The ultimate PSA

[redshift]

Here is something I believe is way more of a problem- I see people texting and almost want them to end up like this- extremely graphic...

http://jalopnik.com/5342582/british-...+texting-video

[georgec]

I believe the times are getting ripe for another tea party

[Finnster]

Originally Posted by BrianG

I really don't understand the insurance company angle. If that were so, why isn't smoking and drinking banned? Smoking causes cancer, drinking causes liver damage; both of which result in potentially huge medical/life insurance claims. I just can't help wondering when will the control stop?

Smokers do pay more for health ins, as they have more med probs and drive up costs for everyone else.

So my ? to those that resent the mandates, would you then agree to be responsible for any additional medical costs for an easily preventible injuries due to not wearing a seatbelt?

Do you agree that increased responsibility comes with the increased freedom?

[zeropointbug]

Originally Posted by BP-Revo

That I disagree with, cause usually the people who run are running not because they don't want a ticket, but because they are wanted for a crime far far worse.

Yeah, but still it doesn't matter, it's completely unnecessary. The more control you push at people, the more they push back, and people eventually get tired of it and maybe come to a braking point.

[zeropointbug]

Originally Posted by BrianG

I really don't understand the insurance company angle. If that were so, why isn't smoking and drinking banned? Smoking causes cancer, drinking causes liver damage; both of which result in potentially huge medical/life insurance claims. I just can't help wondering when will the control stop?

Doesn't everybody have a very thorough paper examination for 'previous' illnesses, or if you are predisposed to illness, or anything thing that will make them want to say no, they will say no thanks.... well fuck you very much. The same applies to this, "If we don't believe in freedom of speech (health insurance) for the people we despise (think 'might' get ill), then we don't believe in freedom (health care) at all". So if they say wearing your seatbelt is mandatory, then if you are hurt, and you weren't wearing it, then perhaps you are not covered, or maybe not completely?

Redshift, I've seen that video, pretty graphic, looks quite real.


BTW, did you guys know that making it illegal to cell/text and drive has not done anything to accident rates? Why? People don't want to give it up, mostly young crowd. I for one think everyone should SHUT THE PHONE UP when driving, I don't want to be hit by someone who strays off into my lane because they were 'distracted'.

[BrianG]

Originally Posted by Finnster

Smokers do pay more for health ins, as they have more med probs and drive up costs for everyone else.

So my ? to those that resent the mandates, would you then agree to be responsible for any additional medical costs for an easily preventible injuries due to not wearing a seatbelt?

Do you agree that increased responsibility comes with the increased freedom?

That sounds reasonable. Put the onus of responsibility on the individual instead of the gov't deciding what is good for us. However, even if ins companies do that, do you really believe that rates will go down for the non-risk people? But I'll go for that plan, if for no reason other than to prove that they won't.

But that opens a whole other can of worms. If there's an accident and someone dies who wasn't wearing a belt, then the assumption will be made that it unequivically would not have been fatal if they were wearing the belt. It's whatever is convenient ins companies' coffers.

Kinda like if a smoker is diagnosed with lung cancer, the doctors automatically assume it was because of smoking. But who is to say that person wouldn't have gotten it even if they didn't smoke? There are loads of people who smoke like chimneys and never have problems; while others never take a drag and get cancer. I'm not saying it's not a contributing factor, or doesn't increase the risk, but you get my point.

Hell, why stop there? Why doesn't the gov't ban fast food? It leads to harmful obesity. Why not ban certain food additives/ingredients? Because you know that some California lab has determined it causes cancer in ring-tailed Lemurs. And while we're on a roll, let's ban forks, knives, guns, all land and air travel, electricity, water, and any device using radio waves. Because we know those things can be dangerous.

I have a better idea; let's just stop thinking for ourselves at all, and let Uncle Sam do it for us. Just go about life with a blank smile, pay the required 100% tax rate, and not worry about a thing.

Ok, maybe all that was a "bit" extreme, but you get my drift. But I'm tired and cranky.

[PBO]

Seatbelts. It's plausible to me that being forced to wear one may in fact be a way of protecting others...if you're a parent & it saves your life I'd argue that it benefits your child? Guess it depends how you consider the benefits

Also the pro/con of being safer...why do race car driver wear them? I know they're usually wearing 5 point but many a driver died a gruesome death without them & I don't see any governing body advising drivers against wearing them. Personally, I can't think of many scenarios where getting ejected is better than being inside a safety cell designed to protect you

[PBO]

Originally Posted by BrianG

Hell, why stop there? Why doesn't the gov't ban fast food? It leads to harmful obesity. Why not ban certain food additives/ingredients? Because you know that some California lab has determined it causes cancer in ring-tailed Lemurs. And while we're on a roll, let's ban forks, knives, guns, all land and air travel, electricity, water, and any device using radio waves. Because we know those things can be dangerous.

I have a better idea; let's just stop thinking for ourselves at all, and let Uncle Sam do it for us. Just go about life with a blank smile, pay the required 100% tax rate, and not worry about a thing.

Ok, maybe all that was a "bit" extreme, but you get my drift. But I'm tired and cranky.

Come on down John Savage!

Extreme in todays world but I'd be surprised if elements of that don't become reality. Rapidly aging populations will exert extreme pressure on medical services & some form of selection criteria will need to be applied when dispensing certain treatments...it's happening already, if you have a bad heart for example, your age, your lifestyle etc will determine your eligibility to even join a transplant waiting list

[georgec]

New York has banned trans fats! Good point where will it stop!

[Overdriven]

NY also wants to tax soda, hoping to help curb obesity by making it more expensive. I want to know who's dumb enough not to see it's just an excuse for another tax. They do the same with cigarettes + alcohol. Oh yea, and there's people who want more warning labels on hot dogs or for them to be redesigned. Because it's the most common food kids choke on.