Subject:
|
Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 24 May 2000 11:58:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
788 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ed Jones writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> It doesn't change a thing. A very simple example - if, according to you and
> LAR,
ED: My name is Lar, not LAR. By spelling it or capitalizing it in a way that I
don't choose, you are trying to use a form of namecalling. You know better.
people should "take (moral/financial) responsibility for things that they
> "choose to do'", if I'm driving down the street and someone runs a red light
> and smashes into my car, under your philosophy, I should take the
> responsibility for the damages because it was a risk of driving I choose to
> take. There was risk involved, the accident was not my fault, but I should
> assume the responsibility for the damages? Not a court in the land would
> agree.
Contrived outcome. The correct outcome is that the person who caused the
problem is responsible, when that can be determined. The person who ran the
red light, in almost every imaginable case, is the causative factor. Should
your suit against that person fail, then and only then would your own
insurance be involved. That in fact is how it worked for years and years, and
how it still does, in non No Fault states. Now, NY is a no fault state, so
that equation has been changed.
Politicians that you presumably elected have said that you in fact (through
the offices of your insurance company) *are* responsible for things that are
NOT your fault... that is, your insurance company pays for your car and your
injuries no matter who was at fault.
Sounds like you're saying you think that's wrong. So do I.
You might want to read up a bit on insurance laws in your own state.
> Yes, but the responsibility for the results of the risk cannot always be the
> responsibility of the risk taker - see my example above.
Which is flawed, but your point is valid. In fact, when responsibility cannot
be established, it is reasonable to expect that someone gets stuck with it.
You prefer a system in which that someone is whoever happens to have the
deepest pockets rather than making any effort to assign responsibility.
> Actually, many medical insurance plans dropped people who had AIDS. They are
> no longer permitted to do so.
If I had a free choice of insurance companies, which I don't, I would NEVER
choose to go with a company that could drop me once I started paying premiums
and kept my policy in force. And in a free market, insurance companies that
did that would not stay in business long. But we have the insurance market YOU
want, highly regulated. Which just proves that regulations don't really help
much.
> Because it would create a moral delimna - should white supremists be
> allowed to deny research funds for Sickle Cell Anemia?
Deny WHOSE funds? Their own? There is nothing wrong with that. For every white
idiot, er, I mean supremacist who chose not to fund that particular research,
there would be a bunch of normal sane people who would.
You completely missed Chris's point. As usual. You're all in favor of personal
choice when it comes to what YOU want to do, but not for anyone else, eh? Or
is it that I can choose lifestyles but not how to spend my money? YOU get to
decide how my money is spent because you give more to political lobbies and
act up on TV for the benefit of the media? What kind of priority scheme is
that?
But that's what you seem to favor. All I'm saying is that if I am forced to
live in a mixed system I would prefer that we do a realistic cost benefit
analysis of research and use that to decide which to fund instead of using
the "loudest activist group gets the most funding" theory.
That's the whole point of this entire thread, everything else is a side issue.
++Lar
++Lar
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
| (...) Oh my gosh! Something that returned close to the original point! :-) This is not unreasonable - put the money were it will do the most good. Lots of times my wife and I decide we want a number of things and there isn't enough money to go (...) (24 years ago, 24-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
| (...) Sorry if you were offended by the all caps Lar, didn't even realize I typed it that way (6:00a.m. pre-coffee). Give me a break, if I was going to name call, I'd do a whole lot better than that. :') (...) So in essence, you are saying that, (...) (24 years ago, 24-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
| (...) engineer of the ME generation. :') (...) Simple, its not a black and white, yes or no, question. (...) It doesn't change a thing. A very simple example - if, according to you and LAR, people should "take (moral/financial) responsibility for (...) (24 years ago, 24-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
228 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
|
|
|
|
