"JT" wrote in message
...

"rw" wrote in message
m...
JT wrote:
"rw" wrote in message
m...

I'm against (mildly) laws that mandate personal safety, like helmet and
seat-belt laws, but I'm in favor of laws that mandate public safety.


I feel about the same when it comes to personal safety law... The
problem comes when the non-seatbelt wearing driver with no medical
insurance goes through the windshield and ends up in a hospital for
several months or worse a vegetable in an institution. As tax payers, we
end up paying for it.

JT


That's a a good argument for mandated universal health insurance.

I see both sides,

Not very clearly, I think. Let's see.

however, someone is going to have to pay for universal health care and it
will be the guy/gal working for a living.

The "guy/gal working for a living" are simply the largest sub-set of the
larger class of consumers. Consumers, you will doubtless be surprised to
learn, pay for EVERYTHING. The precise route the money takes in its endless
circulation may be of interest for any number of reasons, but whether the
feds or the insurance companies get a larger chunk of the bits that go to
health care on its way round and round is irrelevant in and of itself. The
real question is who makes more efficient use of it en route.

That troubles me...

It should.....but not for the reasons you think.

Your argument troubles me, because people do all kinds of dangerous
things (dangerous to themselves, that is) -- not just refusing to wear
seat belts. I don't want to see a bunch of laws telling us what we can't
do, or must do, for our own good.

True that, and stupid people will contiue doing stupid things no matter
what the laws says.

Everybody does stupid things. However, not everybody makes a point of
drawing attention to them in a public forum.

Wolfgang