You're dodging DDM's question. It wasn't a very hypothetical 'do not have to', it was 'would be made'.
No, I did not. I used the example of a motorcyclist with a helmet instead of a car driver with a seat belt, but my example addressed it pretty directly. I think I see the point of confusion, though, looking at the rest of the post. It's also summed up in this question from another's post:
Richard,
I can only assume you're speaking in the abstract here, because yes, we do have to take care of this individual. EMTALA and medical ethics require it. If he carries private or government insurance then insurance picks up the tab, and the actuaries punch their keyboards and calculate our premiums. If he's uninsured the American taxpayer picks it up, at least indirectly.
Yes, I was speaking in the abstract. My point is that we as a society do not have to 'pick up the tab' if we choose not to. Current laws, such as EMTALA regulations, and professional medical ethics, reflect that U.S. society has chosen to pick up the tab.
That can change. Probably won't, but let's be clear it is a matter of choice. Yes, even if society stopped picking up the tab, in emergencies there's the benefit of the doubt concept where someone would be taken to the hospital and treated and, even if later 'cut loose for contributory negligence,' would run up a bill. But somehow I doubt that's a major driver running up our health insurance & tax costs.
But the reality is they ARE subsidized quite often. Your assertion that they are not... doesn't fly.
Are, but don't necessarily have to be. Some of what is presently done, doesn't have to be. There is choice involved. An insurance company can, if so inclined, stratify people by risk. The youngest drivers often pay higher car insurance rates. That sort of thing. You can break it down to smoking status, BMI, quite a number of things and adjust premiums accordingly. This isn't always done. Of course, the very nature of health insurance is that the healthy subsidize the sick...
Additionally, you don't seem to realize/accept the fact that a "society" - by definition - makes decisions that over-rule personal liberty all the time in cases where a societally recognized "common good" outweighs any specific individual's right to engage in certain behaviors.
- There are laws that limit the rights of individual restaurant workers by making them wash their hands after going to the restroom.
- There are laws that limit individual smoker's right to smoke in certain places.
- There are laws that limit an individual's right to drive with a BAC over a certain level.
I do realize/accept such. But I believe there are substantial limits to the extent by which a society can legitimately impose on those liberties. Let's take some of your examples.
1.) Restaurant workers are to wash their hands after restroom use to prevent infecting customers with diseases such as Hepatitis A and Norovirus, I suspect. There is no law forcing customers to wash their hands before feeding themselves, at restaurants or in their own homes.
2.) But smokers can smoke in their own homes, and some public places, where they do not substantially endanger others.
3.) Yes. The likelihood of causing serious bodily harm to others via drunk driving is an issue. I believe considerable thought goes into what level people are allowed to drive at, considering projected likelihood of causing problems.
In choosing to be a member of our society, we have agreed to allow such laws to be put in place (remember, we're a democracy so you've agreed to be bound by laws that you don't necessarily agree with specifically) in situations where the health and welfare of others could be impacted by the individual's behavior.
Someone once said democracy is a sheep and 2 wolves voting on what to have for dinner and liberty a well-armed sheep contesting the vote. There are limits on the legitimate moral authority of government to impinge individual liberty. I did not assert that it could never legitimately impinge liberty.
Yes, society (we) considers acceptable behavior to be... acceptable.
With your circular logic you've tacitly acknowledged that it is acceptable for society to decide what is deemed acceptable and what is deemed unacceptable.
That piece of my post makes sense when seen as a rebuttal to someone's assertion in an earlier post.
It is acceptable for society to decide that which is acceptable and unacceptable, within some limits.
Where all this gets back to diving in a round-about way is, people filling out paperwork to take courses or go on charter op.s have the option to lie & not disclose medical history that would lead many to deny them services. It is the contention of some in this thread that they should not do this, and that doing so is 'wrong.' I'm not saying people should do this. I've pointed out that they can, there are reasons why some do, and there are rational reasons many people may disagree with the de facto policy of the 'establishment,' if you will.
At the end of the day, the decision rests in the hands of the potential customer, I suppose.
Richard.
