Category: Let's talk
Should today's government be responsible for the serious mistakes made by yesterday's government? By serious mistakes, I mean drugs and chemicals that were used that ended up causing death, and people who were put to death who shouldn't have been. Or those errors that caused masses of people serious financial hardship. You know, all the mistakes that really did turn out to be the government's fault.
yes, if the government fucked up, the next govt needs to sort it out, take our labour party in the UK for instance, we can't turn back time, if we could, we'd never have elected teh wasters to power.
as much as I hate that they're having to pick up the broken pieces, I do think it's absolutely necessary.
heh. I dono how they do in other countries. since I haven't moved out of india so far. but as per India, the bloody politicians will beg the people for vote only during the election time. most of them will never care of anything after gettin elected.
so the thing we get before the election is given by the politicians cannot get it back for another five years or so. until they happen to meet the people for voting.
as blind people are minority everywhere in world, and also in India, they don't care much at all.
we have no SSI here. unless if you get an employment opportunity by luck, you're safe. if not, you may have to do some business for survival here.
there are many many graduates, even blind persons who they have completed their PHD are still selling things in railway stations for their daily bred here in india.
I've also heard, this is the situation in singapur as well.
I hate most the Indian politicians.
Raaj.
As for people being put to death that shouldn't have been, the government can apologize and everything, but I think for the families and those close to the person, nomatter what is said, they will always be empty words. You can't bring the dead person back after all, so you better hope that the family and loved ones has already accepted that the person is in a better place. I also think giving money is stupid, money doesn't solve a damn thing, it just makes the family's pockets a little fatter, but again won't take the place of the person who died. personally I would be insulted if the government gave me money for a reason like that because i would feel they were trying to compensate for a loss that is completely irrelevant to monetary value.
The real reason for financial compensation doesn't have to do with bringing back the dead, but all the time and money you spent trying to help this innocent person. In many cases financial compensation for victims does in fact make sense: it's payback for some of the damages incurred. It is not a statement by said government or entity that the victim was worth x dollars. Instead, it's a reimbursement for costs incurred.
That is in fact what medical and industrial settlements are for. A hospital made a very bad mistake with one of my relatives, and was forced to settle. Not as punishment if you will, but because he's never going to be able to earn his own living, he's always going to need extra help, and on and on. People who fly off the handle on this stuff often have little understanding of the costs incurred by the victim, be it person or entity.
Personally, I think the government should be generally, not individually responsible for its government related mistakes. Candidates should be fully aware of all of these responsibilities before taking them on. That way, everyone knows what they're getting into.
I hear what you're saying, but do you agree that it's necessary to pick up the pieces so that an even bigger fuck up won't happen?
How does one be generally responsible, in any meaningful way?
I mean that the people of today's government appologize on the government's behalf, not their own, individually. I don't agree, for a second, that any individual person should have to take responsibility for what he/she was not directly involved in, but unfortunately, if you're going to get involved in the government, you and the rest of the current government may have to fix some things that have happened in the past.
exactly.
Robozork, that makes sense now that you explained it that way. However I still have a real problem with the government providing these compensations because it still seems insensitive. While you're right that the actual compensation is not for the loss, rather the actual legal expenses, I still feel like maybe a lot of people would still take it as compensation for the loss which can never really be achieved.
As to the losses: They would only take it that way if they were well enough off to begin with that the financial reprieve meant nothing. Otherwise, they'd know, believe me on that one.
As to the apology thing: I still fail to see exactly what that's going to accomplish. If I have wronged someone and then make amends (not just apologize), that makes sense. However, I can't really apologize in any meaningful way for something done by another, perhaps an ancestor, perhaps a peer. I can't apologize for the fact some men rape, are deadbeats, or that some white men have hanged blacks indiscriminately.
Such apologies mean nothing, despite what a trendy fanboy culture says. How many of us would really want or benefit from a random sighted person apologizing for acts they a. didn't, and b. perhaps wouldn't? And, exactly, then what?
There's a lot out now about "identify with this" or "let's support that". but no meaningful way to do it. If you fell and broke your leg, you'd want exactly which: a passerby to fall down and break their leg so they could identify / feel your pain, or said passerby to lend assistance / call 911 / cover you with their jacket so you don't fall ill from shock?
I guess that's where a lot of this boils down for me, perhaps a pragmatist to a fault, but let's actually do something. And if we can't actually do anything, what's the point?
I disagree on government compensation rates. In the cases I read about such rates tend to be completely out of synch with reality.
If a doctor´s istake leads to a disability it appears that firstly the lawyer takes a third of the compensation sum as a rule, and he/she was not inconvenienced and spent a total of perhaps 2 weeks of his/her time, so either the victim gets less or the government overpays. Secondly all of a sudden the person´s time and talent seems to be worth that of sr executives at a big company.
I am blind through genetic cancer and I got no millions of dollars, but if I lost my sight today I am certain a medical mistake that made me so would be evaluated to 2 to 3 million dollars (fair enough, it is my guess, but I sincerely doubt I am off by much), but not to the real cost of readjustment, say 5 years of 60 to 80 grand a year, and then some assistance after that, since I can still work, despite popular opinion, and I don´t need that swimming pool I could never have afforded when I was sighted, not when sighted people who were not fortunate enough to suffer a medical mistake are still working 12 hours a day for a minimum wage.
If it were me, would I refuse such money? No, of course not, if I am given lots of money I take it, call me a hypocrite or whatever you like, but I still recognize the fact it is generally way out of proportion with reality.
So, if the money were in some way proportionate to the mistakes and costs encurred in having them corrected, plus real amount of money needed for living and, perhaps, some sort of an income based compensation scheme i.e. if I had no job then 50 to 60000 may be, if I had a job then less, and some money to help me recover and enjoy myself, may be 100 grand .. that'd be reasonable, today's law suit things are not.
The other thing about the government, which you have seen time and again on the news, when things are going well government is not needed and taxes are evil and regulations doubly so, when things go badly, all of a sudden the government is ineffective and needs to save the people who overspent in the first place, the banks who lent to customers who could never pay back etc, by spending a lot of money it doesn't have in the first place, due to the no taxes thing. People can't have it both ways.
Wildebrew what you're saying makes sense, and like you I have no direct personal experience on a settlement. I think like you say bringing these things into control is good, I just don't like the backlash reactive thinking that goes on, the throwing the baby out with the bathwater. That's all. And you're right: I know many who get government entitled health care who belly-ache about health care reform, because unlike you and I, they aren't paying insurance premiums and they don't have employers who are forced to make a lot of tough choices.
You're right about people wanting it both ways, but the American memory is often about as good as that of the average chicken.
We must always clean up after the ones that came before us. It is a heavy burdin but it must be done.