Not much difference. I'd be inconsistent if I said those other two should be applauded. But I'm not.
All stupid or preventable illness/injury in my clinic waste my time.
All stupid or preventable illness/injury in my tax/insurance jurisdiction wastes my money.
Oh wait, now we can't have kids playing (insert sport here) or cheerleading or whatever because they'll get injured and waste your
time. Who gets to be the arbiter of what is appropriate and not too "dumb" or "stupid" ?
See where this is going?
Also by your argument, if you want to be logically consistent, the government should just ban motorcycles too, because the risk profile is too great and the mere act of riding the motorcycle is inherently "Selfish" vs this worldview, particularly given that most motorcycle operators own cars. Motorcycle riders are irresponsible
because they are intentionally engaging in an activity that is far more dangerous than riding in a car. So we should ban them too, right? Is the motorcycle guy who took a corner a little too fast stupid too? Why is he somehow less stupid than the idiot that didn't wear his seatbelt? Please tell us. (also for those reading, I'm not shitting on motorcycle riders here, merely illustrating that freedoms have costs associated with them, and some people don't like hearing that or accepting it).
(or, insert another 44000 things here where humans intentionally expose themselves to additional danger for the sake of entertainment or personal enjoyment)
No, I'm arguing for everyone taking personal responsibility. You're arguing, "Let me do whatever I want and demand others pay for it."
Not quite. I'm arguing that trying to use the law to "police" people for being stupid WRT their own well being is usually an exercise in futility and usually creates more problems than it solves, especially in this one particular vector. This whole silly mindset of "trying to protect people from themselves in even the smallest corner" is a huge source of terrible laws in this country. (which have a downstream effect on millions of people over generations)
As far as "letting others pay for it" I never said that either. I just think that given the realities of the how shit works WRT medical stuff, someone else is
often going to be paying for it. Trying to assign "responsibility" is often futile and is going to differ depending on the client involved. That broad with the perforated rectum might have an HMO plan that will pay for all that, and maybe or maybe not for some idiot not wearing a seatbelt. However, unless you guys are thinking of ditching the hippocratic oath or public access to care anytime soon, and actually gating access to care at the hard edge (read as, leaving people to die on the side of the road regardless because they can't pay) then even entertaining this part of the discussion (eg, "net cost to public") is sort of silly. We're already paying for shit far worse than a few nippleheads not wearing seatbelts, like full scale medical care for illegals and a whole myriad of oxygen thieves that don't have a pot to piss in. About the only thing they might not actually ever see are high end cancer treatments and so on or perhaps certain transplant elegibility
factors etc.
Also in some cases when a car accident happens, the shithead that caused the accident- THAT person is supposed to be legally and fiscally responsible via their
insurance. If that just "isn't happening" then maybe that part of the system needs to be fixed, you know, something reasonable, instead of asking the cops to
attempt to "force" people to wear their seat belts.
I'm not against holding people responsible. That's a different thing from pointing a gun at someone because you
think their behavior might lead to
something with a cost.
And how many people in history do you think have had a gun literally pointed at them for not wearing a seatbelt?
Probably not many, but the FACT remains, that if you don't pay your "fines" and you attempt to drive your car, you will likely, at some point, end up having a gun pointed at you. Enforcement of laws eventually carries an implied threat of deadly force at some point or another, or at a bare minimum, some form of
incarceration or imprisonment if the person is compliant.
Also a primary enforcement traffic stop (like the one in this video) the guy was literally pulled over for the "crime" of not wearing a seatbelt. The system has, segued into the first part of putting this guy's life in danger during a traffic stop as well as the LEOs life by making him get out of a car on a street somewhere. (and getting hit by cars is the #1 killer of law enforcement in the US) At least this LEO seemed to wait it out until they were in a quieter location. The law has
just inadvertently created a risk in a ham fisted attempt at trying to prevent another one. Doesn't seem very smart to me, even if statistically neither are
proportional or easy to model. (like for example, I'm sure theres some nipplehead that has somehow fabricated a pseudo-scientific yarn about how seatbelt stops increase seatbelt use, while ignoring the fact that more people probably do it because of increased general awareness of the usefulness of the device vs time and also a normalization of it in our society as a whole. )
You've shifted the argument from whether seatbelts are a good idea to whether I'm a poor fit for healthcare. Avoiding the point and ad hominem.
Nope, not ad hominem at all, I didn't mean attack you or your character (and I apologize if you think this was some kind of deep cutting personal attack) just suggesting that if you get annoyed by people wasting your time then you perhaps have picked the wrong job. I've had friends that couldn't deal with being an EMT because they had the same problem. Shit pay, a lot of shitty clients, a lot of depression. They moved on. Stewing in annoyance over someones stupidity usually doesn't accomplish much. In lots of fields there are literal tanker trucks worth of stupidity you have to deal with every day.
Call it gnomish mysticism if you like, but I actually thank God every day as I drive to and from work because I have this chance to help people who are sick, injured, or scared. It's just annoying when they choose not to help themselves and I put 2000% more effort into their wellbeing than they do.
I'll concede that was a dig, because there's this god complex that SOME medical personnel seem to have that nobody else does. Thankfully I haven't seen it
too often, but when I do, its pretty amusing.
I will also concede that part of your job that is shitty is you can't turn away a shitty customer, so there's that.
Three seconds. One click. Lives saved. Professionals' time saved. Everyones' tax/insurance dollars saved. Everybody wins. That's the reasoning behind this law and I agree with it. If you don't, suit yourself.
Freedom loses, the individual loses, the public loses (through fishing expeditions spurned by a seatbelt). Law enforcement loses, via having another mindless law that causes the public to harbor more contempt for them. All the important stuff that was supposed to be the fabric of our society as americans, all the stuff you're not measuring or don't give a shit about at the hospital. I don't agree with it because its statist crap and just provides a pretext to what should be considered an unlawful traffic stop. Someone not wearing a seatbelt doesn't normally create what I would call a statistically significant community danger.
The root of people not wearing seatbelts is a cultural/driver training defect, not something to be solved with a club, taser, or harassment by law enforcement. Why do people always want to fix problems the half-assed, wrongest way instead of the right way by addressing the root cause? (oh, because its cheaper and it feels good, despite not offering a fraction of the results).
And as far as the actuarial costs, if there was an actual way you could break it down to what the community cost is of a relative handful of knuckleheads not wearing seatbelts, I'm sure the number wouldn't be that horrendous on a per capita basis vs like 300 something million people in the US. So yeah I'll pay the $5 or whatever it is to not have another shitty malum prohibitum law on the books.
Given a choice I'd rather pay for a cost of freedom than deal with some shitty unnecessary law.
And I'll still choose to wear my seatbelt, because I don't need to have a nanny government pointing guns at me to do it.
Just don't try to say it makes sense beyond the principle of "Live free AND die!"
And that principle is very important to some of us here, not using your words, but the idea that individual freedom is paramount and should pretty much
supercede everything. You are standing in one of the few nations left of the face of the earth that at least pretends to honor that concept somewhat, and yet
you are unable to think deeply enough to embrace it because it "feels wrong" to allow someone that kind of freedom.
This is why I don't bother trying to get people across the bridge anymore.
-Mike