Darwinism at it's bestFollow

Isn't it ironic?

Simply from a personal freedoms standpoint, it's a valid point.

But when he bemoans $138 million in government spending, and then shrugs off 6,100 saved lives as insignificant?

That's laughable.


"If one is doing the math, that is more than $138 million spent on seat belt laws. But the kicker is this: It is estimated, by researchers for Congress, that only 6,100 lives are saved per year because of new seat belt wearers."

Irony.

I wonder, had his driver gotten a ticket earlier that night, compelling him to tell his passengers to buckle up and it saved his life if he would have felt the same way the next morning?

Edited, Fri Feb 4 07:45:46 2005 by xythex

The government is spending $22,622 per life. Obviously, a human life isn't worth THAT much. That'd be enough to feed a small African nation for three months. Deadboy had a point. =P

Well, okay, if y'all really don't want to wear seat belts, so be it. However, when you're in the hospital with spinal injuries arising from a car accident in which wearing a seat belt would have prevented you from being thrown out of the vehicle and permanently disabled, I reserve the right to NOT pay for your custodial care with my taxes after your insurance coverage runs out, okay? I'm sure that'll be fine with you, to fester in your own ***** while bedsores eat your flesh away, and what not.

No, it's NOT OK for you to reserve that right. You see, that decision has been made for you by someone else, much like the seatbelt decision.

Take it at face value.

Because it is an infringment on my personal freedom which doesnt affect other people.

Edited, Fri Feb 4 10:29:22 2005 by DamthebiTch

I feel the temperature I maintain in the apartment building I own is a personal decision.

And as long as you're not subjecting anyone else to that temperature, all the seat-belters, would agree with you. The moment you ask someone else to be affected by that temperature by, say renting apartments to other people, then you make yourself a landlord and start having to make concessions to the tenants, both from common decency and according to legal mandates.

Whether to wear a seatbelt is a personal decision, unless you want to consider that if you are in a seat and fly out of it, the injuries your flying body may cause to others.

Apples and oranges, hickory hi, hickory ho. Off to work we go.

Like I said, tenants can always refuse to sign the lease if there is no temperature stipulation.

Why does the government have to protect them?



P.S. The "common decency" argument can be used against you, as well.

-SIGH- The irony of it all... LOL

Bull-puckey. It's very simple to write exclusionary clauses into insurance policies. Those laws don't protect a single soul.

The fact of the matter is that if you're going to exclude people who don't wear seat belts from treatment, you need to start somewhere else with your exclusions.

I'll suggest a few places:

1. Prisons. Those inmates haven't paid into the system since they were incarcerated. They don't deserve any care.

2. Illegal Immigrants. We all know they don't pay into the system, but they constantly get benefits from it. Don't forget those legal workers who have cards but aren't apying in duirng their temporary work stay. They should fester in their own ***** while bedsores eat away at their flesh, too.

3. Orphans and widows. Bunch of freeloaders who expect to get money out of the system they've never paid in. Let the ingrates starve.

4. Anyone who got injured doing anything illegal and anyone found to have been under the influence of alcohol or drugs when they were injured.

5. Let's not forget anyone who was injured in an avoidable accident. No benefits for them, either.

In fact, just do away with the whole system once you start exclusionary practices. I don't have a problem with that.