Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As a partial libertarian, i wonder about such things myself. . .and I find myself okay with certain "infringements" on liberty if that liberty can not be accessed without cost to the rest of us.
seat-belts and helmets
-- can be required only if you use state funded/us funded roads.
--seat belts laws have had a significant impact on death and damage to individuals.
--It is estimated that seat belts reduce a fatality rate by 45%. Helmets for motorcycles reduce fatality rate by 40%.
-- lack of helmet laws cost impact 1billion a year
Helmet Liberty, who pays: (1) doctors/hospitals are the front line (2) followed by insurance companies (3) followed by term-life policies (4) loss wages/salaries and impact to tax base.
for Helmet liberty to be free: we should note that you can not wear a helmet, but it is legal and customary for those without a helmet to pay more for insurance, and if found in accident without insurance full extent of all policies can be rejected. Hospitals, to prevent cost shift to them, are required to refuse admittance to non-helmet persons unless they have proof of non-helmet insurance and/or ability to pay.
You can say similar items for health care, immunizations, etc.
What I see is the problem with the liberty argument (for not requiring health care for example) is that you only want your liberty.. .and you say to hell with everyone else. Liberty isn't free, and it isn't quite right to have laws on the table that allow you a liberty to do something stupid and a law requiring a hospital to treat you no matter how stupid you are.