4 ms·

And should people who crash in cars without wearing their seatbelt not get any government benefits from their injuries?

• dahart 5y ago
  Personally, I don’t think so, but I do think it’s worth asking the question and exploring the space a little bit. There is a certain hypocrisy to refusing to accept safety measures from the government while expecting emergency treatment from the same people when not abiding by the safety measures causes predictable and avoidable harm. There are cases where people are injured while accidentally not having a seatbelt on, and there are cases where people dogmatically refuse to wear seatbelts and refuse to accept the safety statistics. Maybe it makes sense to differentiate between those kinds of cases somehow? Maybe people who consciously choose to refuse safety measures should still be treated but should be prioritized lower than people who are accepting safety measures? One of the problems with people who refuse to accept safety policies is they make emergency treatment more expensive for everyone, and they reduce the probability that someone who’s been safe can get emergency treatment in a timely manner. Part of the question is why it’s fair for people who’ve accepted the safety measures to have a non-zero chance not being able to get emergency treatment because someone who refused to be safe got hurt and is already in the only ER/bed left in the hospital.
  • dontcare007 5y ago