[Tokra]

"As to your statement 'Lack of safety belt use is a growing public health issue that . . . also costs us all billions of dollars every year,' that's not a problem of liberty. It's a problem of socialism. No human should be coerced by the state to bear the medical expense, or any other expense, for his fellow man. In other words, the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another is morally offensive."

Only one thing wrong with this statement - we aren't talking about Socialism, we are talking about insurance (shared risk). If someone gets in a car accident and is NOT wearing a seat belt, statistics say that their medical costs are going to be much higher. This, of course is going to cause my insurance premium to be higher. I am being forced to pay for someone's idiocy. It has nothing to do with Socialism.

Now, if you are advocating doing away with insurance and everybody has to look out for themself, you are opening a whole new can of worms.

[Protagoras]

If someone gets in a car accident and is NOT wearing a seat belt, eats lots of cheesburgers statistics say that their medical costs are going to be much higher. This, of course is going to cause my insurance premium to be higher. I am being forced to pay for someone's idiocy.

It has nothing to do with Socialism.

Correct, socialism describes a system where government owns the means of production and distribution. It has everything to do with NANNYSTATISM however.

[from occupied ga]

Only one thing wrong with this statement - we aren't talking about Socialism, we are talking about insurance (shared risk).

Two things wrong with what you said - government (ie the taxpayers DO end up footing the bill for a lot of these because they don't have insurance) so this is socialism and there are different premiums paid by different people for the same coverage based o risk, so your risk pool is somewhat distorted, but those with riskier practices already pay higher premiums.

[Atlas Sneezed]

Now, if you are advocating doing away with insurance and everybody has to look out for themself, you are opening a whole new can of worms.

---

If I may jump in...

*I* advocate eliminating all the nanny-state regulations that prevent me from pooling risk with like-minded people. You don't need to ban insurance, you just need to let insurance companies price based on whether unbelted injuries are covered. That would have people bucking up like crazy, without the police state tactics.

[RobRoy]

I think I would go with the insurance company that says it doesn't cover injuries incurred while not wearing a seatbelt.

I bet their rates would be pretty good. :)

And on a side note - what if the state limited liability if other people injured in an accident you caused were not wearing their seatbelts?

Sometimes the best motivators are financial. Heck, it works with taxes. Look at all the people that simply MUST own their own home - no matter the price - just to get the tax deduction.

[Old Professer]

"If someone gets in a car accident and is NOT wearing a seat belt, statistics say that their medical costs are going to be much higher."

Cite source, please.