I'm sure you've all heard this story in one form or another. We discussed it last night for a while. I found it interesting that die hard Republicans thought this kid should have gone to save the individual who was swimming in a "swim at your own risk" area.
The reason the "company" held that this kid should not have left his area is very simple. If he leaves his area to save this swimmer that's out of his area and someone in his area drowns, there will be a big lawsuit, and the family of the victim would win it. If the guy out of area drowned there may also be a lawsuit, but it would be more difficult to find solid ground for it.
I see a strange self contradiction here. My die hard Republican friends who are opposed to the mandate in health care both took the position that you can't let the man die.
As politely as I could, without mentioning healthcare, I pointed out how this is a moral dilmma. This man chose to swim where there was no lifeguard and it is posted, as I'm led to believe, that it was a swim at your own risk area.
Isn't this the moral dilemma of health care: we are not prepared to let an uninsured person sit there and die.