Pope falls foul of German hosts by shunning seat belt

[vz71]

Exactly. A person with a class B licence can drive a car with 8 other people. He equally endangers the lives of the passengers. Hence the gov’t steps in with seatbelt regulations.

That only works if you take out the freedom to choose to buckle up that the passengers have.

The passengers have the freedom to choose for themselves the risk, so your analogy does not work.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I haven’t had dealings re car insurance myself, but I doubt the insurer asks everyone who applies or renews whether they and all other drivers of their car intend to wear seatbelts - being an offense in some jurisdictions many would be too scared to answer honestly if they don’t.

So what likely happens is they get overall stats of how many crash victims don’t wear belts, factor the extra costs in and bump everyone’s insurance up a bit. Voila, that’s innocent people paying for those stupid enough not to wear belts, and not by their own choice.

agree.

 

[vz71]

but as I posted earlier seatbelt regulations don’t seem to make much (if any) difference in mortality rate. Infact, the state with NO seatbelt laws is the 3rd safest state to drive in. I’m not arguing the value of a seatbelt, only goverment has misstepped on this becuase regulation dosn’t equal saving lives. Statistically, having laws seemes to do nothing, though some staticts would suggest that becuase of tax dollars spent and poliece being misused it costs us much more TO have seatbelt laws.

Government action is rarely about saving lives.
It is more often about control.

 

[vz71]

I haven’t had dealings re car insurance myself, but I doubt the insurer asks everyone who applies or renews whether they and all other drivers of their car intend to wear seatbelts - being an offense in some jurisdictions many would be too scared to answer honestly if they don’t.

So what likely happens is they get overall stats of how many crash victims don’t wear belts, factor the extra costs in and bump everyone’s insurance up a bit. Voila, that’s innocent people paying for those stupid enough not to wear belts, and not by their own choice.
Mary Gail 36;8655324:

agree.

You may agree if you want, but it is untrue.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Government action is rarely about saving lives.
It is more often about control.

Some politicians are interested in their country. I think you’re being a little paranoid and overreacting by saying that governments are only interested in control.

 

[LemonAndLime]

You may agree if you want, but it is untrue.

So its untrue that insurance companies will make people pay for others accident?

My boyfriends car insurance recently went up because there has been an increase in accidents in my county. If they can find a reason, they will.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

So its untrue that insurance companies will make people pay for others accident?

My boyfriends car insurance recently went up because there has been an increase in accidents in my county. If they can find a reason, they will.

My insurance went down because we moved to a different county where auto thefts are less prevalent.

 

[vz71]

So its untrue that insurance companies will make people pay for others accident?

You know already that is not what I was saying.
Why do you persist in distorting my words?

My boyfriends car insurance recently went up because there has been an increase in accidents in my county. If they can find a reason, they will.

There is a very clear increase in the risk.

My insurance went down because we moved to a different county where auto thefts are less prevalent.

Of course your rates went down.
You reduced the risk.

We pay insurance companies to assume the risk for us since we cannot afford to ourselves. Why shouldn’t they increase the price for an increase in risk?

 

[LilyM]

That only works if you take out the freedom to choose to buckle up that the passengers have.

The passengers have the freedom to choose for themselves the risk, so your analogy does not work.

You have an odd way of calculating the costs of accidents - as if none of the hospitals doctors or ambulances in America have actual work to do apart from sitting around twiddling their thumbs waiting for you or others who choose to indulge in risky activities to perchance need their attention.

I know more than enough American doctors (a few are close family friends actually) and enough about the workings of American hospitals to know without exception all could benefit hugely from the reduction in injuries and deaths that mandatory seatbelts would provide. (what was the statistic quotes earlier in this thread? That in 70 percent of accidents the use of seatbelts lessens injury or prevents death?)

And yes, some of the states in the US have no seatbelt laws and also low injury rates. Fact remains that that low rate would be lowered much further - by 70 percent apparently - if seatbelts were compulsory.

So no matter how much you may bleat about freedom of choice, remember there is no freedom of choice for the people, needing emergency medical attention through no risky behaviour of their own, who are sitting in the queue behind you at the inevitably overcrowded and underresourced ER (and I’ve yet to hear of a single one that isn’t), whomgets shoved aside because you are either injured when a seatbelt would’ e prevented it, or your injuries are worse and require more care and treatment, than they would’ve if you’d been wearing a seatbelt.

 

[LemonAndLime]

You have an odd way of calculating the costs of accidents - as if none of the hospitals doctors or ambulances in America have actual work to do apart from sitting around twiddling their thumbs waiting for you or others who choose to indulge in risky activities to perchance need their attention.

I know more than enough American doctors (a few are close family friends actually) and enough about the workings of American hospitals to know without exception all could benefit hugely from the reduction in injuries and deaths that mandatory seatbelts would provide. (what was the statistic quotes earlier in this thread? That in 70 percent of accidents the use of seatbelts lessens injury or prevents death?)

And yes, some of the states in the US have no seatbelt laws and also low injury rates. Fact remains that that low rate would be lowered much further - by 70 percent apparently - if seatbelts were compulsory.

So no matter how much you may bleat about freedom of choice, remember there is no freedom of choice for the people, needing emergency medical attention through no risky behaviour of their own, who are sitting in the queue behind you at the inevitably overcrowded and underresourced ER (and I’ve yet to hear of a single one that isn’t), whomgets shoved aside because you are either injured when a seatbelt would’ e prevented it, or your injuries are worse and require more care and treatment, than they would’ve if you’d been wearing a seatbelt.

 

[vz71]

So no matter how much you may bleat about freedom of choice, remember there is no freedom of choice for the people, needing emergency medical attention through no risky behaviour of their own, who are sitting in the queue behind you at the inevitably overcrowded and underresourced ER (and I’ve yet to hear of a single one that isn’t), whomgets shoved aside because you are either injured when a seatbelt would’ e prevented it, or your injuries are worse and require more care and treatment, than they would’ve if you’d been wearing a seatbelt.

I have been in far too many ER’s to believe for a single second that anyone is pushed aside.

I believe you are making up stories.
Please back your accusation with actual documentation.

 

[LilyM]

I have been in far too many ER’s to believe for a single second that anyone is pushed aside.

I believe you are making up stories.
Please back your accusation with actual documentation.

Uh huh, so according to you no one ever ever has to wait around for a long time (hours maybe?) before they are attended to in an ER, because of too many people needing treatment and too few staff to handle them all quickly? Or shuttled from
hospital to hospital because most of them are too full?

And no-one ever ever suffers complications up to and including death because of those delays in treatment?

And no-one ever gets sent home too early from hospital because there are too Manu patients and too few beds for all of them? And no one ever suffers complications up to and including death as a result?

THAT, my friend, is what I mean by people being pushed aside.

Sure, staff normally won’t tell the patients or you that it’s happening, because

a) they are professionals trained to keep everyone as calm as possible at all times and

b) they don’t want their butts sued off, nor do they deserve to be because they’re doing miracles with a crummy system. A system made worse by people like you who make more unnecessary work for everyone.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Uh huh, so according to you no one ever ever has to wait around for a long time (hours maybe?) before they are attended to in an ER, because of too many people needing treatment and too few staff to handle them all quickly? Or shuttled from
hospital to hospital because most of them are too full?

And no-one ever ever suffers complications up to and including death because of those delays in treatment?

And no-one ever gets sent home too early from hospital because there are too Manu patients and too few beds for all of them? And no one ever suffers complications up to and including death as a result?

THAT, my friend, is what I mean by people being pushed aside.

Sure, staff normally won’t tell the patients or you that it’s happening, because

a) they are professionals trained to keep everyone as calm as possible at all times and

b) they don’t want their butts sued off, nor do they deserve to be because they’re doing miracles with a crummy system. A system made worse by people like you who make more unnecessary work for everyone.

As someone who also works in hospitals and spends a lot of time in the A&E (ER) department, I can verify your story.

vz71 - you’re being bizzarre. Are you seriously arguing that a major road traffic accident won’t have any impact whatsoever on how soon people would have been seen if you never had that crash?

 

[vz71]

Uh huh, so according to you no one ever ever has to wait around for a long time (hours maybe?) before they are attended to in an ER, because of too many people needing treatment and too few staff to handle them all quickly? Or shuttled from
hospital to hospital because most of them are too full?

And no-one ever ever suffers complications up to and including death because of those delays in treatment?

And no-one ever gets sent home too early from hospital because there are too Manu patients and too few beds for all of them? And no one ever suffers complications up to and including death as a result?

THAT, my friend, is what I mean by people being pushed aside.

Sure, staff normally won’t tell the patients or you that it’s happening, because

a) they are professionals trained to keep everyone as calm as possible at all times and

b) they don’t want their butts sued off, nor do they deserve to be because they’re doing miracles with a crummy system. A system made worse by people like you who make more unnecessary work for everyone.

All I asked is that you actually document your argument.
If you cannot, that is your problem, not mine.

 

[vz71]

As someone who also works in hospitals and spends a lot of time in the A&E (ER) department, I can verify your story.

vz71 - you’re being bizzarre. Are you seriously arguing that a major road traffic accident won’t have any impact whatsoever on how soon people would have been seen if you never had that crash?

Your location indicates a great deal.
“Socialist” Britain

What has been described is not the fault of drivers in car wrecks, it is instead the ultimate effects of socialized medicine at its worst.

Do not worry too much.
When your country eventually concludes its downhill slide into socialism, there will be room for you acrosss the pond. You are more then welcome here.
Although the relative amount of freedom may take a great eal of getting used to.

 

[LemonAndLime]

All I asked is that you actually document your argument.
If you cannot, that is your problem, not mine.

If you really really really want to, I will have no problem whatsoever in finding numerous articles and statistics detailing waiting times in A&E and how they increase after a major incident.

Or you could look up the effect of the 9/11 and 7/7 bombings had on waiting times for people waiting to have their broken arm from falling bandaged. An extreme example but you arguing against this is a little bit strange.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Your location indicates a great deal.
“Socialist” Britain

What has been described is not the fault of drivers in car wrecks, it is instead the ultimate effects of socialized medicine at its worst.

Do not worry too much.
When your country eventually concludes its downhill slide into socialism, there will be room for you acrosss the pond. You are more then welcome here.
Although the relative amount of freedom may take a great eal of getting used to.

…

Sorry, it took me a while to get over the huge wave of ignorance and racism I just got swept away with.

Now, the term socialised medicine is an odd one. Are you aware that we have nationalised, not enforced, healthcare? Do you even know what socialism is if you think my country is Marxist?

Dude, I am proud of my NHS and proud to work for it as part of the nursing staff. I look after people who otherwise would have died/been in debt if they hadn’t been treated here. I have looked after a few American nationals who couldn’t believe the care and treatment they got, and one woman even remarked to me that what she heard in the states about British healthcare was so far from the truth she couldn’t believe it.

My location by the way is more of a sarcastic remark aimed at people like yourself who believe that any system of government different from their own (particularly if it involves the government getting more involved in people’s lives than in the states) as ‘socialist’. Well, to be honest, I would much rather live in my country than the USA - which jails more of its citizens than any other country in the world.

 

[vz71]

This argument is going down pretty much as I expected it would.

Where the government has socialized the medicine, the people see logic in controling private decisions to reduce the overall cost to society.
After all, ones health care costs are no longer a private concern, they are the concern of government.
That is logical, for a socialist country.

What I do not see as logical is that these same people refuse to see that all of the logic put forth in their argument for state mandated seat belts also works just as well for arguments about other laws that are much more oppresive.
In fact, every area of our lives where we assume some risk is now open to government control.

What about state controlled diet?
Why shouldn’t the state control what you eat and when?
After all, there is no argument that the health care system there is overburdened, and the government controlling your diet can reduce the strain on this resource.
What about state controlled travel?
Statistics can readily show that those that travel more to get to work are involved in more accidents. Perhaps the government should step in and control this travel to prevent an undue burden upon society and upon this already stretched too thin socialized medical system.
And why not allow the state to control our careers as well?
The medical system is overburdened. If the government controls our career paths it is a win-win. The health care system that is overburdened can increase capacity with additional people and it does not have the burden of caring for those in dangerous profesions anymore.

Isn’t socialism fun?

Perhaps I should introduce another in the list of the inevitable socialist ideals.
State mandated birth control. After all, this overburdened health care system would only benefit from a reduction in the populace it must serve, and it will benefit all.

Has your socialist utopia offended your Catholic ideals yet?
I can continue with historic example upon historic example.
And your wonderful argument for mandated seat belt use is the key to all of them.

 

[vz71]

If you really really really want to, I will have no problem whatsoever in finding numerous articles and statistics detailing waiting times in A&E and how they increase after a major incident.

Or you could look up the effect of the 9/11 and 7/7 bombings had on waiting times for people waiting to have their broken arm from falling bandaged. An extreme example but you arguing against this is a little bit strange.

Actually, I do not need all of the documentation.
Your argument provides enough amunition against itself.

 

[vz71]

…

Sorry, it took me a while to get over the huge wave of ignorance and racism I just got swept away with.

And this is expected as well.

We see this in American politics every election cycle.
When you run out of logical argument, hurl the ‘racism’ term.

Oh well. My argument against socialism in general, and the seat belt laws specifically, still stands strong.