Health & Safety Regulations

scb wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

scb wrote:

Okay, so let me add another dimension to this problem - one of taxpayer self-interest rather than moral obligation: There are many times, at the state hospital where I work, when our labor and delivery unit has to turn laboring women away because we are full. The #1 reason we are full is because we can't allow babies to go home without a car seat. We've already determined in this conversation that the state should protect babies by requiring car seats (or some other such as-yet-non-existent device that would probably be too costly for some as well). I would argue that, in the long run, it would save us (the taxpayer) money and protect the health of the other patients if we could get car seats to these parents and discharge them. So, in this case, should we provide car seats?

Simply put, not having a car seat demonstrates a pretty large lack of foresight after a 9 month pregnancy.

Aside from the problem I have with your judgment/stereotype of people with poverty levels that are incomprehensible to most Americans, you didn't answer my question.

I thought I did, honestly. To clarify: No, I don't believe it's the taxpayer's responsibility. I believe that if this problem is as big as you say it is, that it would be better if someone stepped up and started an organization to provide for this cause directly, and fundraise. What about seeking help from a nearby church?

I didn't judge anyone, and I live in one of New York's poorest cities. I'm sure I witness exactly what you're talking about every day without quite being on the front lines like you are. I don't feel that the best way to break the cycle of poverty is to always give things away at the taxpayer's expense.

KDH12 wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

KDH12 wrote:

I think you forget that you live in a country where 2/3 of the population is not as smart as you... or should I say us


you can not hold everyone to your own standards or expectations

You see, that's EXACTLY the problem. Allow people to think, and they will have to think. Thinking has just about been criminalized in this country, or at least HIGHLY discouraged. Giving away a car seat isn't exactly going to teach those parents to put the bottle in the baby's mouth, and not its ear either. Seriously, if the hospital wasn't going to allow you to take your baby home, what would YOU do? Call someone up and get some money Western Union? Beg a little? Maybe hit up the ATM assuming you might have been socking away what you could to prepare for your bundle of joy to enter the world?

incorrect it is not about thinking, it is about knowledge and education

I say give them the car seat then refer them to a parenting class which will teach them the difference between the ear and the mouth.

I can not compare what I would do what they should do, since we have a difference in means

Let's see where knowledge and education takes you without the ability to think.

Again, I'm all for giving the car seat. I'll donate a car seat tomorrow to the hospital down the street in honor of this thread. However, the rest of the city / state / country shouldn't be forced to pay for someone else's car seat when putting away 50 cents per day over the duration of the pregnancy would probably cover it.

scb wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

You see, that's EXACTLY the problem. Allow people to think, and they will have to think. Thinking has just about been criminalized in this country, or at least HIGHLY discouraged. Giving away a car seat isn't exactly going to teach those parents to put the bottle in the baby's mouth, and not its ear either. Seriously, if the hospital wasn't going to allow you to take your baby home, what would YOU do? Call someone up and get some money Western Union? Beg a little? Maybe hit up the ATM assuming you might have been socking away what you could to prepare for your bundle of joy to enter the world?

The idea that people without resources just need to be taught to think is offensive. As for what you would do if the hospital wasn't going to allow you to take your baby home, people do find a way (it's not like they live at the hospital 'til their kid's too old to need a car seat) - it's just that it takes longer and in the meantime we have to turn patients away. For the record, not having a (safe) ride home is the number one reason discharges are delayed hospital-wide, not just on the maternity wards.

Nowhere did I even say that people need to be taught to think. Thinking occurs naturally. It simply blows my mind that at some point, it doesn't to occur to someone that they have to take their baby home from the hospital, and that there's probably a best way to do it-- especially if money IS the issue. We all know that money problems DO NOT happen overnight, unless you've got a severe gambling problem.

I could never find myself in that situation. I just couldn't. So what does that make me? Even if I some how was in that every situation, give me a phone and an hour and I believe I would have it solved.

scb wrote:

Edit to add: I forgot to mention that you live in a rural part of the state, 150 miles away.

150 miles from where? NYC? Try 60. Also, come to Newburgh and use the world "rural," see if anyone knows what you're talking about.

scb wrote:

My comment was meant to point out that we can say whatever we want to about what people "should" do, but it's all meaningless if they don't have the resources to do it.

I think it takes me back to my original point with the whole car seat thing though, which is to what extent we want to consider the interest of the community as a whole and the self-interest of the taxpayer when making policy. We haven't really acknowledged that sometimes social programs are not only an investment in the well-being of the community, but also really do SAVE money for the taxpayers as well.

I just don't see it this way-- where are the savings? Someone not shelling out money for car seats = savings to me. It's one thing for people "without resources" to find a job in 9 months. That's tough in this economy. Money for a car seat, or a friend or family member with a car seat, or a donated car seat from a church should not be an issue.

If the state were to provide these car seats, what's involved in making this happen? Background checks on someone's income? If not, why shouldn't Americans above the poverty line try and get a "free" car seat out of the deal... After all, they are paying for it, aren't they?

my theory is if you can afford a car then you should be able to afford a safety seat.

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

Seatbelts:

If I'm not wearing a seatbelt, and I'm not the cause of the accident (someone else is), that person is responsible for whatever damages I sustain. My not wearing a seatbelt caused no harm to anyone, and wasn't going to either. It's only after I get hit while it is someone else's mistake, that it becomes an issue. Taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for anyone's damages, but charities will choose to do so.

that's some awful logic there.

because you can't be bothered to put on a seatbelt you will sue someone for damages sustained over and above those that you would have sustained if you had a seatbelt? and how do you work our what injuries you would have had if you had a seatbelt on? do you wait until you are fit again, presuming you didnt die when you got thrown through the windscreen, and then re-enact the crash again just to prove your point?

seatbelt is the law here in the UK... if you were in a crash and had no seatbelt you'd get nowhere with a civil or criminal action against the other person and rightly so.

it's like moaning about the bartender serving you a pint of beer when you are already drunk and then falling outside and trying to claim damages from him because its his fault he gave you too many beers.

people need start being responsible.