Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've been talking about this with my husband since the last thread on the seatbelt law. His contention is that if more people don't wear seatbelts everyone pays because 1) when you are not belted in you have less control of your car during an accident, and 2) same issue with healthcare. If you survive you'll probably incur much higher recovery costs. I was in a pretty bad accident several years ago, and I was belted in. I can attest to #1.
A number of years ago I had an insurance policy that doubled the indemnity for injured passengers or libilty if you were wearing your seatbelt when an accident occurred, which can be proven when the oblong plastic ring that your seatbelt passes through gets " ropeburn" when the belt passes through it with the pressure of your body exerts upon it when thrown forward. I thought it was a great feature of the policy!I don't see any reason why my use of seatbelt should be used to fill the states coffers via fines.
As your resident leftist I would like you all to know that using the state power to force people to wear helmets or seatbelts is improper because it interferes with the basic right of individuals to create their own risks. I do agree with the concept that the state help protect children by requiring the kids to be helmeted or belted in as appropriate. Forcing responsibility for children is proper; forcing responsibility for yourself is not. I think Wannacomehome has the right idea by making this part of the insurance contract.
BTW - I have been in some very dangerous environments and I personally always wear a seatbelt while driving and a helmet while riding. This is by choice.
For a resident leftist you that was wonderfully ( and correctly) Rrght of you!
I really tire of the public burden argument..I mean what about the public burden of paying for other peoples kids education..far more then the cost of all uninsured motorists combined. The public burdern of paying for those baby making machines called welfare moms..Druggies and alcoholics.. etc. In comparison uninsure motorists are a proverbial drop in the bucket of social drain.
I want to make very clear I wasn't arguing FOR the law. I think if people want to be stupid- that's their right.
I just never thought about the other costs until NH2008 mentioned it; and since I don't think it should be legislated- the only real option on paper for 0 burden is "let them die"...which is really disturbing (and off paper- not doable).
If we are going to bring cost into the equation-what about other things? What about smoking, obesity, etc. What about people who run around their houses with scissors in their hands? Should we outlaw all of these things simply because we may have to pay for them? Sure private policies may charge more for smokers etc. but uninsured people can do all of these things and we taxpayers will still get caught with the bill. I seriously doubt any medicaid receipients are being denied treatment for obesity, smoking or stupidity.
Of course I have no statistics but I would imagine I pay more for the uninsured and those on medicaid who suffered long illness from obesity, smoking related illness and stupid related injury and death than I have for those who stupidly don't wear a seatbelt.
If we are going to institute a seatbelt law because we will get caught with the bill of those who stupidly don't wear their seatbelts, then we might as well outlaw anything and everything. What abou drunk driving? It is already against the law(not saying it should not be). That is far worse than not wearing a seat belt. We pay for those uninsured who wrap themselves around a tree and linger in a coma yet they were being more irresponsible than someone who was not wearing a seatbelt.
I'm not arguing for or against, I was pointing out that IF the state requires hospitals to treat everyone regardless of coverage, excluding the unbelted/unhelmeted from insurance coverage wouldn't do anything to remove the financial burden they could impose on the rest of us (again, assuming they'd linger rather than die suddenly, which might not be true.)
Like BF66389, I don't want to live in a society where people just get thrown on the street to die, so I'm not sure there's any way around that. And yes, it's certainly similar to smoking, obesity, and all those other bad habits and there's a slippery slope - perhaps the best tactic to take is simply to mount a public health campaign the way we did with smoking, rather than legislate it? Or for people worried about the burden on their pocketbooks to shoot dirty looks at people riding without helmets, so that they feel silly rather than cool?
One could certainly argue that the issue of emergency coverage is related to welfare, since they're both matters most Americans (I think) see as a moral necessity - ie most of us don't want to live in a country where poor kids starve or die of strep throat because they don't have insurance. But at the same time, there is a stigma to being a "welfare mom" that would not make it seem desirable to most of us.
I don't think it is in any way related to public education. We pay to educate "other people's kids" because we need an educated population to make our country and economy run. Plus, if you think education is expensive, think how expensive it would be to support a huge population without one.
I want to make very clear I wasn't arguing FOR the law. I think if people want to be stupid- that's their right.
I just never thought about the other costs until NH2008 mentioned it; and since I don't think it should be legislated- the only real option on paper for 0 burden is "let them die"...which is really disturbing (and off paper- not doable).
I want to make very clear I wasn't arguing FOR the law. I think if people want to be stupid- that's their right.
I just never thought about the other costs until NH2008 mentioned it; and since I don't think it should be legislated- the only real option on paper for 0 burden is "let them die"...which is really disturbing (and off paper- not doable).
So because I do not agree with your personal safety choices I must be stupid?
I wear a helmet only when the law requires it when I am riding in a helmet law state or if riding in a heavy rain.
I find helmets unconfortable, I find them to be a nuisance, I find them to be a false safety net, I find them to cause blind spots, to affect hearing, to be hot and sweaty, to be a pain in the neck and chin, It is my experience in following motorcycle accidents in NH that head injuries are a minute cause of motorcycle fatalities, and that the notion that helmets save lives is on that basis a fallacy, I find no discernible statistical difference bewteen NH and the two closest helmet law states in relation to motorcycle deaths. The ways one can die or become critically injured on a bike are many, it has been my observation that mid to lower extremety injuries are the primary source of crippling injury or death, neither a helmet nor armor is going to prevent that.
Not wearing a helmet does not make me a rebel, it is a carefully weighed personal saftey choice. I do not begrudge those who feel safer wearing one, I am not their keeper, they not only need to but have the complete right to make their own personal saftey choices.
No I do not wear a seat belt either for mainly the same reasons.
Note that unlike you I do not insult those who decide for their own reasons to buckle up or wear a helmet, I can apperciate their stance though I do not agree with it, I feel truly sorry for you because you are unable to do the same for others, how very sad.
People, I speak to you from the late great State of California. We have ploughed this road you are now traveling, and let me tell you, get off that road right now! Do not be swayed by emotional stories about preventing injuries (the safety features of newer cars have all but made seatbelts redundant); it is all about the money. The Federal Government (and I use that term loosely) has been imposing their tyranny upon the states for decades by using our stolen tax dollars to bribe the various state legislators to impose this seatbelt law across the nation. New Hampshire is (I believe) the only hold out. Your politicians want this money to spend so they can build a super highway system and erect new roads and bridges and put their names on them (Not to mention all the other boondoggles and tax increases that will follow) which will transform your state into a mirror image of the rest of New England. This is only the tip of the iceberg. Do you want that? If so, move here and experience the wonders of federal meddling for yourselves; we have plenty to go around. Do you think California went bad overnight? Hell no, successive waves of "do gooders" have finally destroyed the goose that laid the golden egg. Compared to here, you have more freedoms than you can possibly imagine. In addition to the federal nannies, the insurance companies are also rubbing their hands together anticipating this one. Why? Because, right now you have one of the lowest car insurance rates in the nation, primarily because of the lack of such "safety" laws. If there was such a problem with high medical costs caused by head injuries, your premiums would reflect it. In addition, the enforcement of petty laws divides the police from the populace who increasingly begin to see them as the enemy (and not as Peace Officers) and the police and towns become addicted the revenue. Fight this with everything you have, because if you don't stop them now and show them who is boss, you will no longer be the last Free State in America; just another suburb of Massachusetts (or God forbid California) and when you are old, you can tell tales about the good old days when you could say “Live Free or Die” without being ashamed.
People, I speak to you from the late great State of California. We have ploughed this road you are now traveling, and let me tell you, get off that road right now! Do not be swayed by emotional stories about preventing injuries (the safety features of newer cars have all but made seatbelts redundant); it is all about the money. The Federal Government (and I use that term loosely) has been imposing their tyranny upon the states for decades by using our stolen tax dollars to bribe the various state legislators to impose this seatbelt law across the nation. New Hampshire is (I believe) the only hold out. Your politicians want this money to spend so they can build a super highway system and erect new roads and bridges and put their names on them (Not to mention all the other boondoggles and tax increases that will follow) which will transform your state into a mirror image of the rest of New England. This is only the tip of the iceberg. Do you want that? If so, move here and experience the wonders of federal meddling for yourselves; we have plenty to go around. Do you think California went bad overnight? Hell no, successive waves of "do gooders" have finally destroyed the goose that laid the golden egg. Compared to here, you have more freedoms than you can possibly imagine. In addition to the federal nannies, the insurance companies are also rubbing their hands together anticipating this one. Why? Because, right now you have one of the lowest car insurance rates in the nation, primarily because of the lack of such "safety" laws. If there was such a problem with high medical costs caused by head injuries, your premiums would reflect it. In addition, the enforcement of petty laws divides the police from the populace who increasingly begin to see them as the enemy (and not as Peace Officers) and the police and towns become addicted the revenue. Fight this with everything you have, because if you don't stop them now and show them who is boss, you will no longer be the last Free State in America; just another suburb of Massachusetts (or God forbid California) and when you are old, you can tell tales about the good old days when you could say “Live Free or Die” without being ashamed.
Well said. The goverement does NOT care about safety, they care about income..Want proof?..look at the pretty little liquor stores easily accessed from the highway.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
seatbelt incentive
