Individual Responsibility vs Obligations of Society

[Minor Axis]

Because I did not want to hijack the Polygamy Thread in the Religious Forum, I put my post here:

Sorry but you live in the US where it is a law that you have to wear a seat belt. I like having choices and freedom myself but more and more laws are passed to "save" us from ourselves. I like to visit other countries and when I return to the US I realize how screwed up everything is becoming.

There is the potential for an interesting philosophic discussion here... So you are against seat belt and other laws designed to give individuals incentive to act in a responsible manner? Have you even seen what happens to someone in a serious accident who is not wearing a seat belt? Instead of a law, how about if you were required as a condition of insurance to sign a statement that says if you are involved in a car accident, you are not wearing a seat belt and you die, the insurance company has no obligation to pay a death benefit, and if you survive, the insurance company, nor the hospital will have any responsibility to pay/cover your treatment? Sound good? I have no problem with someone not wearing a helmit when riding a motorcycle, just don't make the insurance company pay for it when they fly off it, crack their head and require special care for the rest of their life.

The other side of the coin is what should society do? If a person is severely injured should they be denied entrance into a hospital or carried off to a death wing until they expire or should they be treated? What is expected of society as compared to individual responsibility?

I admit I don't have a clear answer for this. I was turned off at the Republican debate when a candidate was asked about someone without insurance went into a coma, should they be treated if they can't afford it? When the answer was "no", the crowd cheered, this turned me off. What if they can't afford it? What responsibility if any does society have? Depending on he answer, what does it say about us as the most intelligent beings we know of?

 

[alice in chains]

I've thought about this before and I've got mixed feelings about it. The obligation of having insurance for your car/home or being forced to follow laws for your own well-being is designed to keep society running smoothly. If your car is totalled in a wreck and you have insurance, then all is good, the insurance company takes a small hit and you keep going in your life.

But, what if people were to "Drive at their own risk". Buying a home in the desert? Look at the chances of how quickly your foundation will crumble. This can lower the property value of homes...well, tough!! That is fair market competition. Why should the insurance companies make everything 'fair'?

Be responsible by not driving late at night to avoid the drunk driver who may hit you. Of course there are emergencies, but I don't think those few emergency cases really justify the millions of dollars people throw away on insurance.

 

[Accountable]

Because I did not want to hijack the Polygamy Thread in the Religious Forum, I put my post here:

Thanks. Twice! I love this kind of discussion.

So you are against seat belt and other laws designed to give individuals incentive to act in a responsible manner?

Laws, yes. There are many ways to incentivize safe behavior without taking away a person's right to choose whether to be safe. You give an excellent example right here when you mention insurers placing conditions on their payment.

Have you even seen what happens to someone in a serious accident who is not wearing a seat belt?

Yes, but that's not relevant to discussing the role of government.

Instead of a law, how about if you were required as a condition of insurance to sign a statement that says if you are involved in a car accident, you are not wearing a seat belt and you die, the insurance company has no obligation to pay a death benefit, and if you survive, the insurance company [...] will have any responsibility to pay/cover your treatment? Sound good?

Sounds great to me. I see you think yourself on shaky ground, so you threw in the hospital as well. That's a different discussion. Insurance companies put conditions on their obligation to pay all the time. For instance, employers agree not to allow smoking on their premises in exchange for lower premiums. I think that is a fine and appropriate way for a private business to hedge their bets - place a no-pay rider (or whatever the term is) for unsafe driving, which you can have removed in exchange for a much higher premium/deductible. That makes perfect sense. Far more sense than a law unnecessarily limiting liberty.

I have no problem with someone not wearing a helmit when riding a motorcycle, just don't make the insurance company pay for it when they fly off it, crack their head and require special care for the rest of their life.

It's a contract between a person and his insurer. You have no say in it, and shouldn't have a say.

The other side of the coin is what should society do? If a person is severely injured should they be denied entrance into a hospital or carried off to a death wing until they expire or should they be treated? What is expected of society as compared to individual responsibility?

Minimum life-saving care. The hospital is insured too, remember.

I think it would do our society a world of good to bring back family obligation. If you're going to legislate something, legislate that. Make families responsible for each other's healthcare bills. If the injured daredevil has family, put them on the hook to pay for whatever is left after they drain his accounts. If a family knows that a member is high risk, they might try a little harder to make him behave. If not, provide them a way to legally divorce themselves from him - cut him off.

I admit I don't have a clear answer for this. I was turned off at the Republican debate when a candidate was asked about someone without insurance went into a coma, should they be treated if they can't afford it? When the answer was "no", the crowd cheered, this turned me off. What if they can't afford it? What responsibility if any does society have? Depending on he answer, what does it say about us as the most intelligent beings we know of?

It says we can't work miracles, we can't cure the world, and that liberty comes with responsibility. Failing to allow people to suffer the consequences of their actions is what this most recent economic collapse is all about. If you know that you are responsible for yourself and your own actions, really responsible, then you'll probably be more careful.

 

[Accountable]

I've thought about this before and I've got mixed feelings about it. The obligation of having insurance for your car/home or being forced to follow laws for your own well-being is designed to keep society running smoothly. If your car is totalled in a wreck and you have insurance, then all is good, the insurance company takes a small hit and you keep going in your life.

In the US, the car insurance that is mandatory is the type that pays for the other guy's damages. There is no obligation for you buy insurance for your own car.

But, what if people were to "Drive at their own risk". Buying a home in the desert? Look at the chances of how quickly your foundation will crumble. This can lower the property value of homes...well, tough!! That is fair market competition. Why should the insurance companies make everything 'fair'?

I'm aware of no legal obligation to insure your home. That requirement is in your mortgage contract. The bank will require you to insure their house, since they own it, until you pay for it. Once the mortgage is paid, you can drop the insurance.

 

[banned]

Quote:
I'm aware of no legal obligation to insure your home. That requirement is in your mortgage contract. The bank will require you to insure their house, since they own it, until you pay for it. Once the mortgage is paid, you can drop the insurance.


True... but why do I need to pay for a insurance over the money they borrow me?????? If a bank does not want the risk than they should not loan to me.I insure the property ..they have to insur there own money not meeeee.It goes 2 ways you know.
Greeedddyyyyyyyyyyyyyy.

 

[Alien Allen]

True... but why do I need to pay for a insurance over the money they borrow me?????? If a bank does not want the risk than they should not loan to me.I insure the property ..they have to insur there own money not meeeee.It goes 2 ways you know.
Greeedddyyyyyyyyyyyyyy.

Now that has to be one of the silliest comments I have heard in ages. How is the bank that lends you money to buy a home being greedy by making you insure the home against disaster? Lets say you put 10% down on a 100K home. It burns down a couple years later. You have no insurance so what you will do is walk away from it. Leaving the bank with a loan that is worth pennies on the dollar as there is no home.

 

[banned]

I am not silly...I am talking about a mortgage insurance the banks make you pay for example on a FHA loan.
You understand the difference between a home owners insurance and a mortgage insurance ?

 

[banned]

I have no problem if a bank protect there property with a insurance as they own the property and I have to pay for that but why do I have to pay for there money to be protected what they borrow me.In a disaster they can claim the house back to recover there money but in case I stop payments thats a risk they have to swallow or if I am to risky than dont borrow to me or insure your own money and pay for it your self.

 

[Stone]

Now that has to be one of the silliest comments I have heard in ages. How is the bank that lends you money to buy a home being greedy by making you insure the home against disaster? Lets say you put 10% down on a 100K home. It burns down a couple years later. You have no insurance so what you will do is walk away from it. Leaving the bank with a loan that is worth pennies on the dollar as there is no home.

Now that has to be one of the silliest comments I have heard in ages.

Apparently you missed his comment about my being responsible for government and private debt ?

http://www.offtopicz.net/showthread...hic-Behavior&p=2077365&viewfull=1#post2077365

 

[banned]

@ Alien Allen....Mortgage insurance is a financial guaranty for the lender that will help to reduce or eliminate a loss in the case of a default by the borrower, and it is almost universally required on loans where there is less than twenty percent equity. That means if you are purchasing a home with less than twenty percent down or refinancing to more than eighty percent of your homes value, you are going to be required to pay mortgage insurance. In other words, mortgage insurance spreads the risk between the lender and the insurance company.

I totally agree with that and see it as a good thing but the bank need to pay it not me.....

 

[Alien Allen]

Now I understand what you meant. PMI ?? I believe that insurance is required if you have less than 10% down payment. What would you prefer. Not getting a loan or paying for the insurance because you have so little equity? If you want the banks to only lend to no risk clients I think you would find a lot of people complaining. There is always some risk. Which is reduced in proportion to the amount of equity. If people had enough money to put down more than 10% the risk of them walking away is less. Basically it is just paying a higher percent on the loan is all.

Using your analogy then should people pay the same rate for a car loan? They don't as it is based on credit rating. Or should a lousy driver pay the same rate as a good driver for car insurance?

 

[Stone]

@ Alien Allen....Mortgage insurance is a financial guaranty for the lender that will help to reduce or eliminate a loss in the case of a default by the borrower, and it is almost universally required on loans where there is less than twenty percent equity. That means if you are purchasing a home with less than twenty percent down or refinancing to more than eighty percent of your homes value, you are going to be required to pay mortgage insurance. In other words, mortgage insurance spreads the risk between the lender and the insurance company.

I totally agree with that and see it as a good thing but the bank need to pay it not me.....

Mortgage insurance is default insurance......not default of the bank, default by the buyer. It's up to the buyer to insure his obligation to pay, not the banks.
Common sense.

 

[Alien Allen]

I totally agree with that and see it as a good thing but the bank need to pay it not me.....

Sure they could pay it. But they would just raise the loan rate.

I get the same argument when we go out to service a customer. They always want the initial service call for free when there is extensive work. You really think I can afford to eat that? Anybody that waives that fee is building it into the bill for the larger work required. It is the same as taxing a business. No business actually pays for those taxes. They pass it on to the customer.

There is no free lunch although some would wish that.

 

[Stone]

Hi AA

 

[Stone]

Sure they could pay it. But they would just raise the loan rate.

I get the same argument when we go out to service a customer. They always want the initial service call for free when there is extensive work. You really think I can afford to eat that? Anybody that waives that fee is building it into the bill for the larger work required. It is the same as taxing a business. No business actually pays for those taxes. They pass it on to the customer.

There is no free lunch although some would wish that.

In Michigan, do you tell them to go pound their own sand ?

 

[banned]

Allan...I go along with what you are saying...but banks using it over the top.Its now 20 % down.Also credit rating is not even taken into account so they rate you twice and than have you pay for there risk.If I have a credit score of excellent than I expect to be treated accordinghly like that if not what is the point of having a stupid credit score?

 

[banned]

Listen ....it all worked fine without a so called mortgage insurance for years.....nobody complained...till the banks themselfs screwed up and loanend money to unqualified people...and now to fix it ..the client needs to protect them and pay so they can not screw up again????

 

[darkcgi]

Everyone should positive(Good Natured)
But nothing is forcing them to be positive(They dont have to. Free will and all.)
how do we get everyone on the same boat at the same time??

 

[hart]

I like the idea of yes, if you agree to sign a waiver, if you get hit by a car and are not wearing a seat belt you absolve the insurance company of any damage the seat belt would have saved you from-going thru the windshield,etc.

When I went when skydiving, I had to go thru several hours training AND watch a video where they showed all the kinds of accidents a malfunctioning chute could cause AND sign a release that if my chute and back up chute failed and I was injured or killed I or my decendents/family would not sue them! All before I could jump my first solo jump which was simply getting in the plane the the chute deployed w/o me pulling a damn thing! LMAO

That was a static line, not the first time I actually pulled the cord myself was after 5 jumps! So yeah, why not sign a release if you habitually don't wear your seat belt, insurance will cover things NOT CAUSED by ur not wearing ur seat belt. Seems fair.

 

[banned]

Everyone should positive(Good Natured)
But nothing is forcing them to be positive(They dont have to. Free will and all.)
how do we get everyone on the same boat at the same time??

By beeing FAIR...:24: