To Protect, Serve, and Enforce... for a bribe

[ChristianCenturion]

Scenario:

"You" are in a foreign area.
You are involved in an accident, need medical attention, police to mediate and investigate the situation, etc.

The choice is not yours whether or not payment is made, you will pay, will be billed or you may pay for insurance that will make that sort of payment.
Since you are not a local resident, would it be ethical to have you pay or be charged for required services that most likely involved a local resident?

Ethical? Why or why not?

 

[noobsaibot]

I don't understand this line of questioning.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

I don't understand this line of questioning.

What specific part was confusing?
Perhaps I can restate it in another way.
However, younger posters that don't drive or have to pay taxes, insurance, be aware of certain laws etc. may not know a lot of what may be required for this OP.

 

[Ampoliros]

I don't understand this line of questioning.

He seems to be asking if people should be charged for local services (fire, police, ambulance) if they are not from that area.

 

[loriersea]

I'm not sure what you're asking, either. Ideally, nobody should have to pay out of pocket for medical care or police protection. But, if we are talking about a place where people do have to pay for that, I'm not sure why being a foreigner should change that.

 

[noobsaibot]

He seems to be asking if people should be charged for local services (fire, police, ambulance) if they are not from that area.

I sort of thought that's what he might be asking but I didn't understand if it is important whether or not you were determined to be "at fault" for the accident.

 

[Tomk80]

I sort of thought that's what he might be asking but I didn't understand if it is important whether or not you were determined to be "at fault" for the accident.

What I also fail to see is the relationship of the question to the topic title 'for a bribe'.

 

[levi501]

Since you are not a local resident, would it be ethical to have you pay or be charged for required services that most likely involved a local resident?

I'm a little confused as to what required services you're speaking of.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

He seems to be asking if people should be charged for local services (fire, police, ambulance) if they are not from that area.

Well there are situations that can exist where I didn't wish to restrict the discussion. So a generalized discussion where differing circumstances can be pitted against one another was my goal.

For instance in some locations in Central and/or South America, bribes during interaction with low-paid police or officials are sometimes common place.

In another context there is currently a proposal in my local area (due to a shortage of government funds for police, fire and emergency services, etc.) to have the insurance company pay $100-$500 for any given public service. It doesn't appear to say that an "at fault" is required nor resident/non-resident status be considered. In the latter consideration, I see it as the government not being able to steward what moneys the residents DO give and this is just another way of taking more money to compensate for incompetence. A tactic that MAY get funding from non-residents, but will eventually cause the residents to pay indirectly through higher insurance premiums that the government requires they have. A back door to the citizens' wallet without direct accountability if you will.

 

[levi501]

I deffinitely have a problem with "at fault" not being taken into consideration. With "at fault" consideration the fee amounts to a fine. I don't see a problem with a mandatory fine for any accidents you cause. I see no reason why it should be filtered through the insurance company. If it is, the insurance should pass it directly to you without raising premiums.

 

[Ananel]

To be charged for necessary services is not necessarily unethical. To make no particular effort to help the person find a convenient arrangement in said circumstances isn't particularly loving, however, and I would view that to be unethical. However, that's the health-care provider's ethical problem. It is behoven upon the person who needs care to pay as appropriate if no clemency is afforded.

A bribe that is illegal flaunts a government's (God's servant) authority, defying the 4th commandment. Even if it is unenforced to the point of being standard business practices, it defies the law of the land. Frankly, if graft is that accepted, it should be legitimized and rendered legal, a pay for services system as it were.

It's not a particularly 'nice' system, but in that case it would have legality and legitimacy within that system.

 

[Cerberus~]

In the latter consideration, I see it as the government not being able to steward what moneys the residents DO give and this is just another way of taking more money to compensate for incompetence. A tactic that MAY get funding from non-residents, but will eventually cause the residents to pay indirectly through higher insurance premiums that the government requires they have. A back door to the citizens' wallet without direct accountability if you will.

Exactly. This will do little to solve to real problem. The system is broken, that's the problem. Fix the system, and your fix lack of funds, then we don't have to bribe our police like we do in Mexico.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Exactly. This will do little to solve to real problem. The system is broken, that's the problem. Fix the system, and your fix lack of funds, then we don't have to bribe our police like we do in Mexico.

Admittedly, the bribe part of the title had a dual purpose. Allowing the consideration where situations ARE a bribe and as a "hook" for discussion.
Personally and for the record if I wasn't clear earlier , I don't consider the American version in having the insurance company pay falling under bribery, just politically sneaky and I have issues with it.