally bankrupt to make choice #1. We all choose things that are more expensive for society because they are more convenient or less expensive for us - lots of regular activities of what patio11 calls the professional/managerial class have negative externalities that the rest of society pays for: air travel, personal automobiles, and lawns all come immediately to mind.

If you want people to get their medical care from a PCP and their medicine from the pharmacy, then make it cheaper for them. Health insurance companies know this; that's why many plans lets you see your PCP for a small fixed price even before your deductible is met - because they want to incentivise you to get your care in the way that's cheapest for them.

>>repire+II
> One need not be morally bankrupt to make choice #1

I'm talking about the people making the decisions about who gets free doctor's visits, not the people on the receiving end.

> We all choose things that are more expensive for society because they are more convenient or less expensive for us - lots of regular activities of what patio11 calls the professional/managerial class have negative externalities that the rest of society pays for: air travel, personal automobiles, and lawns all come immediately to mind.

That doesn't make it ok. Most people have at least some semblance of conscience and try to cut down on those things - of course no-one is perfect, but that doesn't mean we should allow whataboutism to get in the way of good policymaking. (FWIW I'm all for taxing those things at a fair rate that covers the costs of those externalities)

> If you want people to get their medical care from a PCP and their medicine from the pharmacy, then make it cheaper for them.

Sure. But make it cheaper for all of them. I agree that "it's about incentives" - so don't make it so that the incentive is to do the antisocial thing until the system pays you to stop. It should be easy to extrapolate where that leads.