3 ms·

In a country where the public picks up any part of one's medical bills, every taxpayer suffers the consequences of anyone's negligence. I'm not saying that tha

In a country where the public picks up any part of one's medical bills, every taxpayer suffers the consequences of anyone's negligence. I'm not saying that that fact has clear behavioral implications -- a world where nobody wad allowed to risk their health in any way would be both unjust and impossible -- but it's true.

908B64B197 5y ago
Why should the public pay for that? Sounds like they are taking additional risks for no good reasons, why not let the market price the insurance premium?
- exporectomy 5y ago
  Everyone takes risks for no good reasons. Drink a coke? Alcohol? Smoke? Cross the road? Drive a car? Have a baby? Work? Don't work? Sleep too much? Don't sleep enough? Etc. It's impossible not to. We need to experience life, not just avoid all risks!
hisnameisjimmy 5y ago
Or, in a more positive framing, our society pays for the negative externalities of our more risk oriented members doing rad shit. I am happy to pay through taxes for things like rescue services or medical bills for people who do things like rock climb or attempt ocean crossings in a solo kayak. Or even just ride a motorcycle without a helmet and look awesome. The world is better and more interesting with these people in it.
- vladTheInhaler 5y ago
  I suspect that those riding without helmets might actually be cheaper to treat. If you survive an accident but get your foot degloved, and you need an amputation and a prosthetic and months of physical therapy, and then a hip replacement years later because of your messed up gait, that's a lot of taxpayer money. If you die on impact, treatment is much cheaper.
  - meepmorp 5y ago
    > If you die on impact, treatment is much cheaper. Plus, more organs for everyone else.
- Jeff_Brown 5y ago
  I feel the same way. Our shared opinion, though, might not be the democratically weighted norm. Ideally people could self-select into places with different rules: some with higher taxes and more interesting people, some with the reverse.

908B64B197 5y ago

Why should the public pay for that? Sounds like they are taking additional risks for no good reasons, why not let the market price the insurance premium?

exporectomy 5y ago
Everyone takes risks for no good reasons. Drink a coke? Alcohol? Smoke? Cross the road? Drive a car? Have a baby? Work? Don't work? Sleep too much? Don't sleep enough? Etc. It's impossible not to. We need to experience life, not just avoid all risks!

hisnameisjimmy 5y ago

Or, in a more positive framing, our society pays for the negative externalities of our more risk oriented members doing rad shit. I am happy to pay through taxes for things like rescue services or medical bills for people who do things like rock climb or attempt ocean crossings in a solo kayak. Or even just ride a motorcycle without a helmet and look awesome. The world is better and more interesting with these people in it.

vladTheInhaler 5y ago
I suspect that those riding without helmets might actually be cheaper to treat. If you survive an accident but get your foot degloved, and you need an amputation and a prosthetic and months of physical therapy, and then a hip replacement years later because of your messed up gait, that's a lot of taxpayer money. If you die on impact, treatment is much cheaper.
- meepmorp 5y ago
  > If you die on impact, treatment is much cheaper. Plus, more organs for everyone else.
Jeff_Brown 5y ago
I feel the same way. Our shared opinion, though, might not be the democratically weighted norm. Ideally people could self-select into places with different rules: some with higher taxes and more interesting people, some with the reverse.