Social Question

ETpro's avatar

Where does reasonable regulation end and an intrusive nanny state begin?

Asked by ETpro (34202 points ) July 4th, 2011

Helmet laws got me thinking about this. A 55 year old man in New York died yesterday while in a helmet law protest ride. Riding without helmet in the protest, the biker had a minor accident which flipped him over the handlebars of his 1985 Harley and he died from injuries received when his head hit the pavement. No right-minded person can argue that wearing a helmet when riding a motorcycle or bike is useless. They do save lives. In all likelihood, wearing helmets 100% of the time would save even more lives. People do die from falls, being hit in the head by a flying or falling object, etc. But as a kid in the 1950s, I rode a bike. All my friends did. We had never heard of bike helmets. The grownups around us had never heard of them. And we all survived. So I know the great feeling of the wind in your hair as you ride at top speed down a hill. How does the state balance the feeling of the wind in your hair versus the safety of a helmet?

Medical marijuana is a clear area where nanny state laws lack credibility. To be sure the government has some legitimate interest in preventing useless and even openly harmful patent medicines from being sold with the same claims to legitimacy that carefully researched drugs have. But we allow all manner of unproven “natural” supplements and cure-alls to be sold.

Marijuana was originally outlawed as a form of Jim Crow law aimed at Mexican immigrants in the US, who were the only typical users when the laws went into effect. Today, there is far more solid research backing marijuana’s medical value than there is backing most of the junk sold at major pharmacies in the vitamin and supplement isle. And yet nanny state continues the protect the citizens ruse when it certainly looks like drug company profits are what the protection is really aimed at.

How much should be left up to the individual to decide, and when does the state have a legitimate interest in forcing us to do what it thinks is the right thing?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

55 Answers

woodcutter's avatar

All politicians want to do what their constituents want them to so they get the job. They get elected because the Voters believe they are like them.
For example to get elected, a liberal will have to say they’re against guns or certain types of them to get votes, even though they know full well that gun ownership and the falling violent crime rates don’t quite square with their constituents beliefs.
Same thing with pot. conservatives think that an ordinary person who begins to use pot will turn into a liberal and there goes the neighborhood. So they want people who represent them to be against it.

jerv's avatar

You forgot to mention that the original anti-Opium laws were aimed at Chinese immigrants working the railroad and not at the Opium itself ;)

I think the line should be drawn when something actually harms society as a whole more than any possible benefits. Not wearing a helmet may get you killed, but it won’t actually hurt anyone else, so I feel that any clear-thinking adult should be able to determine for themselves if they want to risk their own safety by riding bare-headed.

Alcohol is a bit tricky as drunk driving kills many people, and hangovers cause lost productivity but as most drinkers are responsible, the problems are relatively minimal, especially compared to the crime that pops up when trying to make it illegal, as we hopefully learned from Prohibition.

Unfortunately, many laws these days are not for the benefit of anybody except possibly corporations. For instance, when I was in CA, you could not get a burger or steak cooked rare as undercooked food may give you a reason to sue the restaurant that served you. (Most places settle for just printing a warning on the menu and letting you decide for yourself, but some would rather solve the issue by taking your freedom of choice away.) Helmet laws help Bell‘s bottom line by taking another freedom away, specifically the right to be stupid in a way that doesn’t hurt anybody else.

Of course, there are some that feel that the public safety is best served if we all worship God and give all of our money to the rich while others feel the public is best served by spending billions of taxpayer dollars over-regulating everything under the sun (often ineffectively). And both sides like to use scare tactics so that they can further their own agenda without regard for what actually is in the best interest of the public. But so long as each side appears to be doing something to benefit the public, they will have enough people clinging to their particular brand of false security and keep getting voted in.

zenvelo's avatar

My opinion is that the line is drawn where one’s actions are not affecting anyone else. Anything that only affects oneself should be okay. So you can smoke all you want if your smoke does not reach anyone else, and as long as you do not need public funds for your eventual healthcare.

Sam deal with helmets, as long as your hospital bill and pavement cleanup are not a cost to society, fine. We could use the organ donation.

But if your behavior has the likelihood of causing even a small burden on society, then society gets to say modify your behavior.

@jerv I have never had a problem getting a rare steak or hamburger in California.

jerv's avatar

@zenvelo Maybe it’s just the places I went in San Diego in the mid-90s then, but I had nothing but trouble.

laureth's avatar

In my state, the governor is considering introducing a repeal of the motorcycle helmet law if motorcyclists agree to have extra insurance. (Link) That would be fine with me.

From a recommendation letter from the National Transportation Safety Board:

“The argument regarding helmet laws is often framed in terms of personal choice (for example, “it’s my head”). Such an argument typically invokes the idea that motorcyclists are only hurting themselves by deciding to ride unprotected. For over 10 years, the Safety Board has been responsible for assisting families of those killed and injured in accidents. We do not accept the notion that surviving friends and family are not affected when riders decide not to wear a helmet and are killed or injured.

“In addition to family and friends, society as a whole pays the well-documented excess costs for unhelmeted riders: medical care costs; the potentially even greater costs from productivity losses of individuals injured, disabled, or killed; and the costs incurred for first responders. Especially tragic are the fatalities and injuries involving unhelmeted riders in accidents that would have required only a new helmet and cosmetic repairs to the motorcycle, had the rider been wearing a protective helmet.”

Now, whether this attitude warrants a slippery slope of other regulations (such as not letting people eat foods with high fructose corn syrup in them, so as to avoid the massive public cost of diabetes later in life) is up for debate. We probably have to look at any potential public health policies and evaluate their risks versus their rewards. However, I disagree that the death or injury of the rider is the only affect of any importance. We also need to consider things like rising insurance rates, and how many riders can’t pay for the cost of their long-term care should they become injured, in the calculation.

cockswain's avatar

I posted that story about the man getting killed in the helmet law protest on facebook

El_Cadejo's avatar

Talk about irony….

wundayatta's avatar

Could we manage everything with the proper financial incentives, so that people pay for the full cost of their behavior when it is for certain kinds of things, but not for others? I.e., where people are doing something unnecessary for survival, they pay the full cost, but where people are unable survive at a certain level, then the state pays for a minimum standard of living.

There are also tricky things like determining where behavior affects only the individual and where it affects others, as well. Is mandating attendance in school part of the minimum standard? Is mandating health insurance? I don’t know. A lot of issues. Perhaps they have to be taken on a case by case basis. No blanket principles to guide us,

Coloma's avatar

Obviously common sense says wear a helmet, but, I joke that pretty soon ‘they’ will make kids wear helmets for riding a rocking horse. lol

I was a kid in the 60’s and rode bikes, horses without a helemt and here I am. I knew a woman whose horse stumbled and she fell on an ice packed road and died of a brain injury. Hell, I was a wild child on my bikes and horses. guess I was lucky.

Right now I am not happy about the governments light bulb control, I have been stock piling cool light bulbs as I HATE those energy saving spiral ones they are forcing on us.

Bah! If I wanted the lighting in my house to look like the coroners office and give everyone and everything that interogation glow and the pallor of a corpse..well…I’d just install flourescent lighting all around. lol

What happened to choice?

If someone wants to risk splattering their brains on the pavement, let ‘em do it! :-?

Dutchess_III's avatar

I agree with Coloma, only I have to point out that perhaps she didn’t really get off Scott free with all the times she hit her head! heh!

I agree…people need to be free to make their own stupid choices, like whether to wear a helmet or a seat belt. I do favor laws protecting children, though.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I mean, car and motorcycle laws should be enforced for children. Not riding bikes. Hell, I was a kid in the 60’s too. Our folks didn’t even know where we were half the time. Our neighbors had an in ground pool. There was no fence nothing. I pulled my sisters out at least twice when they were very little. I, personally, wouldn’t have a pool without a fence. My only point is, most of us made it through ok.

Coloma's avatar

@Dutchess_III

I agree, and my neighbors had an in ground trampoline, OMG!
We bounced into the fence a lot on that thing! haha

And yes, same here, us kids would take off for the park or the river in the morning and our parents didn’t see us again til dinner time, then, back off to wherever we pleased til dark in the summer.

Aah, the ‘good ol’ days’, we’re finally old enough to say that! :-D

Dutchess_III's avatar

Yeah! that’s exactly what we used to do, too.
My Aunt and Uncle had a lake in Oklahoma. There was a floating dock out there. My cousins showed us that we could swim under the dock and come up underneath it. It was kind of spooky, all shadowy blue green and crabs and stuff on the ceiling about a foot over our heads. Nobody even noticed that we’d gone under….and never came back up!!! We used to climb up and down sheer cliffs. Tromped about in the woods with the little animals and snakes. We were barefoot no matter what. My sister got bitten by a water moccasin once.

Plucky's avatar

Maybe the issue lies in how it effects those around an individual as well – and vice versa. Sometimes we need to be cautious for others in order to be cautious for ourselves.

Perhaps people aren’t as street smart, or cautious, as they used to be ..and we have to be protected from our foolish selves. I think lawsuits/insurance may play an important role in “nanny state” as well.

Then again, there are people who will not listen no matter how many times you show them that this way is the best and safest way to do something. People like that are partially the cause of the emergence of such laws ..to force us to do what is best and safest for society as a whole.

Either way, I think it will become more intrusive in the future if humans don’t learn how to behave themselves on their own.

This does not mean I think the good old days were horrible. I just think that time is long gone and we will most likely never see a time like that again. What worked back then may very well not work now.

GordianKnot's avatar

The founding fathers gave the government only one power and that is to protect liberty which means a military, police and a court system. Everything else is to be handled by the market.

As long as one does not deprive one of liberty, they’re free to do as they please, which means they can do all the drugs they want and drive without helmets if they choose to do so. One can hire or service whoever they want, and they can choose how much to pay when they do.

The founding fathers warned that when the government exceeds its limitation, like it is now with all these regulations and social welfare programs, then this is an attack on liberty, and the people should arm themselves and put an end to it which I suspect will happen in the near future – a second american revolution to restore true liberty.

Dutchess_III's avatar

@PluckyDog hell, they’d never even heard of carseats back in the day…so some laws are very good. The ones that protect the children.

@GordianKnot Let me guess..you’re from the deep south.

GordianKnot's avatar

No, I’m North east.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Family from the Deep South?

GordianKnot's avatar

No, north east as well.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Well, IMO, historicall the government was depriving certain Americans of their liberty in far more serious and severe ways. I think it just keeps getting better. I can’t think of any law that has deprived me of any particular liberty. I’m certainly not going to lead a revolt because I have to wear my seat belt, or because I can’t smoke in public areas!

jerv's avatar

@Dutchess_III New Hampshire, the “Live free or die” state, a state with no helmet law for those over 18 and thus able to decide for themselves, a state where car insurance is not required (unless you have something on your record, like a DUI) is in the Northeast. And, unlike the rest of New England, they are a little on the Conservative side and are more likely to vote Republican than any other state in the region.

YARNLADY's avatar

Regulations can be changed, and they can only exist as long as the majority of the voters allow it.

Coloma's avatar

I revolt against confiscating my party bulbs and bug lights! lol

GordianKnot's avatar

Liberty means free will. The Constitution was and is supposed to defend and protect an individuals free will.

When a majority votes for a policy that violates an individuals free, that is called tyranny since the Constitution isn’t protecting free will for all.

As I said earlier, the government is suppose to defend and protect the free will of the nation, which means everyone. That is all.

I’ll give you an example. Look at all these government welfare programs which according to the Constitution were suppose to be handled by the market.

If I refuse to pay into these welfare programs (taxes), what will happen to me? I will be arrested for not paying taxes, but taxes were only designed to support a military, court system and police.

What if I don’t want to be arrested? Then I will be forced. What if I still refuse and resist? Then I will be killed.

This isn’t free will, this is tyranny. It removes choice. You can apply this to any regulation as well. Drugs, helmets, whatever.

This exactly why the founders limited the government to only defend and protect liberty for the entire nation, each individual.

laureth's avatar

I don’t remember seeing “free will” or “the market” mentioned in the Constitution.

GordianKnot's avatar

Liberty is mentioned. Liberty = Free will. Freedom of choice.

People are mentioned. People = Market. Freedom of choice in the people’s market.

laureth's avatar

There are various definitions here, for starters. Some of it sounds like your definition, some of it doesn’t.

GordianKnot's avatar

What do you think sparked the American Revolution. The British were heavily taxing the colonies to display its authority while reducing the individual to poverty.

The current state of America is doing the same thing to the people. The government keeps creating new unconstitutional programs & regulations which are violating an individuals liberty, and the government forcefully makes the people pay taxes to support these programs & regulations, hence why I said this country will be seeing another American revolution in the near future similarly to the first one.

The more the government does = the less liberty since government, by definition, means force. You can’t opt out because you will be arrested or killed.

GordianKnot's avatar

I don’t trust wikipedia as a reliable source, so I’ll give you Websters definition which is the standard we go by.

Liberty:

: the quality or state of being free:
a : the power to do as one pleases
b : freedom from physical restraint
c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control
d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
e : the power of choice
2
a : a right or immunity enjoyed by prescription or by grant : privilege
b : permission especially to go freely within specified limits
3
: an action going beyond normal limits: as
a : a breach of etiquette or propriety : familiarity
b : risk, chance <took foolish liberties with his health>
c : a violation of rules or a deviation from standard practice
d : a distortion of fact
4
: a short authorized absence from naval duty usually for less than 48 hours
— at liberty
1
: free
2
: at leisure : unoccupied

zenvelo's avatar

@GordianKnot The preamble lays out what the Constitution was to oversee, and it includes a lot more than defense, and actually provides for society’s needs rather than the individuals:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

And the body of the Constitution had a number of provisions that grant the Federal Government authority over commerce and revenue.

I don’t see any reference in the Preamble to individual liberty above society’s.

GordianKnot's avatar

Promote general welfare, not Provide. Big difference. Quite the opposite of a nanny state.

You’re allowed to change things, but only if it doesn’t violate an individuals liberty which is what the Constitution protects for the individual, otherwise, any change that violates the individuals liberty is automatically tyrannical and unconstitutional.

The founding fathers just fought for liberty, they had no intention of setting up a system that returns to the system of infliction that Britain imposed on them.

zenvelo's avatar

@GordianKnot Please point out the provision in the Constitution that says violating an individual’s liberty with due process is tyrannical and unconstitutional.

GordianKnot's avatar

What you just quoted was the preamble statement of purpose. Liberty is the purpose. That means anything else that violates liberty is automatically unconstitutional since it’s the opposite of the statement of purpose.

zenvelo's avatar

@GordianKnot So you are ignoring the other parts of the Constitution that provide for society over the individual?

There are Amendments to the Constitution that are contrary to your opinion. They cannot be declared unconstitutional because they area a part of it.

Your categorical statements have not been supported by the Supreme Court.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I don’t have a problem paying SS and welfare taxes. Why do you @GordianKnot?

GordianKnot's avatar

I’m not ignoring anything. I’m reading it from top to bottom, not bottom to top, as you’re. The top is the preamble statement of purpose. You have to keep that in mind when reading everything else.

And the supreme court, the second time around, found the Franklin Roosevelt’s new deal to be constitutional. The first time around found it unconstitutional, and you want to know why it was found Constitutional the second time around?

As former Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist observed:

“President Roosevelt lost the Court-packing battle, but he won the war for control of the Supreme Court… not by any novel legislation, but by serving in office for more than twelve years, and appointing eight of the nine pro new deal Justices of the Court. In this way the Constitution provides for ultimate responsibility of the Court to the political branches of government. [Yet] it was the United States Senate – a political body if there ever was one – who stepped in and saved the independence of the judiciary… in Franklin Roosevelt’s Court-packing plan in 1937”

The first time around, those 8 of 9 judges found the new deal unconstitutional, so FDR attempted to illegally pack the court system with pro new deal judges, but failed again. So what happened in his favor is that 8 of those judges retired or died, and then FDR was able to finally appoint new pro deal judges.

So excuse me if I don’t give a shit what a corrupt and pocketed supreme court says.

zenvelo's avatar

The Supreme Court has been around for over 220 years. The FDR court was only around for 20 years or so.

GordianKnot's avatar

@Dutchess_III,

The simple answer is I don’t want to. I prefer to invest my money elsewhere. This is my choice.

Coloma's avatar

I’m a daughter of the American revolution and our forefathers would turn over in their graves with the bastardized perceptions of the constitution.

Guess I’m a traitor to the family history as I am apolitical and about as un-patriotic as they get. lol

GordianKnot's avatar

@zenvelo,

I’m just making a point that just because the supreme court deems something Constitutional doesn’t mean it is. The new deal is the best example of that kind of corruption.

And I stand by what I said. You read the Constitution from top to bottom, not bottom to top. It’s counter intuitiveness when the preamble statement of purpose is liberty, only to then say that you don’t really have that liberty.

Had it said Provide rather then promote, you might have something there, but it says promote, not provide.

laureth's avatar

Being unwilling to pay taxes, even though you’re represented in government, puts you closer to the wrong side of Shay’s Rebellion than the right side of the Revolution.

GordianKnot's avatar

Constitutionally, you’re suppose to pay taxes, but only for the original type of limited government. The taxes went for the court systems, prisons, police, and military. These are the essentials for defending and protecting individual liberty. The rest was in the hands of the people. The people had no problem paying taxes for these essentials since the theme of the country was liberty and how we must defend and protect it for all.

This is what the tea party movement is about right now. It’s reminding the American people of how there founding fathers suffered the tax burden from Britain’s tyranny and how they finally defeated them and achieved their freedom.

The revolution would be to return to that form of limited government to release the people of the burden of taxes, just like the tax burdens the colonies experienced with Britain prior the American Revolution. Only in a limited government may you experience true liberty.

It makes no sense for the founding fathers to create a government system that would resemble the horrible state of affair of Britain’s rule, after they just regained liberty. Our founding fathers were all about liberty hence liberty was the first preamble statement of purpose of the constitution.

ETpro's avatar

@Everybody_Above If you know me, then you know that I usually write an individual reply to all who contribute to answering my questions, and freely hand out Lurve as well. I will do that here as well, but time pressure does not permit doing it this evening. Tomorrow, God willing and the crick don’t rise, I will take the time to respond to each thought and suggeston. I am thrilled with all the ideas and observations the gool ol’ Nanny State provoked—but a bit overwhelmed by the volume Clearly, a lot of us want to ventilate on this subject.

Coloma's avatar

@ETpro

” Ventilate”...uh oh, I feel an extreme political breeze coming on. haha

wundayatta's avatar

@GordianKnot Let me ask you this. Suppose you want to run a nuclear power plant on your property, and you just take your nuclear wast and throw it in your back yard, which abuts my back yard, and that of several other people. You’re exercising your free will, but that exercise of free will will severely diminish my quality of life, and may even shorten my life. Does government have a role there?

Or how about with education. Just because you want your kids to be ignorant, does that mean I have to suffer idiots running around in the streets doing things like dumping your trash in the streets? Don’t we all have an interest in having the citizens of our nation educated?

And health care. I trust you allow the concept of insurance. Do you believe that we should let sick uninsured people die because they can’t afford health care? Or do we trust that everyone will have a soft heart and offer charity care? Curious—do you benefit when a productive citizen dies early of something that is easily treated? Or are you completely unaffected by what other people do?

And who the fuck cares what the founding fathers thought? They lived 300 years ago. They wouldn’t know a computer from an airplane. A nuclear power plant would utterly baffle them, as would a hospital. Wake up and smell the coffee. This is 2011. Not 1776. We aren’t fighting King George any more. The principle of limited government would cause utter chaos. You would be clamoring to reinstate all kinds of laws if we suddenly lived in the world of 300 years ago (philosophically speaking, and assuming for the moment that your interpretation of the constitution is correct).

The world is interdependent. We have to cooperate. Individual liberty as you conceive of it would be disastrous, probably leading to internecine fighting that would leave our country in a post-apocalyptic hell. Even Castro would have been better than your vision. The tea party are bent on destroying this country, blinded, as they are, by some pure vision that has nothing to do with the real world. That’s why they must be fought at every turn. They act like some sect that is determined to bring about the end of days. They are duping people all over the place. Very, very scary. Then again, pretty much all true believers are scary.

GordianKnot's avatar

The first statement I made was that the government serves only one purpose and that is to defend and protect liberty for all. Now, apply this to your examples. If I throw toxic waste on to your property, then I’ve now violated your liberty because you obviously don’t want my waste on your property and its harming you. You would file a complaint with the government that your liberty is being violated by another, and the police would investigate, arrest me, and the court will then make its decision based upon the evidence & law. These are the essentials I was talking about – a court system, police, and military.

The same concept applies to education. If one does not want to educate their children, and one of these children throws trash into your property, then you will file a complaint, the police will investigate, arrest, and the court will make its final decision based upon the evidence & law. What you don’t have a right to do is assume that because someone is uneducated, he/she will be likely to throw trash on to your property. You’re equating a lack of education with destructiveness & violence. These are dangerous assumptions. You’re innocent until proven guilty.

It works the same way with health care. If a person is sick and can’t afford health care, then he/she should go & ask their family members for help, or go ask their friends for help, or go to charity organizations for help. If one asks help from me, I would help – if that’s what you’re asking me.

It’s not just about caring what the founding fathers intentions were, it’s about liberty. People enjoy free will. When you tamper with that, you will eventually see a violent response. If a majority decides that this particular X individual should be killed or his property is now their property, do you think this individual would responds lightly? No, he will take his assault rifle and kill the entire crowd.

This is exactly why the constitution was designed, to always protect liberty for the individual from the oppressive majority. You have this issue with gay rights. The majority (hetero) is outvoting the minority (gays) and denying them marriage. The constitution isn’t protecting the minority here. That means a new majority can come along one day and say blacks are no longer people and should be enslaved again and so it will be. What a disgusting system you’re advocating for.

You have to understand the preamble statement of purpose. Liberty. Regulations and social welfare programs removes individual liberty because choice is removed. That’s by definition tyranny which you seem to think is paradise when it doesn’t work and only causes more problems.

Why don’t you try this theory of yours. Instead of using the government as a force to, for example, take money from people and redistribute it to the needy, how about you come to my home and attempt to take my money without my consent (as the government does) so that you can give it to the needy. Do you think I will thank you, or will I blow your brains out?

GordianKnot's avatar

There is nothing wrong with freedom of choice just as long as it doesn’t violate another’s freedom of choice.

You mentioned chaos, and this is exactly what the government is there for, to protect us from chaos. To defend and protect liberty of all.

You mentioned cooperation, then why can’t you cooperate? Why can’t you respect an individuals choices especially when they don’t affect you? If I don’t want to wear a helmet or if I want to do drugs all day, this is my choice. It has nothing to do with you nor does it affect you.

What I do with my money is my business. If I want to spend it on the casino instead of welfare, that’s my choice. It doesn’t affect you.

Yet you want to get the government to deny my liberty, to tell me how to spend my money, what to smoke, what to wear, how much salt I should put on my food, etc…

There is no end to this madness. It’s you who’s advocating for the destruction of America and at the current rate, you’re succeeding, but there is a growing resistance to this decaying system of yours, which is why I predict a second revolution or possibly a national collapse similar to what Rome experienced. And guess what? You and those like you will be the first to fall during this process. Most people don’t like tyranny. Most people don’t like it when their liberty is denied.

wundayatta's avatar

@GordianKnot I think you missed the point. The nuclear waste was on your property, not mine. And where is the government to decide whether that’s legal or not, when you don’t tax people except for something minimal? So there’s no law making it illegal for you to keep as many nuclear materials on your property as you want, polluting my air and my water.

If you want a law, then you need legislators and legislation and an apparatus to police the legislation. If you do that, then you end up with the system we have now, because every legislation needs to be enforced.

ETpro's avatar

@GordianKnot Like @wundayatta I respect your right to eat pure salt if that’s what you want to do. I could care less if you disconnect from city water and ddrink your won sewerage. Where I have a problem with the freedom argument is when it extends to your freedom to hurt others. I do not think you have a freedom to pollute the water the rest of us must drink. I do not think you have unlimited freedom to build a factory that pours know carcinogens into the air and kill thousands around you, If you want to start a revolution to gain that sort of freedom, I suspect you’re going to run into some issues recruiting foot soldiers for your movement.

Coloma's avatar

Animal control says I can’t keep a pet crow, but, it’s okay to shoot ‘em if they are eating your apples. Go figure. haha

Response moderated
Response moderated
Dutchess_III's avatar

@GordianKnot You said, “If a person is sick and can’t afford health care, then he/she should go & ask their family members for help, or go ask their friends for help, or go to charity organizations for help.” That is so dumb. “Hey, good buddy, good pal! I got cancer. Got half a mill lyin around for me?”

“Hey, daughter. I know you guys are really strapped for cash what with the new baby and all, but I need a triple by-pass. Gimme.”

There ARE no charities around that will help with those kinds of bills, except in very, very rare situations, and certainly not for the average Joe.

Coloma's avatar

@Dutchess_III

Agreed, A sense of entitlement doesn’t pay the bills. LOL

Dutchess_III's avatar

No shit. I’ve heard that, “You get sick, that’s what family is for!” argument before. They don’t even realize that they’re referring to the pre-1950’s, when there wasn’t much in the way of medical options. Yes, you went to your family and they simply made you as comfortable as they could while you died. That argument is the stupidest, most ignorant thing I’ve ever heard.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther