Mainly because it’s a lie. But also because you are exploiting a program designed to help those without coverage. If you think it’s better to pay the no insurance rate, then cancel your insurance.
Whether they are soaking the insurance company or not isn’t relevent.
I voted that it’s not wrong.
This is a negotiation. They’re literally asking “do you have insurance”, but they’re actually asking “how much can you afford to pay.” The fact that employer-subsidized insurance distorts markets makes this particular exchange more confusing, but that’s all it is.
If I go buy a used car and tell the salesman “I’m sorry, I can’t afford that.”, is that immoral if in fact I can afford it, but I think I can get a better deal?
If you are factually lying in a negotiation, then yes it is immoral.
Now, but afford could mean a lot of things.
I could “afford” to buy stuff in the strictest sense of the word, things that are so expensive they would essentially ruin me financially if I were to buy them–but I could technically afford them meaning I have the funds. But not everyone means afford that way, some people mean “I can’t afford that much because it would make me live outside my means.”
Pretty sure this IS illegal. The definition of fraud is intentional misrepresentation for financial gain. You’re lying, intentionally, for financial gain. Textbook fraud crime.
Though it’s probably not likely that you’ll be prosecuted as the other parties involved don’t perceive any harm.
I was talking with my staff about this thread this morning and they reminded me of an incident with one of our patients. Mr Doe apparently had a large deductible so he elected to state he had no insurance to take advantage of the self pay discount. After months of conservative treatment, he wasn’t getting better and was offered surgery. When he found out the cost, he suddenly remembered that he DID have insurance and whipped out his card so the scheduler could get authorization. His surgeon was so annoyed that he had been deceiving him and using the few self pay slots that could have gone to more needy patients, he refused to perform the elective surgery and told him to go elsewhere. Mr. Doe was pissed, threatened to sue, etc. The surgeon explained the doctor-patient relationship is important to his recovery and that had been compromised. He took his records and was on his way.
There’s no answer to this because the whole health care game is so wrong in itself. Now two wrongs don’t make a right, but people are locked in this system, and have some right to do whatever is necessary to get the health care they need. But if just done to save money that the patient can actually afford to pay it’s dishonest, and wrong.
So you’re saying two wrongs don’t make a right but sometimes two wrongs cancel each other out.
How would you define “afford”
Suppose I could afford the treatment, but it meant that for Christmas, my kids would have to go without any presents, no tree and no special dinner.
Would you say, “Sorry kids, Mary’s braces mean no extras, maybe try next year.”
Now you get into the concept of what is “affordable,” what is needed, and what is luxury?
My parents couldn’t afford my braces, even with insurance. So I didn’t get them until I had a job to pay for them myself. I very much understand the concept of affordable but stand by my earlier answers.
That’s why I said there’s no answer to this. It’s not a matter of wrongs cancelling each other, sometimes we get stuck choosing the lesser of two evils. If you can’t afford the rent, and you can save some money by working an unfair health care system, I’d say cheat the healthcare system before your family has to live on the streets.
I.E. it is not immoral for a hungry man to steal food, provided hungry means he hasn’t eaten for a couple of days, not for a couple of hours.
You’re lying. Is that morally wrong?
Lies are only immoral if the person being lied to is morally entitled to hear the truth. In this crazy health care system which is immoral in itself, it is difficult to tell who is morally entitled to hear the truth.