Equality?

[steelish]

If someone chooses to not buy insurance kills someone, is at fault and loses a massive lawsuit, can they be forced to sell their home that they own free and clear to pay damages?

Not in Florida.

[SadisticNature]

Not in Florida.

It seems strange to me that one can choose to not buy insurance, cause damages and then not have one's assets seized to play those damages, particular if the other person is denied quality care because they can't afford to pay medical bills due to that settlement not being made.

To me it seems here the law is unfairly protecting someone's home from being forfeit as the consequence of their actions.

[Thorne]

It seems strange to me that one can choose to not buy insurance, cause damages and then not have one's assets seized to play those damages, particular if the other person is denied quality care because they can't afford to pay medical bills due to that settlement not being made.

To me it seems here the law is unfairly protecting someone's home from being forfeit as the consequence of their actions.

It seems that way, but homes generally contain families, not just individuals. Do you throw a man's family out of the home for his mistake? The wife didn't do anything wrong. Why punish her as well?

[SadisticNature]

It seems that way, but homes generally contain families, not just individuals. Do you throw a man's family out of the home for his mistake? The wife didn't do anything wrong. Why punish her as well?

Because marriage is a financial contract. It doesn't seem reasonable to use the argument that you can't punish people financially because innocents are involved in the consequences, as that fails in other venues. If a company is involved in an environmental violation most of the stock holders are oblivious but we fine the company, not the executives.

I just find its complicated that someone can be denied a treatment they need because they can't afford to pay for it even though they are owed the money to cover it, because someone was legally allowed to operate a motor vehicle without insurance and did so in a manner causing serious harm.

[DuncanONeil]

Because marriage is a financial contract. It doesn't seem reasonable to use the argument that you can't punish people financially because innocents are involved in the consequences, as that fails in other venues. If a company is involved in an environmental violation most of the stock holders are oblivious but we fine the company, not the executives.

I just find its complicated that someone can be denied a treatment they need because they can't afford to pay for it even though they are owed the money to cover it, because someone was legally allowed to operate a motor vehicle without insurance and did so in a manner causing serious harm.

Hospitals have three obligations under EMTALA:

1. Individuals requesting emergency care, or those for whom a representative has made a request if the patient is unable, must receive a medical screening examination to determine whether an emergency medical condition (EMC) exists. Examination and treatment cannot be delayed to inquire about methods of payment or insurance coverage, or a patient's citizenship or legal status. The hospital may only start the process of payment inquiry and billing once the patient has been stabilized to a degree that the process will not interfere with or otherwise compromise patient care.
2. The emergency room (or other better equipped units within the hospital) must treat an individual with an EMC until the condition is resolved or stabilized and the patient is able to provide self-care following discharge, or if unable, can receive needed continual care. Inpatient care provided must be at an equal level for all patients, regardless of ability to pay. Hospitals may not discharge a patient prior to stabilization if the patient's insurance is canceled or otherwise discontinues payment during course of stay.
3. If the hospital does not have the capability to treat the condition, the hospital must make an "appropriate" transfer of the patient to another hospital with such capability. This includes a long-term care or rehabilitation facilities for patients unable to provide self-care. Hospitals with specialized capabilities must accept such transfers and may not discharge a patient until the condition is resolved and the patient is able to provide self-care or is transferred to another facility.

[SadisticNature]

Hospitals have three obligations under EMTALA:

1. Individuals requesting emergency care, or those for whom a representative has made a request if the patient is unable, must receive a medical screening examination to determine whether an emergency medical condition (EMC) exists. Examination and treatment cannot be delayed to inquire about methods of payment or insurance coverage, or a patient's citizenship or legal status. The hospital may only start the process of payment inquiry and billing once the patient has been stabilized to a degree that the process will not interfere with or otherwise compromise patient care.
2. The emergency room (or other better equipped units within the hospital) must treat an individual with an EMC until the condition is resolved or stabilized and the patient is able to provide self-care following discharge, or if unable, can receive needed continual care. Inpatient care provided must be at an equal level for all patients, regardless of ability to pay. Hospitals may not discharge a patient prior to stabilization if the patient's insurance is canceled or otherwise discontinues payment during course of stay.
3. If the hospital does not have the capability to treat the condition, the hospital must make an "appropriate" transfer of the patient to another hospital with such capability. This includes a long-term care or rehabilitation facilities for patients unable to provide self-care. Hospitals with specialized capabilities must accept such transfers and may not discharge a patient until the condition is resolved and the patient is able to provide self-care or is transferred to another facility.

I've covered several times why Emergency Care doesn't meet the standard of care, and you have responded to it in the past.

Here we go again.

Emergency care just covers life-threatening care. It doesn't cover what most of us would want. If I have a choice between an expensive surgery to save a limb or a less expensive amputation as a result of you hitting me, should I be forced into an amputation because you don't have the ability to pay damages, even if you have protective assets that would cover those costs?

[DuncanONeil]

That will likely be no choice in the future if this stands!
You will receive the amputation, no choice!

I've covered several times why Emergency Care doesn't meet the standard of care, and you have responded to it in the past.

Here we go again.

Emergency care just covers life-threatening care. It doesn't cover what most of us would want. If I have a choice between an expensive surgery to save a limb or a less expensive amputation as a result of you hitting me, should I be forced into an amputation because you don't have the ability to pay damages, even if you have protective assets that would cover those costs?

[DuncanONeil]

In the case of one of my accidents we had the plate and description of the car. Police located the car and the owner. Owner said he was not driving.
That was all it took for the cost to be on my insurance. Too many of those and my cost goes up!

It seems strange to me that one can choose to not buy insurance, cause damages and then not have one's assets seized to play those damages, particular if the other person is denied quality care because they can't afford to pay medical bills due to that settlement not being made.

To me it seems here the law is unfairly protecting someone's home from being forfeit as the consequence of their actions.

[steelish]

It seems strange to me that one can choose to not buy insurance, cause damages and then not have one's assets seized to play those damages, particular if the other person is denied quality care because they can't afford to pay medical bills due to that settlement not being made.

To me it seems here the law is unfairly protecting someone's home from being forfeit as the consequence of their actions.

You're also not understanding the beauty of the United States. If you choose to live in Florida which is a "No Fault" state and feel as you do; that a person should pay restitution if they don't have car insurance - then you can simply pack up and move to a state that is NOT a no fault state. There are plenty of them.