Category: Let's talk
last night on the news there was a story about a man who was critically ill in hospital after jumping off a bridge into some water. He was not trying to kill himself - oh no - it was a dare which he was doing while being egged on by his friends. I have little doubt that copious amounts of alcohol were probably involved as well..
Anyway, he fell some distance and the emergency services had to be deployed to rescue him. He is now in hospital.
Now I'm all in favour of the emergency services having to rescue most people, but this bloke was just an idiot. Why should we, the tax payer, pay to save someone who has brought his circumstances on himself through pure stupidity.
Shouldn't people like that be faced with the bill for their rescue?
in a word, no. if someone is stupid enough to do something like that then why shouldn't they have to pay the consequences.
Hmm, it's a very tricky line to draw. Then we'd need to argue each and every case and decide who is responsible for payment, go after the people who owe money etc.
What if, for instance, I had two glasses of wine and then proceeded to drill into the wall but somehow managed to indure my hand in the process, is it my stupidity, I mean, I shouldn't consume any alcohol before operating machinery, still it's not reallyclear cut, if I had drank a whole bottle of vodka and done the same thing it is probably more in that vein but where do we draw the line.
What if some people get extremely drunk and gu gets girl pregnant and baby has to be taken by C section, shouldn't they pay for it really, it's their stupidity that we are paying for even if the result is a child, (well, of course it's not the child's fault, that could be argued).
And what about smokers with lung cancer, didn't we warn them, loasd of times, what about obease people with heart disease, didn't they bring it on themselves. I understand the centiment of the original post and broadly agree with it, but I don't think we can really create any level of fairness this way. We choose a free for all (meaning we all pay, so in a way not free for anyone) system and I think it's a great thing. Perhaps, instead of footing the bill said individuals could be fined for wreckless behavior.
cheers
-b
Agreed with b.
agreed also, and fining them is a great idea. and didn't something similar happen in seattle not so long back? grin
Whatever happened to a society that cares.
Intelligence is a gift of God, the creator, or chance. Pick your own belief. You didn't do anything to acquire it, you just won the brain lottery. So, count your lucky stars and quit flaunting it.
It's all about money. So, the rich can afford to be stupid while the poor have to be smart?
How stupid can you be.
I guess Hilton Paris is smarter than most of us.
Now, off for more coffee: it puts me in a better mood.
Bob (the perpetual grumbler)!
I agree with the origenal post. stupid people who endanger themselves should pay for the rescue and be fined. If, a woman gets pregnant, she goes and has an abortion. She has that option. If she is rich, she will pay. If not, then we pay. Lets face it folks, America and most of the ,"Free world" countries are nothing but mirages. Especially the great U. S. of A. puff'ff'ff'ff'ff'ff'ff'ff'ffing for freedom. gizmo.
I'm with Bob on this one.
Also, I want to point out that the original post was referring to the UK system, since a few of the responses seem to be assuming it's all about the almost entirely privatised, US system. Not meaning to be pedantic, but it really is a world of difference.
I no that alot of you are going to say I'm a bitch for saying this, but I think that if someone has thrown them selves off a bridg after drinking or has dun it for a dare, y should the athoratys be called out at all? I meen they seem to want to die anyway, so let them go thrue with it. Someone that would do something like that I think our sosiaty can do with out. Pluss there stupiddidy is putting lots of other people at risk. I say don't charge people for being stupid, if there in a situation of there own makeing that will put the rescuears at undue risk I say don't save them at all. Maby that will teach the next idddiat that wants to do the same thing a lesin.
Hmm, so, basically, we should have a committee or jury on site 24 7 to evaluate incoming emergency calls, before we save a driver from a burning car let's check if he was drunk, if a man jumps from a bridge, check if he was doing it for a dare, if a house is on fire, check if the owner was playing with matches and so on.
1. it's practically impossible to do this, emergency usually means seconds make the difference between life and death.
2. Even if it were possible evaluating each and every case, be it before or after rescue, to determine if said person was being "stupid" or not would cost a lot of money and the money would in fact come from tax payers.
There is absolutely no guarantee that even if such a system were set up that it would be any cheaper to tax payers, it could even be more expensive. Canada, for instance, has no fault car insurance because the insurance companies realized it was more expensive to investgate each and every crash to see who was at fault than to just pay out insurance for a damaged car.
Not to mention that if alcohol or tobacco cause emergencies those products are sold legally at very high tax rates so in a sense the consumers of those products have already paid for emergencies related to the consumption and the government has accepted this payment.
So, saying the money comes out of tax payers pockets is not necessarily entirely accurate and, like BlBobby already said, so the rich are allowed to be stupid, the poor are not. Frustrating or not I think western society's most important values are the equal access to healthcare.
In Iceland we have a few blind people who lost their sight as a result of drinking industrial alcohol, by rights they should never receive any treatment or social security payments, at least according to the poster of this topic, yet it was one mistake and I think losing their sight was punishment enough.
Who determines which acts are stupid?
Maybe we could post it here on the zone and vote on it.
Maybe we should go to someone who has impeccable taste, a lot of wisdom, and has been acclaimed by the people of his country, how about the President of the United States.
Bob
I don't think that they shouldn't be saved, that promotes the wrong spirit among people, but i'm with B on a fine idea, recless endangerment or something, I think people should be discouraged from doing stupid things, especially if it wastes emergancy services time, but I'm definitly not for leaving people to drown.
i believe that if you go out, say in a sub standard car, or in a boat without radio flairs etc you have an accident that is atributable to you having used sub standard equipment, then you should pay for any rescue after the fact. if you are going to be stupid enough to leap off a bridge just for a dare then yes you should pay after the fact. As in all cases, it could reasonably be said that if you'd had a road worthy car, a sea worthy boat or had not taken the dare, you'd have no need of rescue. these rescues cost thousands of pounds, and more importantly, tie up services that might not have been tied up if sense had provailed, and to all those stupid idiots who do plainly dumb and inexcusable things such as go out with no radio on their boat or drive with bald tires on their cars, or leap off bridges for dares, to name a few things, just think because of your stupid ass behaviour, you might put others at risk, and I'm not just talking oabout rescuers either.
People like him shouldn't receive healthcare unless they pay for it themselves, no matter what the implications for the rest of their lives. They get into situations like the one he got into because the state will care for them. If they had to take responsibility for their own health, they'd probahbly be less willing to put their lives on the line
Aah, I've come up with an excellent scheme.
a. Make the fine one pays, a percentage of one's stated income.
b. Challenge Paris Hilton to jump of a bridge.
I wonder what senior would say if his son (assuming he had one) did something silly for a dare and died as a result because no one wanted to go save him because his insurance couldn't be verified. Well, he's probably do the American thing and sue said people for 80 million dollars.
Fact is everyone, certainly everyone I know, has done something stupid, punishable things, like not owning a perfectly safe car for instance (they clearly should be shot of course), I wonder what people who think stupid people should not be saved would actually say if it was their family or themselves involved.
If senior's idea were right the U.S. should have a much lower percentage of stupid acts than the rest of the world, at least amongst people who hold insurance. Oddly enough that does not appaer to be the case (although I can't back it up with figures, but it's sufficient to read the news one would think). I mean, really, it's stupid to sign up for the army and go to Iraq, you know you're gonna get killed probably, so you should not get any medical help or insurance unless your family paid for it.