“It’s still in our best interest as a nation to cover them, bc we already offer universal healthcare through the emergency rooms.”

Do two wrongs make a right? The fact that we do offer universal emergency coverage in no way justifies offering other mandates.

“Don’t we all benefit if they (and others that are currently uninsured) receive more efficient care?”

I would say no, but this article was on the morality of the issue and not the economics of the issue.

“…since many of those with pre-existing conditions also did nothing wrong”

True they did nothing wrong, and their conditions are unfair, but that does not justify punishing the healthy for these conditions. And this just deals with the conditions that are accidents of nature. What of those that are do to poor personal decisions on the part of the inflicted?

Now, if you were to argue they shouldn’t be cared for at all, then it makes financial sense, but that becomes tough for me since many of those with pre-existing conditions also did nothing wrong.

There are (and have been) ways to provide care to people with preexisting conditions without forcing punishment on the innocent. There will always be tragic cases. We do not live in utopia. But let’s consider a system that minimizes the tragic cases, and to the best that is humanly possible, deals with tragic cases (on case by case basis) in a non-coercive way. A blunt/one-size-fits all “fix” destroys incentives for improvement and treats a diverse range of challenges as if they are all the same. I recommend that you read The Voluntary City: Choice, Community, and Civil Society which contains historical examples of solutions to this type of problem.

For a reading list on the economics of health care, I suggest you check this out.

people can rate aps on the iphone and they would rate their legal service aps in the same way that they rate other aps. Things like Amazon and Yelp allow users to rate sellers, restaurants, and products and there is no reason why people wouldnt also rate legal service aps in the same way.

in the long run, the aps that offered the most just legal services would have the highest ratings and would beat out the aps with lower ratings (ie, those who were known to take bribes or favor either the plaintiff or defendant). it is also important to note that in a free market for legal services with competing agencies, both sides to a claim would likely need to agree on which legal agency to patronize–this ensures that both sides would find it in their best interest to use a service with a strong reputation for fairness.