Quote:
|
Do you believe that shooting victims should pay for forensic tests, too?
|
Should Have to? No, of course not, but then I've specifically worded my comments that none of these victims should Have to pay for the tests. If they can, presumeably via insurance but out-of-pocket is also possible, and agree to do so, why should they be legally precluded from doing so?
Quote:
Quote:
|
It's only double taxation if the victim is Required to have the insurance and/or to submit the claim, whether we're talking murder or rape. So long as they have the option to not have such insurance and to not file if they do have it, there is no problem.
|
I mean that if someone is taxed for things such as rape kits and forensic work, then making them pay for it again is double taxation. If the police service cannot be expected to pay for such things, that should be made clear and taxes reduced accordingly.
|
I agree, but the source citations for the topic have been very short on detail, and thus don't say that's what happened. Where most posters here have been filling in the blanks with 'worst case scenario', I've been filling it in with 'best case scenario'. Am I 'right'? I don't know. Are you 'wrong'? I don't know that either. Am I failing to both follow the crowd and jump to conclusions? Definitely.
Quote:
|
So. There's nothing wrong with taking taxes out of peoples income to pay for criminal services and also to take money out of their insurance or pockets to pay for the forensic costs of being a victim of a crime.
|
If they agree to it, no, there's nothing wrong with it.
Quote:
|
I noticed you think people should vote libertarian and that explains a lot when it comes to this issue. It would be perfectly libertarian to cut out all government funding and insist that people pay for their own self defense. If you can't pay for bodyguards then tough cookies. If you get shot during a crime its your own fault and should have to foot the bills. If you can't then you die and tough cookies for you. If you get raped and you can't pay for the tests to collect evidence then tough cookies for you.
|
I expect there probably are some hard-core libertarian whack-jobs who do follow what you've described, but I'm not one of them. If you reread my posts, nowhere have I said the victims should be legally required to pay for the forensics - simply that they should not be legally required to Not do so.
Quote:
|
It seem that you would be an Objectivist with these kinds of thinking. Are you? Just curious.
|
Ah, I was thinking Objectivist was the term for the above approach, but wasn't sure and didn't want to offend any if I was mistaken. Nope, not objectivist, just libertarian.
Quote:
|
What you're omitting here is that most health insurance claims are accompanied by co-pays or deductible satisfaction. ... So, if my hypothetical wife on my insurance plan were raped, assuming the prices quoted here, it may cost her and me up to $500 to report the rape.
|
True, if she were Required to pay for it, which I never advocated. If her deductible were already met, she was willing to pay the co-pay, and/or the city paid it for her such that her actual expense was either zero or some amount she could readily and voluntarily pay, where is the harm in saving the city X hundred dollars?
(Tho this admittedly also assumes some sort of group coverage or other situation where such a claim would not result in a rise in premium or some such.)
Quote:
|
We're already paying taxes to cover such things as law enforcement and prosecution of crimes anyway. If a municipality like Palin's is going to charge victims of crimes (or, by proxy, their insurance, assuming they have it) with the cost of the investigation of the crime, why bother having a police force at all? At least give the people their money back so that they can seek recourse privately.
|
Ah - I finally came up with an appropriate parallel. An avid hunter's child goes missing. He already pays taxes for the police to address such things, right? Is it equally unconsciounable to ask if he might employ his bevy of bloodhounds, and/or friends with hounds and/or tracking skills, towards the effort of recovering the child? Or should he require the town to keep an appropriate slush fun around to hire them all to do so, since voluntary help is paramount to double taxation? If a victim has resources available to help solve a crime, be they dogs or insurance or whatever else, why is it so heinous for the authorities to ask them to help?