Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Constant Reader who wrote (9060)	3/19/2001 8:20:24 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Their decision does not affect them alone: insurers are required to pay for their injuries without consideration of their failure to secure themselves. That sounds just so sensible on its surface that it's almost impossible to argue. I said something similar in a post to Tim at the top of this discussion although I addressed the cost to government health care programs, not private insurance. From a strictly pragmatic perspective, who could object? I certainly can't, even as I complain about the equal protection implications. As a matter of principle, though, there's cause to object. Whenever a potentially ominous slippery slope is so apparent, I think that caution is called for. Most people are bottom-line oriented and just don't consider the implications. We start with the assertion that universal seat belt use would reduce the number of highway deaths and go directly to making the failure to use one illegal. That's a big leap. If the public interest is the shared cost of additional insurance claims, why not change the insurance rules so that insurance won't pay for your injuries if you're not wearing a seat belt? That solution directly addresses your stated concern and is consistent with how we handle risky behavior in insurance situation. Insurance companies don't pay if your house burns down because you're storing fireworks or gasoline in your bedroom. They could treat seat belt use the same. I wonder how much of deterrent the law presents. The penalty for not buckling up is just a small fine and the cops don't stop cars for seatbelt use alone. There's very little risk or penalty in violating that law. How many people really care that they're violating the law when they drive over 55 mph? In my state, fornication is a felony. Not a fine, a felony. I wonder if breaking the law ever slowed down any pair's disrobing process. We diminish respect for all law when we keep widely-disregarded laws on the books. Knowing that your medical bills won't be covered is at least as strong a deterrent to sitting on your seat belts. If we make personal risk taking illegal in the case of seat belts, are we setting an iffy precedent? Perhaps not, but I think we'd be remiss to ignore that risk. How about making it illegal to get more than 30% of your calories from fat? How about making it illegal to smoke? We could make it illegal for bald people not to wear a hat to protect them from the sun. Melanoma is as dangerous as not using a seat belt. Kissing spreads germs. Maybe kissing should be illegal. I'm not outraged by seat belt laws, but I am uncomfortable with choosing that particular approach to increase the use of seat belts. Karen

To: Constant Reader who wrote (9060)	3/19/2001 2:00:05 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 82486

Their decision does not affect them alone: insurers are required to pay for their injuries without consideration of their failure to secure themselves. Insurers have different rates for all sorts of things. They could also have lower rates for people who wear seatbelts or lower payouts for those who do not. (Perhaps disquised as a bonus payout for people who were wearing a seatbelt but got hurt anyway). The same people regularly sue any and all involved in the accident, assigning blame to everyone but themselves for their injuries. It usually works. That is a good argument for tort reform but not a good argument for such nanny-state regulations as a requirement that you wear seatbelts. I was going to spend more time and have a more detailed response but it seems Karen has all ready covered the other points I was going to raise. I doubt I would improve on her effort. Tim