Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 07:47:46 -0700
Reply-To: Tom Young <tomyoung1@COMCAST.NET>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Tom Young <tomyoung1@COMCAST.NET>
Subject: Re: Am stuck in a wheel chair :
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: "Timothy Lee Harrison" <tim@harrisonland.co.uk>
To: "Tom Young" <tomyoung1@COMCAST.NET>; <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 1:51 AM
Subject: Re: Am stuck in a wheel chair :
> On Thursday 25 Sep 2003 05:10, Tom Young wrote:
>
> > Just an example of how any for
> > of Socialism inevitably results in a reduction of personal freedom; for
> > the "greater good" personal liberties are curtailed.
>
> Sorry, but i simply don't buy this "personal liberties" argument. Along
> with personal liberties and freedoms come personal responsibilities. If
> you want the full personal liberty to wear or not wear a safety belt
> (Vanagon content, please note) you should have it. Just also accept the
> personal responsibily for your medical bill when you have an accident.
The above paragraph has an opening sentence followed by an argument that's
a non-sequiter to the opening sentence. I'll re-read the paragraph without
the opening sentence:
"Along with personal liberties and freedoms come personal responsibilities."
I agree 100%!
"If you want the full personal liberty to wear or not wear a safety belt
you should have it."
I agree 100%!
"Just also accept the personal responsibily for your medical bill when you
have an accident."
I agree 100!
We have absolutely no disagreement.
> The fact is that most people would struggle to foot a bill running into
> hundreds of thousands, so they really don't have a choice. The "personal
> liberty" argument is void for that reason only.
So, since a case of cancer or a heart attack could also result in a medical
bill running into the hundreds of thousands of dollars the Government
should:
1) Make smoking illegal
2) Require you to eat 5 servings of fruit and vegetables a day, under
penalty of fine or arrest
3) Fine or arrest anyone who is overweight according to Government
statistical tables
4) Require you to participate in compulsory exercise classes where you
elevate your heart rate to 80% of your heart rate maximum for at least 30
minutes a day
and so on.
> If "Socialism", as you put
> it, will foot the bill for you, it's not unreasonable to allow "Socialism"
> to set out a few ground rules.
I think you're just saying, in another way, what I said before: "Just an
example of how any form of Socialism inevitably results in a reduction of
personal freedom." And the sad thing is, although I carry full medical
insurance ("Along with personal liberties and freedoms come personal
responsibilities.") and would be covered for accidents I might have ("Just
also accept the personal responsibily for your medical bill when you have
an accident.") I'll be fined if I'm found to be driving without a seatbelt
("If you want the full personal liberty to wear or not wear a safety belt
you should have it.")!!!
> I'm sure you wouldn't have any problems
> accepting medical treatment that you couldn't pay for yourself, so why do
> you have such an issue with the conditions attached?
See how beguiling "free" stuff from the Government is? That's why it's so
corrosive to personal liberties and freedoms.
When the country was born the Founding Fathers debated the relationship of
Government to Individuals in terms of personal liberties and
responsibilities. Now, most debate concerns "stuff" people should expect
from the Government -"entitlements" (what a wonderful word! "I'm
entitled!!!") - like food stamps, housing, medical care, welfare checks, and
so forth. Of course, if you're accepting stuff from the Government then
there can be some "conditions attached."
>
> > As for private
> > insurers, the issue should be fairly trivial; victims who aren't wearing
> > seatbelts or helmets would receive greatly reduced post-accident
> > benefits. Only...... that's not possible because of the high degree of
> > regulation (disguised as "consumer protection") that exists.
>
> No... Just load the insurance premium for those who choose not to wear a
> safety belt or crash helmet (respectively). Attach conditions to the
> discounted insurance that make the expense recoverable, from you or your
> legacy, if you're not wearing your safety gear. Allow those who wish the
> freedom to choose, but allow them to pay for their choice as well.
Yes, there's many ways to skin that cat. I suggested one way - figuring
many people would lie and say they *always* wore safety equipment - and you
suggested another. (You must be more trusting.) But we agree that "Allow
those who wish the freedom to choose, but allow them to pay for their
choice as well." Only.... we're not allowed that choice.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Young '81 Vanagon
Lafayette, CA 94549 '82 Westfalia
---------------------------------------------------------------