From: paynter@bnr.ca (Stuart Paynter)
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Reply-To: paynter@bnr.ca (Stuart Paynter)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 13:39:52 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.175244.24552@netcom.com>, tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec17.131523.25622@bmerh85.bnr.ca> paynter@bnr.ca (Stuart Paynter) writes

deleted stuff.......

|> >
|> >    And where exactly does the money come from to pay all these people?
|> >    Do you know how much a trip to the hospital costs?  I doubt that your
|> >    tax contribution alone over your lifetime would cover a single serious
|> >    trip to the hospital.
|> 
|> Apparently you don't have much idea of the costs of medical care and
|> insurance nor the tax rate I pay. I'll only say that a single years
|> taxes would pay for _many_ accidents.

I would say that you *obviously* do not have a clue what a trip to the
hospital costs.  My girlfriend is a insurance consultant in group benefits.
(read employer-employee group medical benefits here).  She has to deal 
with this every day.  I figure I know exactly how much it costs.  I think
that I also pay tax and insurance.  I have a pretty good idea of how 
much you would pay.

|> 
|> As for insurance costs: your payment isn't suppose to pay for your
|> medical costs. The _group's_ insurance premiums are suppose to cover
|> the medical costs of the group and leave a profit for the issuing company.
|> Your belief that there is any connection between individual injuries and
|> premium costs is inacurate. More so since bicycling related injuries is
|> infinitesimally low when compared to other sources of accidental injury.

Exactly my point.  Thank you.  Your premiums do not even begin to cover
the costs.  Therefore you are affecting EVERY OTHER premium payer when
you draw on that insurance.  When another policy holder makes a claim,
they affect YOU.  That is the only point I have been trying to make.



|> 
|> >    Maybe to those who are involved.  Everything must be taken in context.
|> 
|> You are proposing that it is OK for a group of people to regulate the actions
|> of an individual on statistical grounds despite the fact that the
|> statistics show that it isn't necessary and such regulation interferes
|> with the freedoms and liberties of that individual.

No.  Where exactly did I propose this?  I think that you have read more
into my posts than what the words were saying.  Sometimes things are meant
to be taken a face value.



|> 
|> This is a very simple case of politicians using the relative political
|> weakness of a minority or disorganized group to make political hay.

Welcome to the wonderful world of politics :)



|> 
|> >    Since you so politely asked, I will tell you.  I am not for or against
|> >    legislated helmet laws.  There are direct and indirect effects for 
|> >    every action that we take. 
|> 
|> You will excuse me if I interpret your message as a pretty elaborate
|> appology for those people whose reason for living is the control of 
|> others who might dare to have fun in life.


Again, you are reading more into the posts than intended.  Nowhere have 
I stated or implied this.  The bottom line is that our actions as individuals
will have some affect on other members of our society.  That's it, that's
all.  To say that it will not is incorrect.

Now, the extent to which our actions are controlled is a completely separate
issue which I do not want, nor have been trying, to debate, although it 
seems that you are.