Nice. Back in the real world the emergency services aren't there to help only the wealthy and educated.Turquoise wrote:
Apparently, self-determined people can. I believe Nietzsche called them Ubermenschen.... or maybe Ayn Rand said something about it.Jaekus wrote:
And all this before receiving treatment? So you can prove you can pay the hospital, naturally?Turquoise wrote:
You should sue the parties involved, and if you can't, your family should. If you can't manage that, you just aren't self-reliant enough.
I will hedge my bet that most people in real car accidents without seatbelts will not need a hospital.Turquoise wrote:
It could cost you more through them ending up in the hospital and not paying for services rendered, but that can easily be fixed by not serving people until they prove they can pay first.lowing wrote:
that is why they should be able to maintain their right to plow their dumb asses through their own windshield if they so choose. It does not cost me a thing.Jaekus wrote:
I thought it was pretty clear tbh... you kinda don't have many rights at all when you're flying through a windscreen - unless you miraculously survive of course...
How about going back and reading what he said, thinking a little about the meaning and it should hopefully come to you in not a very long time.lowing wrote:
Who? Mister National health care? No he didn'tJaekus wrote:
OMG dude, that is what he just said!!lowing wrote:
that is why they should be able to maintain their right to plow their dumb asses through their own windshield if they so choose. It does not cost me a thing.
what're the general speed limits in the US? suburban/rural/highway etc?lowing wrote:
I will hedge my bet that most people in real car accidents without seatbelts will not need a hospital.Turquoise wrote:
It could cost you more through them ending up in the hospital and not paying for services rendered, but that can easily be fixed by not serving people until they prove they can pay first.lowing wrote:
that is why they should be able to maintain their right to plow their dumb asses through their own windshield if they so choose. It does not cost me a thing.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Ok same argument. If you were coming to a stop and hit another car GOING IN THE SAME DIRECTION coming to a stop then your impact was NOT 30 fuckin miles an hour.jord wrote:
It wasn't head on, I said we went into the back of a car that was coming to a stop. I imagine the car we hit gave way a bit.lowing wrote:
Tell ya what try it again, do 30 miles an hour head on into a car doing 30 miles an hour, or a brick wall, do not put your seat belt on, and stick your arms out to "brace yourself". Then come back here, and explain to us all how your arms kept you from continuing your travels at 30 miles an hour after your car came to a dead stop. Using a pen in your mouth to punch the keys will be acceptable. You were not doing 30 miles an hour.jord wrote:
I assume you're referring to my example?
Well I'm glad you've come to the conclusion that it was indeed half the speed I'd said, what with you being there and all I trust your opinion on MY accident.
I posted that because adding a personal experiance and opinion makes dst a bit more interesting than arguing about shit nobody has any real experiance of. Extend some fucking civility and you might not have 90% of the forum on your back...
http://www.scienceperspectives.com/Sir- … -Belts.htm
You must be arguing for arguments sake, you weren't there, don't presume to tell me what speed we were going. Whether I subconsciously used my legs to brace as well or the car we hit gave way some, we were doing very close to 30mph. It sure as shit wasn't 15 anyway...
If I hit a tractor trailer at 100 miles an hours going in the same direction as he, while he was doing 105 miles an hour........then I did not hit him at 100 miles an hour did I?
That might be an issue, competitively speaking.Jaekus wrote:
Nice. Back in the real world the emergency services aren't there to help only the wealthy and educated.Turquoise wrote:
Apparently, self-determined people can. I believe Nietzsche called them Ubermenschen.... or maybe Ayn Rand said something about it.Jaekus wrote:
And all this before receiving treatment? So you can prove you can pay the hospital, naturally?
In the American medical market, it seems like only the wealthy and educated tend to be able to reliably pay for services. I suppose that means only they should get served. Surely, you wouldn't want to cut into the profit margins of hospitals?
In Australia we have the public and private health system.Turquoise wrote:
That might be an issue, competitively speaking.Jaekus wrote:
Nice. Back in the real world the emergency services aren't there to help only the wealthy and educated.Turquoise wrote:
Apparently, self-determined people can. I believe Nietzsche called them Ubermenschen.... or maybe Ayn Rand said something about it.
In the American medical market, it seems like only the wealthy and educated tend to be able to reliably pay for services. I suppose that means only they should get served. Surely, you wouldn't want to cut into the profit margins of hospitals?
Private health ensures better quality care, guaranteed beds, minimal or no waiting... etc. You pay for it but it's really worth it, from what I'm told anyway.
Public health means that you can sometimes wait 12+ hours in an emergency ward before even being seen. You don't pay for services directly, that's funded for by the taxpayer.
Last edited by Jaekus (2010-07-15 09:02:40)
High school maths, nice.lowing wrote:
Ok same argument. If you were coming to a stop and hit another car GOING IN THE SAME DIRECTION coming to a stop then your impact was NOT 30 fuckin miles an hour.jord wrote:
It wasn't head on, I said we went into the back of a car that was coming to a stop. I imagine the car we hit gave way a bit.lowing wrote:
Tell ya what try it again, do 30 miles an hour head on into a car doing 30 miles an hour, or a brick wall, do not put your seat belt on, and stick your arms out to "brace yourself". Then come back here, and explain to us all how your arms kept you from continuing your travels at 30 miles an hour after your car came to a dead stop. Using a pen in your mouth to punch the keys will be acceptable. You were not doing 30 miles an hour.
http://www.scienceperspectives.com/Sir- … -Belts.htm
You must be arguing for arguments sake, you weren't there, don't presume to tell me what speed we were going. Whether I subconsciously used my legs to brace as well or the car we hit gave way some, we were doing very close to 30mph. It sure as shit wasn't 15 anyway...
If I hit a tractor trailer at 100 miles an hours going in the same direction as he, while he was doing 105 miles an hour........then I did not hit him at 100 miles an hour did I?
In NY state (where I live, anyway), in cities it tends to be 30 on most roads, in the suburbs it is usually 30 on residential roads, 35-45 on larger roads, 55 for rural roads and 55-65 for highways.FatherTed wrote:
what're the general speed limits in the US? suburban/rural/highway etc?
Last edited by SenorToenails (2010-07-15 09:05:29)
Didn't realize I had to explain it.Jaekus wrote:
High school maths, nice.lowing wrote:
Ok same argument. If you were coming to a stop and hit another car GOING IN THE SAME DIRECTION coming to a stop then your impact was NOT 30 fuckin miles an hour.jord wrote:
It wasn't head on, I said we went into the back of a car that was coming to a stop. I imagine the car we hit gave way a bit.
You must be arguing for arguments sake, you weren't there, don't presume to tell me what speed we were going. Whether I subconsciously used my legs to brace as well or the car we hit gave way some, we were doing very close to 30mph. It sure as shit wasn't 15 anyway...
If I hit a tractor trailer at 100 miles an hours going in the same direction as he, while he was doing 105 miles an hour........then I did not hit him at 100 miles an hour did I?
Coming to a stop, as in like he was doing under 5MPH. I'm well award of the science and maths lowing you don't need to condescend. I didn't claim the impact speed was 30, I said the car I was in was doing 30, nor did I claim it was a headon crash which you were all to quick to assume.lowing wrote:
Ok same argument. If you were coming to a stop and hit another car GOING IN THE SAME DIRECTION coming to a stop then your impact was NOT 30 fuckin miles an hour.jord wrote:
It wasn't head on, I said we went into the back of a car that was coming to a stop. I imagine the car we hit gave way a bit.lowing wrote:
Tell ya what try it again, do 30 miles an hour head on into a car doing 30 miles an hour, or a brick wall, do not put your seat belt on, and stick your arms out to "brace yourself". Then come back here, and explain to us all how your arms kept you from continuing your travels at 30 miles an hour after your car came to a dead stop. Using a pen in your mouth to punch the keys will be acceptable. You were not doing 30 miles an hour.
http://www.scienceperspectives.com/Sir- … -Belts.htm
You must be arguing for arguments sake, you weren't there, don't presume to tell me what speed we were going. Whether I subconsciously used my legs to brace as well or the car we hit gave way some, we were doing very close to 30mph. It sure as shit wasn't 15 anyway...
If I hit a tractor trailer at 100 miles an hours going in the same direction as he, while he was doing 105 miles an hour........then I did not hit him at 100 miles an hour did I?
Anyway my opinion on the overall subject is it should be entirely up to each individual to make their own choices regarding their own safety.
65 mph on highway reality is 80+FatherTed wrote:
what're the general speed limits in the US? suburban/rural/highway etc?lowing wrote:
I will hedge my bet that most people in real car accidents without seatbelts will not need a hospital.Turquoise wrote:
It could cost you more through them ending up in the hospital and not paying for services rendered, but that can easily be fixed by not serving people until they prove they can pay first.
45-55 mph on 2 lane roads reality is 65+
25-35 in town reality 35-45 although I do not speed in town due to the speed traps.
Look, your argument was you were in an accident at 30 miles an hours and you put out your arms to brace yourself. My argument was and IS there is no way putting out your arms in a 30 mile an hour accident was going to save you. You were not in a 30 mile an hour accident. That is it.jord wrote:
Coming to a stop, as in like he was doing under 5MPH. I'm well award of the science and maths lowing you don't need to condescend. I didn't claim the impact speed was 30, I said the car I was in was doing 30, nor did I claim it was a headon crash which you were all to quick to assume.lowing wrote:
Ok same argument. If you were coming to a stop and hit another car GOING IN THE SAME DIRECTION coming to a stop then your impact was NOT 30 fuckin miles an hour.jord wrote:
It wasn't head on, I said we went into the back of a car that was coming to a stop. I imagine the car we hit gave way a bit.
You must be arguing for arguments sake, you weren't there, don't presume to tell me what speed we were going. Whether I subconsciously used my legs to brace as well or the car we hit gave way some, we were doing very close to 30mph. It sure as shit wasn't 15 anyway...
If I hit a tractor trailer at 100 miles an hours going in the same direction as he, while he was doing 105 miles an hour........then I did not hit him at 100 miles an hour did I?
Anyway my opinion on the overall subject is it should be entirely up to each individual to make their own choices regarding their own safety.
Last edited by lowing (2010-07-15 09:30:05)
Around here it's usually 25MPH in residential areas, 35-45MPH on main roads and state highways, 55-65MPH on some state highways and the US and Interstate highways.FatherTed wrote:
what're the general speed limits in the US? suburban/rural/highway etc?lowing wrote:
I will hedge my bet that most people in real car accidents without seatbelts will not need a hospital.Turquoise wrote:
It could cost you more through them ending up in the hospital and not paying for services rendered, but that can easily be fixed by not serving people until they prove they can pay first.
For instance, the Capital Beltway's speed limit is 55MPH but most people do at least 65. I very rarely go above 65MPH.
Well the science may be if you're doing 30MPH and come to a SUDDEN stop your arms would not stop you from going through into the front. Doesn't account for variables, the crumple zone, the other car giving way slightly, legs and knees behind seats as well as arms. It wasn't a sudden stop from 30MPH if that's what you're getting at, and I'd agree.lowing wrote:
Look, your argument was you were in an accident at 30 miles an hours and you put out your arms to brace yourself. My argument was and IS there is no way putting out your arms in a 30 mile an hour accident was going to save you. You were not in a 30 mile an hour accident. That is it.jord wrote:
Coming to a stop, as in like he was doing under 5MPH. I'm well award of the science and maths lowing you don't need to condescend. I didn't claim the impact speed was 30, I said the car I was in was doing 30, nor did I claim it was a headon crash which you were all to quick to assume.lowing wrote:
Ok same argument. If you were coming to a stop and hit another car GOING IN THE SAME DIRECTION coming to a stop then your impact was NOT 30 fuckin miles an hour.
If I hit a tractor trailer at 100 miles an hours going in the same direction as he, while he was doing 105 miles an hour........then I did not hit him at 100 miles an hour did I?
Anyway my opinion on the overall subject is it should be entirely up to each individual to make their own choices regarding their own safety.
Back on topic?
Ahh, ok then.lowing wrote:
Umm I do not come in here looking for someone to agree with.Pug wrote:
Hmmm....
looks like you just want to argue today.
I will put my pointy stick away.
Hope all is well in your neck of the woods, have a good day
You wanted to drag national health care into it, so I did.
1) "Show how it will cost me if you don't wear a seat belt"
2) "National Healthcare"
3) "Not wearing seatbelts = death"
Okay, so I'm going to say:
In general, not wearing a seatbelt will cause the passengers to be injured more severly.
In general, the number of car fatalities is extremely low.
In general, wearing a seatbelt reduces the amount of time spent in the hospital compared to those who are not wearing one.
Therefore, the cost the government will incur will be larger due to increased healthcare expenses due to not wearing a seat belt.
Aka, your argument is incorrect, or will be incorrect when national healthcare comes around...because you pay taxes. Because of overstating the truth regarding not wearing a seat belt.
I thought my point was obvious and didn't need to be explained, which is why I thought you were being argumentative.
Accidents won't go up or down, deaths will go up, if people are not forced to wear seatbelts. more people will die. Dead people don't cost me anything on taxes.Pug wrote:
Ahh, ok then.lowing wrote:
Umm I do not come in here looking for someone to agree with.Pug wrote:
Hmmm....
looks like you just want to argue today.
I will put my pointy stick away.
Hope all is well in your neck of the woods, have a good day
You wanted to drag national health care into it, so I did.
1) "Show how it will cost me if you don't wear a seat belt"
2) "National Healthcare"
3) "Not wearing seatbelts = death"
Okay, so I'm going to say:
In general, not wearing a seatbelt will cause the passengers to be injured more severly.
In general, the number of car fatalities is extremely low.
In general, wearing a seatbelt reduces the amount of time spent in the hospital compared to those who are not wearing one.
Therefore, the cost the government will incur will be larger due to increased healthcare expenses due to not wearing a seat belt.
Aka, your argument is incorrect, or will be incorrect when national healthcare comes around...because you pay taxes. Because of overstating the truth regarding not wearing a seat belt.
I thought my point was obvious and didn't need to be explained, which is why I thought you were being argumentative.
You know, come to think of it, if we got rid of crash test ratings, more people driving cheaper vehicles would probably die in wrecks. We should allow those really unsafe cars that you can buy in places like India and China. The people willing to buy those cars on the cheap will face a higher incidence of death in wrecks, and since the kind of people willing to buy those cars are probably poor and more prone to ending up on welfare, this might actually save us money in the long run.lowing wrote:
Accidents won't go up or down, deaths will go up, if people are not forced to wear seatbelts. more people will die. Dead people don't cost me anything on taxes.Pug wrote:
Ahh, ok then.lowing wrote:
Umm I do not come in here looking for someone to agree with.
You wanted to drag national health care into it, so I did.
1) "Show how it will cost me if you don't wear a seat belt"
2) "National Healthcare"
3) "Not wearing seatbelts = death"
Okay, so I'm going to say:
In general, not wearing a seatbelt will cause the passengers to be injured more severly.
In general, the number of car fatalities is extremely low.
In general, wearing a seatbelt reduces the amount of time spent in the hospital compared to those who are not wearing one.
Therefore, the cost the government will incur will be larger due to increased healthcare expenses due to not wearing a seat belt.
Aka, your argument is incorrect, or will be incorrect when national healthcare comes around...because you pay taxes. Because of overstating the truth regarding not wearing a seat belt.
I thought my point was obvious and didn't need to be explained, which is why I thought you were being argumentative.
Last edited by Turquoise (2010-07-15 20:02:38)
A two minute act of stupidity isn't enough to condemn an entire society to following yet more power-mongering government regulations "for their own good."pace51 wrote:
No. A two minute act of stupidity isnt enough to condemn a person making perfectly smart decisions their whole life to death.eskimo_sammyjoe wrote:
If they don't want to wear lifejackets, let them drown.
If they operate a boat while trashed, let them drown.
Same goes for seatbelts/cars.
Actually, it is. It happens all the time.pace51 wrote:
No. A two minute act of stupidity isnt enough to condemn a person making perfectly smart decisions their whole life to death.eskimo_sammyjoe wrote:
If they don't want to wear lifejackets, let them drown.
If they operate a boat while trashed, let them drown.
Same goes for seatbelts/cars.
In fact, it doesn't even have to take an act of stupidity on their part. It might just be an act of stupidity on someone else's part.
Either way, shit happens. Natural selection...
Whatever you wish, I am not poor.Turquoise wrote:
You know, come to think of it, if we got rid of crash test ratings, more people driving cheaper vehicles would probably die in wrecks. We should allow those really unsafe cars that you can buy in places like India and China. The people willing to buy those cars on the cheap will face a higher incidence of death in wrecks, and since the kind of people willing to buy those cars are probably poor and more prone to ending up on welfare, this might actually save us money in the long run.lowing wrote:
Accidents won't go up or down, deaths will go up, if people are not forced to wear seatbelts. more people will die. Dead people don't cost me anything on taxes.Pug wrote:
Ahh, ok then.
1) "Show how it will cost me if you don't wear a seat belt"
2) "National Healthcare"
3) "Not wearing seatbelts = death"
Okay, so I'm going to say:
In general, not wearing a seatbelt will cause the passengers to be injured more severly.
In general, the number of car fatalities is extremely low.
In general, wearing a seatbelt reduces the amount of time spent in the hospital compared to those who are not wearing one.
Therefore, the cost the government will incur will be larger due to increased healthcare expenses due to not wearing a seat belt.
Aka, your argument is incorrect, or will be incorrect when national healthcare comes around...because you pay taxes. Because of overstating the truth regarding not wearing a seat belt.
I thought my point was obvious and didn't need to be explained, which is why I thought you were being argumentative.
No. It only takes one person to have a longer stay in the hospital to have you become incorrect.lowing wrote:
Accidents won't go up or down, deaths will go up, if people are not forced to wear seatbelts. more people will die. Dead people don't cost me anything on taxes.Pug wrote:
Ahh, ok then.lowing wrote:
Umm I do not come in here looking for someone to agree with.
You wanted to drag national health care into it, so I did.
1) "Show how it will cost me if you don't wear a seat belt"
2) "National Healthcare"
3) "Not wearing seatbelts = death"
Okay, so I'm going to say:
In general, not wearing a seatbelt will cause the passengers to be injured more severly.
In general, the number of car fatalities is extremely low.
In general, wearing a seatbelt reduces the amount of time spent in the hospital compared to those who are not wearing one.
Therefore, the cost the government will incur will be larger due to increased healthcare expenses due to not wearing a seat belt.
Aka, your argument is incorrect, or will be incorrect when national healthcare comes around...because you pay taxes. Because of overstating the truth regarding not wearing a seat belt.
I thought my point was obvious and didn't need to be explained, which is why I thought you were being argumentative.
Aka, person wears selt belt does not get thrown from car. Gets hospital services for an hour, goes home. One hour of hospital time is paid for by government insurance.
Person who does not wear selt belt, gets thrown from car but does not die. Gets hospital services for six months while in a vegetative state, finally the family decides to pull the plug. Six months of hospital time is paid for by government insurance.
I don't agree with the premise that lacking seat belts will result in LESS EMS or hospital stays because of death.
If seatbelts don't save lives, why are we forced to wear them? All stats show that wearing seatbelts results in lower death rates, and if you did not die where you would have, chances are you probably got hurt...........right?Pug wrote:
No. It only takes one person to have a longer stay in the hospital to have you become incorrect.lowing wrote:
Accidents won't go up or down, deaths will go up, if people are not forced to wear seatbelts. more people will die. Dead people don't cost me anything on taxes.Pug wrote:
Ahh, ok then.
1) "Show how it will cost me if you don't wear a seat belt"
2) "National Healthcare"
3) "Not wearing seatbelts = death"
Okay, so I'm going to say:
In general, not wearing a seatbelt will cause the passengers to be injured more severly.
In general, the number of car fatalities is extremely low.
In general, wearing a seatbelt reduces the amount of time spent in the hospital compared to those who are not wearing one.
Therefore, the cost the government will incur will be larger due to increased healthcare expenses due to not wearing a seat belt.
Aka, your argument is incorrect, or will be incorrect when national healthcare comes around...because you pay taxes. Because of overstating the truth regarding not wearing a seat belt.
I thought my point was obvious and didn't need to be explained, which is why I thought you were being argumentative.
Aka, person wears selt belt does not get thrown from car. Gets hospital services for an hour, goes home. One hour of hospital time is paid for by government insurance.
Person who does not wear selt belt, gets thrown from car but does not die. Gets hospital services for six months while in a vegetative state, finally the family decides to pull the plug. Six months of hospital time is paid for by government insurance.
I don't agree with the premise that lacking seat belts will result in LESS EMS or hospital stays because of death.
Yea...there are more than just 'alive and well' and 'dead' options for the outcome of a car crash, with or without seatbelts.Pug wrote:
I don't agree with the premise that lacking seat belts will result in LESS EMS or hospital stays because of death.
However, if one were to bring government healthcare into the debate as a justification for seatbelt laws...well, that would be foolish because then anything that can cause adverse health effects could be legislated with the same logic.
Umm... yeah. Why do you think I was so opposed to the health care bill?SenorToenails wrote:
Yea...there are more than just 'alive and well' and 'dead' options for the outcome of a car crash, with or without seatbelts.Pug wrote:
I don't agree with the premise that lacking seat belts will result in LESS EMS or hospital stays because of death.
However, if one were to bring government healthcare into the debate as a justification for seatbelt laws...well, that would be foolish because then anything that can cause adverse health effects could be legislated with the same logic.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat