So, you are saying you would let another person die for $3,000? And yet, if I understand your sentiment correctly, you think I am heartless and cruel.
When somebody is needs help, help them. That is the right thing to do.
When the bill comes, pay it.
I didn't say anything about walking by without helping.
From previous posts, it appears that Kitten Festival would advocate that either the state or the medical bill fairy should pay for any medical bills that ensue as a result of attempting to render aid. We can call the authorizing legislation the “Good Samaritan Medical Bill Fairy Act”
No, that’s not what I am saying at all.
No one should be stuck with a $3000 bill for attempting to render help. The situation as it stands is that someone should be stuck with that bill. I am against that. If we allow the situation as it is to remain in place, everyone will have a human incentive to walk away from the distressed without rendering aid. Who would want to face financial ruin just to help one’s fellow man? When the alternative would be to not face financial ruin? Yes, the state should pay for cases like this woman’s, to get rid of the incentives built in to make people walk away. I am not in favor of welfare in 99.99% of cases, but in this case, yes, I think the state should pick up the tab. No one should be fearful of financial ruin for attempting to help someone in good faith, just as no doctor or other good samaritan should fear a lawsuit for attempting to heroically save someone in distress. It should always be less costly to try to help someone. Raising the cost of helping someone always ensures that there will be a lot less of it. Human nature.