"If I don't wear a seatbelt I risk my own life, which is well within my rights."
Who gave you the right to raise insurance rates both for automobile drivers and for healthcare costs? When you crush your body in a mangled mess, do you honestly think it doesn't affect everyone else? I wish that weren't the case and that drivers were totally responsible for their own stupidity, but that's not reality.
Such an argument can be made for the regulation almost any human behavior: diet, smoking, hobbies, sports, etc.
This is not a problem associated with liberty.
This is a problem associated with socialism.
Who gave you the right to raise insurance rates both for automobile drivers and for healthcare costs?
I believe Williams addressed this From the article:
'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.Socialism is the problem not seatbelt violators
>>Who gave you the right to raise insurance rates both for automobile drivers and for healthcare costs? When you crush your body in a mangled mess, do you honestly think it doesn't affect everyone else?<<
Ho hum. I think you need to re-read this from the beginning of the article:
>>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."<<
You also say, "I wish that weren't the case and that drivers were totally responsible for their own stupidity, but that's not reality."
Well as the author points out, that argument could be made to force everyone into exercise programs, making salt illegal and controlling the lives of the obese.
Then there are the lives that would be saved if all risky recreational activities were abolished.
Like the author said, it is a steep and slippery slope.
When I started driving, a significant number of vehicles on the highway did not have seat belts. The dashboards were made of steel, no padding, no airbags, no crumple zones, bias ply tires, no antilock brakes, no traction control computers, some didn't even have collapsing steering columns.
If you did not get into a wreck, you did just fine.
All those gee-gaws are really nice, but they are no substitute for paying attention, and not driving like a bloody idiot.
then you should have no problem with the federal government mandating 100 push ups and situps a day, and 3 servings of celry at every meal!
Since getting out of shape or not eating a proper diet could put a burden on the healthcare system. You would have loved the old soviet union.
This is the most pathetic comment I have seen today. But hey, it's early.
Who gave you the right to be overweight? Who gave you the right to smoke?
Ride in a car in the first place? If there was no travel by car, no one would die in car accidents. It sure would keep my insurance cost down.
"Who gave you the right to raise insurance rates both for automobile drivers and for healthcare costs?"
Ah, the old fascist solution to socialist problems. I fear for our "Republic" when conservatives support these solutions.....
Another one who does not get the point. The point is, government should not be involved in any of this. If you do something stupid and cause harm to yourself, you and no one else, should pay. What Williams is saying is that government never should have been involved in the first place.
Stupid statement; seatbelts don't prevent wrecks.
Exactly.!
The "right ' to do whatever you want went out with the Wild West...when you were really on your own.
I am tired of paying not only high insurance rates but then also picking up the tab for someone who is now totally handicapped for the rest of his life and my taxes pay through medicaid and soc security disability.
I have NEVER seen any of the "govt is ruling my life" crowd suggest they would volunteer to pay such a multi million dollar ins policy.
Get real all you "freedom lovers". If you want to ride your bike without a helmet, drive without wearing a seatbelt...then cough up for a multi-multi- million dollar insurance policy cause that's what it will take to cover you for the rest of your life for that "freedom ride".
We are born with God's blessing of freedom. It is our birthright, and that includes the right to be an idiot by refusing to wear a seatbelt.
Insurance is a man-made construct - a societal decision to create the ability to indemnify. You don't have a constitutional right to insurance.
Your aregument is similar to the argument for gun control - it's okay to infringe on the peoples' Second Amendment right because we've made a societal decision, through legislation and a criminal justice system, to not permanently incarcerate people who can't be trusted with gun ownership.
Who gave you the right to raise insurance rates both for automobile drivers and for healthcare costs?
What kind of logic is that? Since when do non-seatbelt wearers raise your rates? Seems to me you're insistence on selecting a company that uses statistical actuarial tables to set it's rates is what is at fault. You can have a steady rate if you're willing to bond yourself. Don't blame others for being to lazy or fearful to control your own costs.
You volunteered to accept possibly higer rates when you elected to select a 3rd party insurer to protect you. The vast majority of those rates (collision as opposed to liability) also go toward merely covering the cost of vehicle repair and replacement.
Remember, when one gets behind the wheel and drives to work, school or whereever, he is sharing the public's road with other drivers. While I am one of the first to complain about govt's intrusions into our lives, whether or not one buckles up does affect the other drivers.
A few years back, a woman lost control of her car and was ejected from her car, over the guardrail onto the freeway below. The investigation that immediatly followed closed the freeway for hours. Fortunately, no one else was hurt, but many were inconvenienced and with the traffic tie-ups that ensued the possibility for subsequent traffic accidents increased greatly. This is definitely a case where a driver's non-use of a belt risked the lives of others.