While I swore off political and religious discussions, watching the Republican debate tonight left me wondering about something. The question about what to do with the 30 year old previously healthy person who has no health insurance and gets a catastrophic illness. Michelle Bachmann's response was "Hurrrk.... Obamacare...bad...hurrrkkk..." but Ron Paul said that it should be about choice, and if you choose to not buy health insurance, and you cannot pay for it when you need it, then you should have service denied. Fair enough. You don't plan ahead, you don't pay the price, you don't enjoy the benefits. But my question is, "So what do you do when that person calls 911?" This is a particularly valid question in that when the uninsured and underinsured stop getting healthcare, it falls on EMS to treat them. Now I fully believe health care in the States is in crisis, and I do agree that a government mandate to purchase a product is unconstitutional, though not without precedent, but the thing is, in a system that denies treatment and care to a population, the roles of primary care shifts to emergency medical services, and I can tell you that paramedics providing primary care is a heck a lot more expensive than providing primary care in just about any other capacity. Add to that the cost of treating a disease before it reaches the catastrophic level where EMS is actually needed, and you're really setting up a recipe for financial disaster. So my question is, if the Tea Party plans on denying service to the uninsured, do they also plan on cutting reimbursements to EMS services? No more Medicare or Medicaid checks to those nice people in billing? I mean, my suggestion is, they'd better, or government floated healthcare costs are going to go through the roof. If they do cut Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement, how would that sit with their supporters with names like AMR, Rural/Metro, Transcare, and the IAFF? This is really just a thought experiment. No ethical discussions. I am just talking dollars and cents.