Are you a Dive Hypocrite?

[TMHeimer]

We have our rights and personal freedom to do risky things, but I think one of the issues is this: What is society's (read: taxpayer's), tolerance for ultimately having to pay for another person's carelessness/stupidity/bad luck...including diving accidents?

To illustrate my point....

In most Canadian provinces, we pay a small monthly fee for our health care. Assuming the majority of people within the system are healthy, we're not a drain on the health resources, relative to what we pay.

Yeah I see your point. But it's difficult to bring our healthcare system into the picture. For one, private employers/"HMOs", etc. can also say that stupid acts raise their rates. As well, it's very difficult to say "you can't dive stupidly or we won't treat you" and then treat someone who is voluntarily obese. An argument is always made that smokers should not be covered by healthcare. What about drinkers, couch potatoes, and everyone else who doesn't lead a healthy, safe life? On a tangent, it has been argued that seat belt laws are good because it saves on healthcare--I dunno, but I think a dead person drains the healthcare system a lot less than someone seriously injured because a seat belt saved his life. I like your ideas, but not sure how to bring Canadian healthcare into the equation. Are you sure the cost per person is really $100/month? I've always been under the impression that we pay 1/3 more income taxes than Americans, a lot of which goes to healthcare--maybe that's fed. money being divided among the provinces/territories?

 

[AfterDark]

Threads like this make me wonder how us old timers survived all those decades of diving deep on air? Funny how after years of doing something safely and regularly it can be proclaimed dangerous and something to avoid. Baffling. Are there better ways to dive deep? Yes. Should those be the only ways? NIMO. All I need is the air that I breath.

 

[vladimir]

On a tangent, it has been argued that seat belt laws are good because it saves on healthcare--I dunno, but I think a dead person drains the healthcare system a lot less than someone seriously injured because a seat belt saved his life.

This argument has been made regarding the obese, as well (emphasis added):

It's time to shut up about "the cost of obesity." - By Daniel Engber - Slate Magazine

The first paper, published by a Dutch team in the journal PLoS Medicine, challenges the basic assumption that fat people are more expensive to treat. It's true that if you compare two people of the same age and wealth, one slim and the other obese, you can expect the fatter one to have more chronic diseases like diabetes and hypertension. The fatter patient will also make more visits to the doctor, buy more prescription drugs, and otherwise ring up higher medical bills in a given year.

But this analytical approach—used routinely by Finkelstein and other obesity number crunchers—ignores one important fact: Obese people have shorter life spans. Since the elderly are by far the costliest patients, it's possible that early deaths save taxpayers money in the long run. In fact, fatal diseases almost always return net-cost savings to public health care. Smoking, which causes a host of particularly deadly conditions, turns out to be especially cheap—which is to say, government attempts to curb nicotine addiction have actually cost the United States money.

 

[TechBlue]

I understand. Those type of suits should not be allowed.

Without a doubt, but I don't see them being disallowed anytime soon.

 

[Slamfire]

No additional bill will arrive in the mail. No other charges, whatsoever will be levied against him...

...at what point will society say, "enough! It's too expensive to allow these activities to continue without consequence".

Hopefully I am wrong, but a fire department captain told me that MSP does NOT cover hyperbaric treatment costs for diving accidents. MSP will cover the hyperbaric treatment cost of somebody trying to kill themselves by breathing exhaust fumes from a car. But scuba diving activities are not covered. Can anybody from BC confirm or deny this?

Also, I just remembered that two years ago I had to take an ambulance ride from Seymour Mountain because there was a suspicion that I had a broken neck. MSP covered hospital, x-rays, doctors, but I did get a bill for the ambulance ride. It was probably not the full cost of the ride since it was only $50 and a taxi from Seymour to St Paul's Hospital would have been more expensive. The bill arrived several months after my incident and my company's health plan covered it.

 

[Rhone Man]

Smoking, which causes a host of particularly deadly conditions, turns out to be especially cheap—which is to say, government attempts to curb nicotine addiction have actually cost the United States money.

I have a friend who works for a tobacco company, and he says that although tobacco companies never make this point in public, they certainly stress it in private to Governments. It would cost a fortune in social security if smoking was to be banned, with all those people living so much longer.

 

[fnfalman]

You roll your dice, you take your chances.

We're all suppose to be certified divers here. That doesn't mean we know everything about diving, but it means that we're educated enough to know when not to do certain thing. If we decide to put ourselves at risk for engaging in activities which we have not been trained on (no, I'm not talking about Boat Dive Specialty) or at least familiarize ourselves with...oh well, c'est la vie.

 

[TechBlue]

Another side note on the deep air debate, as we all know you can dive to 200' or deeper on air, is using the cost of helium really a good reason not to use mixed gases? You know you are narced and your judgement is impaired, this was shown in quite a few dives pushing the envelope in the NE 200' and deeper the "artifacts" that came up in some goodie bags of deep air divers were questionable at best sometimes downright hilarious.
I do not understand the reasoning behind the choice, that being said I have to agree with everybody here about personal freedom I don't like seatbelts or crash helmets and even knowing I am likely to get a ticket I still sometimes go without so I guess I would have to say that I am also a hypocrite.

 

[AlaskanDiveGirl]

While I am very comfortable diving within the limits "0 to 130ft" and feel no need to expand beyond that, I know that my dive buddy itches to stretch those limits over time. Right now we are comfortable diving together and perfecting our skills while just diving for the purpose we originally were certified for...exploration and marine wildlife. However, there is a large part of me that knows he will expect me to try and stretch my limits with him and I know already that I can't and when that time comes I won't. Part of me is sad that I can't continue on with him in his discoveries but there is another part of me that has this extremely strong sense of preservation and I know my limits and what I can handle mentally...and deep depths is not one of them so therefore I am simply being honest with what I know I am capable of. But I will not stop him from pursuing what he desires or what he wants from diving and I would hate to see government regulations stop his deep need for pushing his limits. I know that he would never dive beyond what he thinks he is capable; I know that he would take all the precautions necessary and although I know he will be disappointed that I won't be able to join him for these types of dives, he will appreciate my honesty and accept my choice. As adult divers, we are responsible for our personal decisions and we should dive only that which we know we are capable of... and no regulations will make that any safer, only us being honest about our own personal skills and what we are truly capable of will keep us as safe as possible... But...there are always risks and we accept and should be responsible for those risks and not expect others to endanger themselves to safe us from the risks we knowingly accepted. Just my little opinion on all that...

 

[fnfalman]

Another side note on the deep air debate, as we all know you can dive to 200' or deeper on air, is using the cost of helium really a good reason not to use mixed gases? You know you are narced and your judgement is impaired, this was shown in quite a few dives pushing the envelope in the NE 200' and deeper the "artifacts" that came up in some goodie bags of deep air divers were questionable at best sometimes downright hilarious.
I do not understand the reasoning behind the choice, that being said I have to agree with everybody here about personal freedom I don't like seatbelts or crash helmets and even knowing I am likely to get a ticket I still sometimes go without so I guess I would have to say that I am also a hypocrite.

There are free divers who go down to 300-ft plus with one gulp of air. Why would they want to do this when they can strap on a scuba rig?

It's not for you or me to understand their reasoning.