My bad. What if he had no insurance.
Also, what are his obligations to the man, period. Does he OWE him this? If so, why, rather than somebody else. We are commanded to charity, but there may be other worthy causes?
I’m not disagreeing that as Christians we would please God to donate the money, or even loan it on the security of the insurance. I’m just saying most of the world is either not Christian or only nominally so, and that while we are here, we are to be in it, but not of it.
Quoting myself from the post 37 to which you are responding:
If the lender takes risks, -- which is not the example on hand, but surely a possibility, -- perhaps he should not lend the money at all, or lend it and suffer the risk. But he may not ask interest of a man who will not be able to work and increase the wealth. That would be usury.
what are his obligations to the man, period
The lender, like all of us is called to voluntary charity but beyond that he has no obligation whatsoever to the sick man in the example.
most of the world is either not Christian or only nominally so
Indeed, but this does not make usury right, or any other vice: adultery, drunkenness, etc. A good public policy would discourage all of these.