| FAQ/Help |
| Calendar |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
07-14-2008, 11:14 PM
|
#14 | ||
|
|||
|
Senior Member
|
Cherie,
The main ethical issue on which I am focusing is one wherein a person with financial means to pay for insurance is allowed to obtain governmental assistance regardless of need. The question is this: Is it ethical for said person to do such a thing even if it is legal? In my opinion it is not ethical, though it can be legal. Taking what is not needed only removes resources that should be left for those who really need them. Here is what drove me to this topic, and it was not so much how much I have to pay for insurance: I have two very wealthy clients, one of which takes everything available to him from the government, while the other refuses any of these additional dollars and services. They both had a long discussion over this issue when we were all having dinner, and the system "abuser" called me an idiot for not utilizing the governmental services, while the other client told me to do what my heart tells me to do. Sure, I pay over 35K/year for medical costs, and I could reduce them to only a fraction if I took governmental assistance. But my question is this: Is it ethical? I think not. Actually, the 25 of us noted in the original post are in agreement, as we could all legally hide our assets and qualify for every governmental program available. But what would the true cost be? It would impact the resource pool for those in need (the 12 folks I noted in my first post) as well as many others. I could not sleep at night if I did that,..., unless there was an absolute need. One day that may come, for for now it is no the case. I wonder how many would take the assistance even though they are sound financially? -Vic |
||
|
 Reply With Quote
|
|
|
Threaded Mode