From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:35:13 GMT

In article <1gnoukINN6th@transfer.stratus.com> jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes:

>In article <1992Dec16.164049.2990@mmm.serc.3m.com> ccg@tcdsp1.mmm.com  
>("Charles Ganzhorn") writes:
>> In article <1992Dec16.135700.1991@bmerh85.bnr.ca>, paynter@bnr.ca  
>(Stuart Paynter) writes:
>>> |> I go....  Yes it is your skull.  By you cracking your skull  
>open, you 
>> |> affect (possibly)
>> |> 
>> |>      - any people that may present when the accident occured
>> 
>> The only effect is they see something unpleasant.  Sorry folks, but  
>I don't
>> change my behaviour just to coddle your sensibilities.
>
>First of all, why not?  

       Because it's a little silly to demand everyone modify their behavior
in order to reduce and/or eliminate the possibilty they will offend 
somebody.  That'd be like requiring everybody to wear indesctructible 
clothes just to make sure if something happened their clothes wouldn't be 
torn off and "flash" somebody.

>In most situations, we all make tradeoffs,
>and we all (or almost all) make some changes in behavior based
>on what those around us think.

      Very true, and I'd be the first to suggest people wear helmets in 
order to prevent somebody from being sickened by the sight of their brain 
bobbing down the sidewalk.  But modifying your own behavior based on what 
those around us think is a tad different than having our behavior modified 
by somebody else based on the unlikely possibility they will get into an 
accident on their bicycle, fall off, and injure their head severly enough to 
bother people around them.

>This is a cost/benefit analysis
>sort of decision: how much are others affected vs. how much
>the changed behavior means to me. 

       I think we've slid from "harm" into "affect."  You can't avoid 
affecting people simply by existing.  Harm is another thing entirely.

>But, for example, I don't
>belch loudly after a meal with friends since this gives me
>very little benefit while annoying those around me.

       Then, of course, you won't mind being required to wear a device which 
would regulate your volume?  Knew you wouldn't.

>Secondly, most accidents have more profound effects on those
>present when the accident occurs.  Have you never been in a long
>traffic jam, caused by someone who has had an accident?  

       What does this have to do with wearing a helmet?  Is the amount of 
time an accident causes a problem directly dependent on whether the person 
involved is wearing a helmet?

>> |>      - ambulance/paramedics/fire/police who have to come and  
>patch
>> |>        you up
>> |>      - hospital emergency staff
>> |>      - hospital staff (doctors, nurses, orderlies, kitchen staff
>> |>        etc etc) while you recover.
>> 
>> I pay for all that stuff so I'm just being a good consumer.  It's  
>their job to
>> patch silly fools like me up.
>
>No, we all pay for them.  

       I'm still waiting for your contribution to my last doctor bill.

>Why should folks who behave responsibly
>and therefore rarely get into accidents have to pay the same 
>amount as the silly fools (to use your words) who behave 
>irresponsibly and get into accidents.

       "We" choose volunatarily to pay for idiots.  It's part of being nice 
guys.  "We" could, if "we" wanted to, leave the idiots in an alley to die.  
But "we" have decide that that isn't nice.  So "we" pay to have idiots 
without money have their brains shoveled back into their skulls.
       Because "we" have chosen to shoulder this burden, doesn't give "us" 
the right to issue dictates based upon reducing "our" costs.  

>> |>      - your (and/or your employers) medical insurance
>> |>      - every other person on that medical insurance plan
>> 
>> So do the hypocondriacs, and people with cronic conditions.  Again,  
>I have
>> these services because I NEED them.  Perhaps I'll use more than I  
>might have
>> but that's what they are there for.
>
>Fine. The solution to this part of it then is to make you pay more
>for you insurance so the rest of us don't have to pay for you.
>Many insurance companies now charge less to those who don't smoke,
>since it costs them less to service these folks. Why not do the
>same with helmets and seat belts:  charge those who wear them
>less than those who don't.

       It's kind of a tough thing to check prior to an accident occuring.
If the insurance companies aren't doing it, then they've determined there's 
no way to make money at it.  Probably everybody would just say "Yes, I wear 
my seatbelt."

>If someone claims to wear them,
>but gets into an accident not wearing them (helmet or seat belt),
>than the insurance company only pays X% instead of Y%, and the
>"fool" has to pay for the rest him/herself.

       Unfortunately, you run into "our" nice guy syndrome.  (Actually, 
there person would probably then show up as not having insuranc, and people 
would cry and moan about the lack of affordable health care for this poor,
tragic individual.)  It would work if, and only if, you were prepared to 
look at the idiot involved, say, "We're sorry, but it says here you're an 
idiot so your insurance is not going to pay.  Sorry you're incapacitated for 
life."

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
                         Information Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (Mail to VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu will bounce.)