From: klg@statsci.com (Kevin L. Gross)
Subject: Re: Risks and paying for them (was, Re: Mandatory Bicycle Helmets.)
Reply-To: klg@statsci.com (Kevin L. Gross)
Organization: Statistical Sciences, Inc
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 21:38:29 GMT

mnb@voodoo.boeing.com (Mike Burr) writes:

   In article <klg.723757079@statsci> klg@statsci.com (Kevin L. Gross) writes:
   >josh@cqs.washington.edu (Josh Hayes) writes:
   >
   >This is such a red herring it makes me sick. This reasoning sounds real
   >good at the outset, but basically it just takes away the right to
   >choose to live your life the way you want. 
   
   No it doesn't.  The argument states that you can live any way you please...
   just don't expect society to pay for your more expensive and risky lifestyle.

I didn't say freedom "states that you can live any way you please" because
there are always arguments of not yelling, "THEATER" in a crowded
firehouse. The point was that I am talking about MY risk, not immoral
behaviour such as putting others at risk. I'll not live the way the
Insurance Companies dictate just to provide them with higher profit margins.
   
   >Skiing, hang-gliding, parachuting, base-jumping, moto-cross, football,
   >baseball, and many other sports too numerous to mention all *CAN* cause
   >possible long-term damage that has to be paid for by the system. 
   
   So? Perhaps it's time to re-evaluate the situtation.  

Tell that to the folks that enjoy those sports. You share their risky
health benefits as they share yours, that's the way the system works.
   
   >Hell,driving your car safely with a shoulder harness will NOT protect you
   >from head injury if you are hit by another vehicle in a certain way.
   >Should we all stop driving cars because head injury care costs so much?
   
   You're missing the point.  Sure, every activity has risk associated with it.
   No one is saying that society should not bear the cost of some of that risk.
   What's being said is that society should not be expected to pay the cost
   of all the risk that an individual decides to place upon themself. Especially
   if the risk is excessive, or easy to reduce or avoid by the individual.
   
I shouldn't do what I enjoy just because its extra risky? Sorry, but that's
bullshit. I don't want to pay the health costs of those who bring cancer
upon themselves, but I will because that's my responsibility as a citizen,
not to mention the fact that it could be me in that cancer ward and I want
the best treatment possible without being told, "Well, after all it was
your fault that you got cancer, so say goodbye, you're dead."
   
   >If the health care system is supported by taxes, (and it should be) then
   >yes, we all have to pay. So what? When did freedom start getting too
   >expensive? 
   
   You should be asking yourself that question.  You're the one who is
   arguing for personal "freedoms" but not willing to pay for them out
   of your own pocket.
   
I never said I wasn't willing to pay, so your point is moot.

   >Where do you draw the line? Safe behaviour will always be
   >less expensive, does that mean we should all live in bubbles? 
   
   Tough question... lots of grey areas, but lots of black and white areas too.
   IMHO it's not reasonable to expect society to pick up a $50,000 tab because
   someone would not buy a $50 helmet and suffer the inconvience of wearing it.
   
Perhaps the care should not be $50,000. In any case, that is still a red
herring, cause you don't pay the $50,000. The insurance company does. Your
insurance costs will go up far more due to the waste in the system, not to
mention that there are far more cases of cancer than head injuries, but I
don't see the government outlawing cigarettes. (Nor, should they).

   >Should we
   >pay only for AIDS cases that are contracted thru proven blood transfusions
   >and not for irresponsible sexual behaviour? 
   
   I don't think society should have to pay for irresponsible behavior of
   any kind. Let the irresponsible party pay.  Is it really asking too much
   to expect people to accept consequence of their own irresponsible behavior?
   
You think you are living in a perfect world. If a retarded child runs out
into the street against the light and gets run over, we should say,
"Sorry, but that was awfully irresponsible of you, bye, you're dead."?

The red herring is that the status quo puts out the smoke screen to make
it look as though their positions in the government and society are
important. But women and children are still raped and kidnapped and tortured
and murdered and the police are trying to use all their hardware and cash
to stop the growth of a plant. This is exceedingly stupid. The police are
supposed to protect us from OTHERS, not ourselves.

If others hurt, let's heal them. If people want to act irresponsibly,
educate them. If they are not (directly) hurting anyone but themselves,
then don't save them at the point of a policeman's gun.  Perhaps the cost
to society will drop if the police have the time to go after serious
lawbreakers, instead of enforcing silly laws that preclude the fact that
decisions such as these should be made by the individuals like those who
created this country for the expression of Freedom.

-- 
-Kevin L. Gross          klg@statsci.com           Disclaim THIS: 
 This message is protected under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution
 of the United States of America. I'm protected under the 4th, 5th, 9th
 and 14th Amendments among others, or at least I used to be.