Subject:
|
Re: Trying to understand
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 16 Mar 2000 21:16:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1762 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bill Farkas writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Duane Hess writes:
> > > Seat belts are a little different because they are something that can be • seen
> > > from outside of a vehicle. An officer can come up along side the car and • tell
> > > whether or not you are wearing it without actually searching the car. A gun
> > > can be concealed in a car or home. To determine if the gun has a lock on it
> > > would require that it either be within plain sight, or as the result of a
> > > search.
> >
> > One reason the gov't is so rabid about seatbelts is because a lot of the
> > medical treatment provided to accident victims (often greatly in excess of
> > existing insurance coverage) comes from public funds. Likewise, the argument
> > goes, since a sizable portion of the medical given to shooting victims comes
> > from public funds, the gov't is trying to protect its financial interests at
> > least as much as it's trying to usurp individuals' rights or curtail gun
> > ownership. Again, that's the argument--the reality varies widely, of course.
> > It would be interesting, in hypothetical terms, to see what would happen to
> > this stance if public medical funding were eliminated, so that the gov’t no
> > longer had a financial interest to protect…
>
> That really is the point. The government has no business subsidizing medical
> treatment. Everything the government gets involved in goes thru the roof
> price-wise. That's the same problem with insurance, if the consumer doesn't
> have to pay the actual cost, the prices skyrocket because market forces no
> longer apply.
So those without the means to pay the bills suffer? Not very humanitarian.
> Bill
-Duane
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Trying to understand
|
| (...) That's still not the business of the federal gov't. They are there to provide a framework which protects our liberties - not to dole out compassion. That argument doesn't hold water anyway, anyone can go to the emergency room regardless of (...) (27 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
| (...) That really is the point. The government has no business subsidizing medical treatment. Everything the government gets involved in goes thru the roof price-wise. That's the same problem with insurance, if the consumer doesn't have to pay the (...) (27 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
139 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
