OT has to happen all the time. I guess

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:56:58 -0800, "JT" wrote:


"rw" wrote in message
om...

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

Look at the bright side of non-helmeted bikers/non-seatbelt-wearing drivers:
more organ donors.

/daytripper (they also serve who croaketh themselves)

rw typed:
Tim J. wrote:
rw typed:

I think talking on a cell phone while driving is qualitatively
different from most other distractions. People get so involved in
their conversations, often (as I observe) getting angry, that they
lose track of the fact that they're driving.

I suppose the same thing is possible with a conversation with a
passenger, but there's nothing a law can do about that.


Why not? We could enact a "lip movement" law that restricts
conversation of any sort. Of course, that won't fix the "wiping
their ass" thing, but we could just pass a law per day until we've
hit all the possibilities.

When it comes to laws, I'm a utilitarian. Laws can reasonably solve
some problems, but not others. So I'm against a lip movement law.
It's not practical.

There's also the question of culpability. A cell-phone talking driver
(or, for that matter, a drunk driver) is a risk to others; as, for
example, a helmetless motorcycle rider or non-seat-belt-wearing driver
isn't.

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.

Okay. So mobile ass-wiping is okay or not? What about changing a cassette
tape (CD for you younguns)? Or eating a Big Mac? Or wacking your kid in the
backseat who's playing "I'm not touching you" with his younger sister? What
about that Cheetos that fell to the car floor and is still under the
five-second rule? If we have a law for one, we *must* have a law for all!
--
TL,
Tim
-------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

On Dec 20, 3:47 pm, "JT" wrote:
I see both sides, however, someone is going to have to pay for universal
health care and it will be the guy/gal working for a living. That troubles
me...

The fact is, you're already paying for it. We already have universal
health care; but we pay for a bad system in stupid ways. Every time
a poor or uninsured person shows up at the ER with a seriously
progressed condition, you're paying thousands to deal with that
through your tax dollars when you could have paid significantly less
to give them the insurance they'd need to see a doctor when it was
something minor. When a mother can't go to work because her child is
sick, you're paying for that. When kids miss school due to
preventable illnesses, you're paying for the consequences of that.

The difference is that the public gets to enjoy the illusion it's not
socialized medicine just because we don't pay it directly or call a
spade a spade; but we pay for it through lost productivity, crime,
welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, and dozens of other costly consequences
of people not getting the medical care they need.

Meanwhile, the medical and pharmaceutical industries get to keep
cashing in. *That* should trouble you.

Joe F.

Tim J. wrote:

If we have a law for one, we *must* have a law for all!

No, we don't.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

rw typed:
Tim J. wrote:

If we have a law for one, we *must* have a law for all!

No, we don't.

But . . .
"There's also the question of culpability. A cell-phone talking driver
(or, for that matter, a drunk driver) is a risk to others; as, for
example, a helmetless motorcycle rider or non-seat-belt-wearing driver
isn't.

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."

All of the actions I mentioned can cause the same harm to others as cell
phone usage. Where are you *really* drawing the line?
--
TL,
Tim
-------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

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.

What I think and my concerns are having our no-so efficient government take
over something as huge and complex as health care, "free" health care would
need to be paid for through higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas,
how flexibile would a government mandated system be, will people increase
there doctor visits, medications, etc... making the cost for health care
much more than they currently are, will healthy people pay the burden for
people that are not so healthy, transitioning to a universal health care,
lost jobs, business closure, if spending is out of control there will be no
turning back with a government run plan.

JT

On Dec 20, 5:01 pm, "JT" wrote:
What I think and my concerns are having our no-so efficient government take
over something as huge and complex as health care, "free" health care would
need to be paid for through higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas,


I know that right now, the cost of my (employer subsidized) medical
insurance is almost double my federal withholding. You could double
my taxes, give me free health care, and I'd be way, way ahead $-wise.

Joe F.

"rb608" wrote in message
...
On Dec 20, 5:01 pm, "JT" wrote:
What I think and my concerns are having our no-so efficient government
take
over something as huge and complex as health care, "free" health care
would
need to be paid for through higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas,


I know that right now, the cost of my (employer subsidized) medical
insurance is almost double my federal withholding. You could double
my taxes, give me free health care, and I'd be way, way ahead $-wise.

Joe F.

Yes, but if you had a life threatening condition, could you get the care
before you died?

JT

On Dec 20, 5:25 pm, "JT" wrote:
Yes, but if you had a life threatening condition, could you get the care
before you died?

I have no reason to think not. The "government inefficiency will kill
you" meme is hyperbole. Yeah, the bureaucracy ****s up occasionally,
and I just might be one of the unlucky ones; but frankly, even with
what I pay in insurance, I couldn't likely afford the co-pay for a
seriously expensive condition anyway. My choices right now would be
sell my house or die. Luckily, I'm only dealing in a hypothetical;
but it's a real decision for far too many under the present system,
and I ain't getting any younger.

Joe F.

"rb608" wrote in message
...
On Dec 20, 5:25 pm, "JT" wrote:
Yes, but if you had a life threatening condition, could you get the care
before you died?

I have no reason to think not. The "government inefficiency will kill
you" meme is hyperbole. Yeah, the bureaucracy ****s up occasionally,
and I just might be one of the unlucky ones; but frankly, even with
what I pay in insurance, I couldn't likely afford the co-pay for a
seriously expensive condition anyway. My choices right now would be
sell my house or die. Luckily, I'm only dealing in a hypothetical;
but it's a real decision for far too many under the present system,
and I ain't getting any younger.

Joe F.

A great deal of what I'm reading about Canadian health care leads me to
believe people are put on long waiting lists for serious surgeries and many
time die waiting. I find it hard to believe your annual maximum out of
pocket medical insurance deductible would force you to sell your home? We
don't have a great plan by any means and my maximum out of pocket is
$2250.00 on the value plan. If I were on the core plan it would be $900.00
out of pocket.

JT