You're right. My argument that the state is more culpable for disabilities acquired in the military doesn't apply to this situation.
But my friend's argument that veterans' entitlement programs force the state to pay the full cost of war does apply. Uncle Sam's on the hook for this guy's cancer treatment because he's ex-military. That shit's expensive. Maybe if more Americans realized how expensive it is to take care of veterans, they wouldn't be so keen on military expansion?
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 12:20 AM, John Thornton <jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Don't you see the obvious error in your argument?
> The state is just as liable for a person injured in a workplace accident
> because they regulate workplace safety.
> The state needs to be hammered every time a worker in injured to drive
> home that point.
There are obvious problems with the action/omission distinction, but I don't think we should disregard it entirely or lightly.
You cite examples of omissions on the part of the state, such as its complicity in failing to pass regulations that could have prevented a workplace accident. However, in the kind of disability-producing events you're referring to, there's often plenty of fault to go around.
With workplace accidents, the employer, rather than the state, is usually a good place to start. You can have the most sophisticated, worker-friendly regs in the world and the employer can still break them. And all regs involve a cost/benefit analysis that's sometimes going to promote some other value at the expense of worker safety -- safety's great, but it needs to be balanced with other considerations.
Yes, the state can be complicit in the injury for failure to enforce, yadda yadda. And, you know, sometimes it's actually the worker's fault: showing up to work drunk, for example. Sometimes it's just plain ol' bad luck.
By contrast, when people are injured as a direct result of state action consciously and deliberately undertaken by state actors (e.g. military engagements or police brutality) there's more state complicity.
> Everyone with a disability should be treated fairly and EQUALLY.
No argument from me -- not necessarily, anyway. I'm all for equal outcomes, and my principle concern is that everyone receives the care s/he needs. My secondary concerns, however, are who/what ought to be on the hook for compensating the disabled person, and that entities at fault in particularly egregious situations are punished harshly. I bet most people would agree that the most egregious cases are those where someone is injured as a result of an action rather than an omission.
Yes, the current disability benefits system prioritizes veterans. But this is because the state is particularly culpable for the injuries veterans sustain as a result of their "service." The political scene being as it is, veterans are in a better position to win the expansion of the entitlement programs that benefit them. I wish them luck. The more generous veterans' benefits, the more the state is punished for one of its worst offenses: war.
In an ideal world, the state would pay the "veteran's premium" into a general fund that would be distributed to anyone receiving disability benefits. Maybe that'll happen in my lifetime, but that's not feasible at the moment.
-WD