On Dec 6, 11:30*am, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Dec 5, 3:21 pm, "Existential Angst" wrote:
"dpb" wrote in
...
On 12/5/2012 1:07 PM, Existential Angst wrote:
wrote in message
...
...
There's a very big societal cost in the higher injury/death rates
owing
to
folks not being individually responsible-enough to use them.
Well, then, technically, I remain correck:
Gummint don't give a **** about an indivdual's safety, they're
concerned
about their own bottom line. 
...
Well, fundamentally they're the same...and should be concerned about
"their" bottom line since again, fundamentally, that's us.
Mebbe, but I would still maintain coincidentally so.....
And I do believe in "the Pubic good".... just that, when Conmen (read:
CONgress; and re-read: Lobbyists) are in charge of that Pubic Good, ****
never quite turns out right. 'tis what 'tis.... I guess this is what
happens when you (we) ****ed away our right to referendum....
--
EA
--- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
#
# Simple question. *You claim you believe in the public good.
# Yet you're dismissive of seat belts? *Hasn't adding seatbelts
# to all vehicles benefitted the public in a significant way by reducing
# serious injuries and deaths? *Lives saved, disabling injuries
# avoided, less productivity lost, hospital $$$ and lifetime care
# costs saved? * Same question for air bags?
And how much "public good" has come from police doing stops to spot check if
people are wearing their belts
I'm not in favor of police doing stops to check if people are
wearing their seatbelts. But the proponents of such measure
argue that it's been proven to increase compliance. And I'll
bet they have the statistics to prove it. Increased compliance
means more lives saved, less injuries, less lost productivity,
less healthcare costs that are paid by ALL of us. That sure
sounds like public good to me.
It's just like helmet laws, let the insurance companies punish those who
*CHOOSE not to use things like helmets and seat belts.
By giving that much more control to the nanny-state over what you can or
cannot do is NOT a good thing.
Ditto *with bad tort laws, which allow people to escape responsibility for
doing stupid things like putting a hot cup of coffee in your crotch and then
removing the cover while the car is in motion
A person making minimum wage doesn't wear a seat belt.
They have no health insurance.
That's OK with your libertarian Darwinism too, right?
It's a personal choice and they chose not to buy it. They have
a car wreck and are ejected. What could have been relative
minor injuries had they been wearing a seat belt instead
results in 3 months in the hospital. Who pays for that?
They wind up on lifelong disability, who pays for that?
They need lifelong nursing care, who pays for that?
And for those that are paying insurance, do you really
think the cost for a $100,000 hospital stay is just passed
on to the person injured? It would just about negate the
usefullness of insurance.
The more we move to nanny-state control over what you can and cannot do, the
less freedom you have to be responsible for yourself, EVEN IF THAT MEANS
DOING STUPID THINGS- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Accidents don't only happen to people doing stupid things.
They can and do happen to everyone at some time.