Do you resent having to wear a seatbelt?

[1932]

I'm trying to figure out where the threshold is for people who don't like the government asking you to do something that helps you and the people who love you and rely on your good health, that has no cost, and could result in you living a long, healthy life in addition to preventing the social costs if you were killed or incapacitated.

[CC]

1. No but then my DH

used to come home talking about this or that crash and scraping brains off the road. Also at least one person voted for * that I am convinced a lot people are too stupid to do what is best for them.

[smalll]

88. I've seen this before: what is "DH"? Designated Hitter? /nt

[hyphenate]

96. DH

is "dear husband."

DD=Dear daughter
DS=dear son
etc.

[RufusTFirefly]

2. No big deal.

What bugs me is that the government keeps asking me to subsidize a war crime.

[cosmik debris]

3. You need a better example.

I wear a seat belt for myself and for my daughter, not for the government.

[1932]

5. Would you go to a doctor for free for preventative care for yourself and your daughter

and not for the government, even if it were required by the government?

[cosmik debris]

8. Sure, no big deal

But I am assuming that I get to pick the Dr. and have a say in what treatment I get.

The government has no business making health care decisions for its citizens.

[LeftCoast]

49. The gov't makes lots of health care decisions for its citizens

The most primary decision being (of course) whether to guarantee its citizens the right to universal health care.

[Mojorabbit]

13. The problem is

it is not medically ethical to force treatment on a patient. The two subjects are not comparable.

[tired_old_fireman]

26. There is a difference between a physical exam and a treatment

I have mandatory physical exams and I believe they should be required just like seat belts. The reason I think that is because my doctor was able to recommend changes to my diet at an early age (less salt, for example) which have kept me off medication for my entire life. I feel like that keeps my overall medical costs down which is good for everyone. When you look at a lot of health issues in this country, a lot of them are the result of poor eating/drinking/smoking habits and it would be a good wake up for a lot of people to hear from a doctor some recommended changes.

I think there needs to be consideration for people that don't believe in western medicine or don't got to the doctor for religious reasons, but I don't think people should rush to the judgment that routine physical exams equal mandatory treatments. It is basically educational and you can't do what you want with the information.

As for seat belts, I once saw a guy with the entire upper half of his body separated from his spine after an accident where he wasn't wearing his seat belt. I think people should wear seatbelts so people like me don't have to deal with the trauma of seeing that. If someone has a death wish, please do something else to satisfy your death wish so people like me don't have to clean up your mess.

[Mojorabbit]

43. A physical exam

is the same as a treatment in this case. You are letting someone put their hands on you to examine you. It is unethical for a physician or nurse to do this without your agreement. I am not saying it isn't a good idea for people to have checkups. My husband is a physician and I am a retired nurse. I am saying no one should be made to submit to treatment without consent and blackmailing someone with the loss of coverage or future financial stress to make them consent is wrong.

You will not get good compliance from any patient unless you are partnering with the patient in their medical care. A good educational campaign would be good to get people in to have checkups. Making it mandatory is not good. A person owns their own body. They are not a unit or a number.. they are thinking feeling humans. You don't get a whole lot more personal than making decisions about your body.

I am amazed at how people on this list are willing to give up their choice so easily instead of insisting on universal single payer care.

Other problems... there are not enough family doctors to absorb 40 million new patients plus doing yearly checkups on 300 million plus people. The cost to do a full workup would be enormous if insurance providers are left in the loop. I'd love to see what the definition of a checkup would be under the plan, what tests it includes, etc...It takes two months waiting time to get a mammogram now.

But I still say the bottom line is what I was taught in nursing school. You do not force anyone to accept treatment. It is their body and their decision. It is called respect.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

4. I am a nurse, and I do not resent having to wear one!

It is a simple thing, and it saves lives...

I'm all in favor of seatbelt laws...

Not just for me, but also for my family and loved ones as well...

[mitchtv]

7. I second that Helmet laws too

I'll go a step further and say that not using is implied organ donor status

[CaliforniaPeggy]

11. Absolutely! Helmet laws are really important...

And I agree that not using one is implied organ donor status!

Simply because it's usually young crazy males that don't want to wear them...

[GoneOffShore]

62. Sometimes us old, crazy guys don't want to wear them.

But I'm in favor of mandatory eye protection when riding a bike. Catching a bug in the eye at 30 mph is a sure way to lose control.

[MannyGoldstein]

18. That's Messing With Darwin

Do we really want to litter our gene pool with material from anyone stupid enough to ride a motorcycle without a helmet?

I say let the unseen hand of Darwin do its work!

[CaliforniaPeggy]

20. Your argument is a good one...

Except for the little problem that often these fools don't die...

And then they cost us money...

I know that sounds callous......

But that's how I feel...:shrug:

[MannyGoldstein]

22. Good Point

I'll have to think on that.

But first... a beer.

[emilyg]

19. Amen. Same here.

[BlueJazz]

6. One of the reasons I wear a seat belt is to keep someone else from...

...feeling guilty the rest of their life, if they happen to make a mistake in the process of driving....

[cloudbase]

9. No.

That said, I have a problem with any law requiring me to wear one. I'm a motorcyclist, and Texas is a state with no helmet law. I'm pro choice on this issue, and my choice is to wear a helmet whenever I ride. The fact that I can ride without one kind of blows the safety argument of seat belt laws all to hell.

[spag68]

38. seat belts

I use them because I have to. What happened to the automatic seat belts they had a few years ago? On the other hand as a biker since 1956, I wear a helmet on Interstate highways and trips, but when in Fla. for the winter I don't. Just don't seem really that much of a problem to me.

[angstlessk]

10. hell, I am so used to wearing a seat belt I feel I migh float out the windshield

should I not wear one!...sorta like NOT CROSSING WHEN THE LIGHT IS RED! One get socialized to perform certain functions that make us..and the rest of the country safer...

In fact I almost got hit by a truck by a man who was not wearing a seatbelt..and we could see him being bounced about the truck and of course OUT OF CONTROL OF THE TRUCK..we were missed by mear inches!

[NMDemDist2]

12. back in the stone ages before seat belts were mandatory I read Lee Ioccoca's book

he convinced me and I have been a faithful buckle-upper ever since

[NV Whino]

14. I hate seat belts.

They are a nuisance when you do a lot of quick stops.

Do I wear one? Yes. Do I force my passengers to buckle up? Yes.

[Gregorian]

15. People should be educated. I think the law is wrong.

I wouldn't be caught dead without a seatbelt. Nor would I ride my motorcycle without a helmet. Or gloves, for that matter. But to enforce this behavior through laws, I feel is the part of the dumbing-down process. And part of letting our government control us. If people realized the truth of the situation, the physics, the dramatic results, they'd wear seatbelts. But to have to do it, just skips right past the part of knowing why.

Being free means being able to choose. This goes against everything I believe in. Within reason. I don't believe people should be allowed to trespass. But this is a personal issue. And I don't buy the argument that it costs all of us. If that is the case, then stop dropping bombs on other countries. That costs us a hell of a lot more than fractured heads from no seatbelts.

[jenmarie]

34. Right on!

Next thing you know they'll pass a law that all children under the age of 5 have to wear a helmet when they leave the house.

[tired_old_fireman]

35. I couldn't disagree more.

We live in society where we do not fend for ourselves. When there is an accident, someone has to deal with the aftermath. We are hopefully not left to die on the side of the road without help. We have people who risk their lives racing through traffic to get to the accident scene. The first responders have to live with the trauma of seeing some majorly disturbing wounds. If seat belts are going to lessen the amount of times first responders have to risk their lives and make their jobs less traumatic while also keeping down medical costs, then hell yes they should be mandatory. The laws need to go further--no eating while driving, no talking on the cell phone while driving, looking at a map, etc. Wake up, people. Driving should be a privilege and not a right.

Just because we are fighting an immoral war doesn't mean we should scrap all our laws. You may not buy the argument that not wearing a seatbelt costs all of us, but it does cost those of use who have chosen professions where we risk our lives to help people after they are injured in automobile accidents. It also costs those who are unable to get an ambulance because the nearest available ambulance is responding to the call of some a-hole who is being scraped off the road because he believed the seatbelt was an infringement of his personal rights.

[Gregorian]

41. I used to be one of those guys. I've seen people breathing through their forehead.

I'm not advocating people drive without seatbelts. Those who do so are NUTS. I am suggesting we educate Americans so they automatically buckle up. Then they won't feel like they're being forced to do something.

By the way, I also ride a mountain bike. Every day. I put in over a hundred miles just this week. Those redwood trees are stationary. If the government really wants to protect me, they ought to outlaw mountain biking while they're at it. I know, it's a lot fewer people than driving. But still...

[Forkboy]

59. I have no problem with laws for minors and seatbelts/helmets.

But I agree with everything else you said.

When we start legislating stupidity we're going to be passing a LOT of laws. :)

[PurityOfEssence]

87. Think of other people

If you wear a helmet and a little old retiree hits you and you break some bones, that person is shaken up and may get a ticket and have his/her insurance raised.

If you only focus on yourself (even though the wonders of modern society are only ours due to the cooperation and work of others) and DON'T wear a helmet, then the retiree can hit you with the same force and kill you. That person then gets convicted for vehicular manslaughter, loses his/her license, possibly goes to jail and has the visible horror of the situation etched in his/her memory for all time. Because of your callousness, another life is destroyed. To a libertarian, this is as it should be: fuck other people; they should take care of themselves.

You're not in this alone. Join the party. Take responsibility for your actions.

If you don't like being required to have a yearly check-up to be a part of the health system, then don't be a part of the health system. That's pretty simple, isn't it? If we're going to pay for the upkeep of others, we should all have a say-so in the upkeep of others.

What about drug-resistant strains of tuberculosis? What about various forms of hepatitis?

So where should the line be drawn? That's an open question and we should address it on a case-by-case basis.

[cutlassmama]

16. I don't wear one and I resent there being a law that I HAVE to

wear one. Every time I get a new vehicle I have to go buy a new seatbelt extender because a regular belt does not fit around me. I've gotten out of four tickets because I'm just too big for a regular belt. They take one look at me and understand there is no possible way I could fit a regular seat belt around me. It makes me feel that it is just one more thing about me that isn't "regular" or "normal". Why don't they make the belts bigger? Is it because of their profit margin? I think that if there is a law "requiring" the use of one then the government should also provide the seatbelt extender for free to poor people.

[tired_old_fireman]

32. That's a good idea to offer free seat belt extenders.

[Skittles]

51. I don't need a law to tell me to do the obvious

but some people do

[Buzz Clik]

17. I have voluntarily worn a seatbelt for forty years.

However, having some asshole tell me, as an adult, that I MUST wear a seatbelt is pure bullshit.

[Josh]

91. A lot of people, especially young people, die because they

don't wear their seatbelts. What are you going to tell their parents?

I'm sorry, but for me this is just such a no-braier. Seat-belts save lives - in both cars of a collision. When someone is on the road they have a responsibility to all the people who use that road and all the people in the vehicle they are driving. The 'freedom' not to wear a seatbelt is the freedom to endanger peoples' lives.

Peace.

[Buzz Clik]

108. Seat belts save lives, as do motorcycle helmets.

Brushing saves your teeth.

Moderation in eating keeps your weight down and makes you healthier.

Excessive gambling will destroy your family.

The list goes on and on and on.

We should not be in the business of passing laws to save people from themselves.

[Josh]

114. I agree, but we *share* the roads, so aren't we passing laws

to save other people from morons who *won't* save themselves? Bad teeth won't kill someone else on the road.

[Wcross]

21. I'm skeered of Mr. Windshield & Mr. Steering column.

I figure it would be a bad thing to be thrown into either one.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

25. You are so right to be scared of them!

It is also smart to be scared of being thrown free of the vehicle!:scared:

[Crunchy Frog]

23. No. I would resent being forced to have a checkup, though.

I really don't see a comparison between the two, but feel free to keep on reaching.

Other countries seem to manage universal health care without resorting to coercion, but I guess it's too much to ask of this country, with its authoritarian tendencies.

[lligrd]

24. I Always Wore One But I Resent Being Mandated To Do So.

We have far too many laws.

[jmp]

30. Exactly.

What's more ... if the government has the right to tell you to wear a seat belt or a helmet, there is no defense from anti-sodomy and anti-abortion laws.

Either the individual is sovereign, or s/he is subject to the whims of the governing majority.

[tired_old_fireman]

31. What about children?

Do you think they should be required for children or would that be one of too many laws?

[lligrd]

33. Children Have Never Been Free

They have always been at their parent's whims. Therefore, you are mandating that the parents be responsible. But I think we have gone to far even in that sense.

[tired_old_fireman]

36. Maybe if you saw a few accidents close up, you'd feel differently.

If one parent buckles in their child for fear of a ticket, then it is a good law as far as I'm concerned.

[lligrd]

39. I Prefer Education To Mandation

Making laws to protect people from themselves is a slippery slope. In the case of children you could argue that the law is too protect those unable to decide for themselves.

[tired_old_fireman]

67. people still lock their kids in their cars in 110 degree heat

You cannot educate them. The fear of paying a fine is sometimes a lot more effective than education.

[jmp]

44. If violating everyone's civil liberties saves even 1 child ...

Seat belts ... domestic spying ... it's all good as long as it's for our own good. :sarcasm:

[tired_old_fireman]

66. Comparing seat belt use to domestic spying is stupid

[-..__...]

65. Yet...

in many states that require seat belts use for adults, school buses are exempt for even having them installed.

[GreenArrow]

60. "the more laws,

the more criminals".

[jmp]

27. I consider seatbelt and helmet laws ...

To be a government intrusion into a private matter.

Being forced to do something "for your own good" is fine ... when you're about 5 years old. It gets lame pretty quick after that.

[riverdale]

46. I call bullshit

on seatbelt laws. I guess I'm libertarian that way.

[Colobo]

28. Road safety and personal choices about health care have little to do with each other.

[tired_old_fireman]

29. A seatbelt isn't for road safety

A seatbelt is for personal safety. If people wear seatbelts, it cuts down on trauma care and first responder calls which essentially save everyone money. If people have routine physical exams which might encourage them to eat healthier and exercise more, it would cut down on first responer calls and hospital costs. I see it as a similar issue.

[Armstead]

37. Yes -- I guess it's my libertarian side

I'm a liberal in believing the government has an important role in many aspects of society and the economy.

But I guess I have a libertarian streak when it comes to regulating personal behavior.

[GreenEyedLefty]

61. Me, too. (eom)

[KT2000]

40. People have a false sense

of control but the truth is that the laws of physicis are in control - especially in car mishaps. More damage is done in head impact that previously thought, even when the person just gets a bump and no hospital visit. This can result in problems down the road. Not worth it.

[windbreeze]

42. Kinda believe I am an adult...and the decision to wear a seat-belt

should be mine alone....I resent being forced.....It is my responsibility to figure out why I should do what's going to keep me safe....Why would/should I expect anyone else to insist I stay safe?....(but let's face it...it does give them additional reasons to write tickets/make money at our expense, so there is more than one reason for the law)....however, when it comes to children...it should be a ticketable offense...why? because a parent IS responsible for keeping their children safe, in all things...that includes the wearing of seatbelts...and anyone old enough to ride a cycle, should be old enough to figure out what happens when their head hits the pavement at 60-70 mph...again, their responsibility to stay safe, shouldn't be up to the gov't to insist...wb

[TSIAS]

45. YES!

I wear it most of the time, but I resent the mother fucking police making me wear it.

I've gotten 2 MF tickets for not wearing it, once going to a physchological therapay session. If I want to die not wearing a seat belt, so be it.

FUCK the Florida Association of State Troopers.They are nothing but a bunch of money-grabbing MO'FOs looking to make a buck off of innocent people.

The gov't has no right to force me to protect myself. Like I said before, I wear my seatbelt b/c I want to live if I get into an accident. But I despise law enforecement for forcing me to wear it. The entire police in this country are a bunch of corrupt fucks! And I'm not saying it b/c I'm drunk as fuck.

[ProudDad]

47. I resent having to run my car

on petroleum...



On Edit: Seriously...

Having been hit HARD in the right rear by someone running a red light, having my little truck turned upside down and spinning down a steep hill in San Francisco on the top of the cab and walking away from the experience...

I don't need no stinkin' law to get me to put on a seat belt!

Of course, I'm kind of happy to be living in a state that doesn't require motorcycle helmets though. It's liberating and the visibility's much better...safer to be able to see them coming...

[napi21]

48. I resent being ticketed and fined for not wearing one!

If the argument is great for seatbelts, then make your argument and convince me to wear one! I wear my seat belt because way too many people in Ga. drive like idiots, and I feel the seatbelt gives me a slightly better chance of survival if I get smashed by one of them, but I resent being told I HAVE TO DO IT OR I'LL BE FINED!!!!!

[Hekate]

50. I "resent" my premiums going up to pay for TBI's from other people going thru the windshield

Seat belts save lives. They also save people from Traumatic Brain Injury.

Seatbelts save children's lives -- and making it mandatory for parents to properly secure their kids means that (a) everyone is aware of the law, and (b) adults too stupid to believe the evidence will at least pay attention to the massive fines.

Same goes for helmets.

Hekate

[Mojorabbit]

55. So your arguement

is that it's ok to make people give up some freedoms as long as it saves you money?

[Hekate]

74. Balderdash.I framed my answer to echo the question.Resentment is not the issue for me, health is. nt

[Mojorabbit]

78. You were the one

who wrote this
"I "resent" my premiums going up to pay for TBI's from other people going thru the windshield"

Sorry if I misunderstood.

[2rth2pwr]

52. If you were really concerned about saving lives

Outlawing the driving of motor vehicles would save hundreds of thousands.
We could all live long, healthy lives in addition to making a dent on global warming.

Look, according to Edwards the gov't would not be asking, they would be mandating which implies penalties for not obeying.

Would you be able to get a second opinion? How about mandatory mental health screening, what if the Dr is a Repug and sees your bumper stickers when you drive into the office?

[Up2Late]

53. Here in Georgia, you don't have to wear one if you are riding in a Pick-up Truck!

No Joke, IT'S A LAW here!:banghead:

[ecstatic]

77. That's not fair!!! nt

[Sherman A1]

54. Not at all.

However, I am the one that was and continues to be requiring that I wear a seat belt and did so long before their were laws to that effect. So I must assume that the laws caught up to my responsible action as a husband and parent.

The law also requires that I pass a test to operate a motor vehicle. I do not consider this to be an intrusion on my rights as it affects the safety of myself and others.

[NoPasaran]

56. Not really

It's that damn Law of Gravity that chaps my ass.

[Jacobin]

57. I've always worn one when they were available before they were

mandatory.

I also hold my breath when I go underwater.

[last_texas_dem]

58. I don't resent such laws.

[goddess40]

63. There shouldn't be a law - but I wear mine

I think the insurance companies should handle this and the motorcycle helmet issue. They could just offer lower coverage if you aren't wearing your seatbelt during an accident.

[-..__...]

64. More government involvement where it doesn't belong.

And the "nanny staters" enthusiastically support it.

Up until about 10 years ago, MA didn't have any mandatory seatbelt law (at least for adults it didn't).

Then some 'we know what's best for you' types decided that drivers in MA
shouldn't be allowed to decide for themselves to wear a seat belt or not.
:grr:

It eventually became a ballot question and was soundly defeated by the voters. Should be end of story... right?

Not so fast...

The hand wringers weren't happy about that and a few years later tried again to get a mandatory seat belt law on the books. :wtf:

They were somewhat successful this time and managed to get a "secondary offense" seat belt law passed... meaning a driver could only be cited for not wearing a seat belt only if they were stopped for another traffic offense.

That was a few years ago. Now here we are in 2007 and some busy bodies in the state legislature want to make the seat belt law a primary offense. :mad:

Oh... and FWIW, I'm a firefighter/EMT and respond to motor vehicle accidents all the time; so please spare me any grief stating that I'd think differently about it if I saw for myself what can happen to a person who didn't 'buckle-up'.

[tired_old_fireman]

69. I guess you're tougher than me because it never got to you.

[-..__...]

70. It was depressing/horrific, but...

I still believe people have the right to be stupid if they so choose.

[LanternWaste]

68. I think the term 'nanny state'...

I think the term 'nanny state' is reserved only when the govt. dictates that you stop doing something you already like, but when it restricts something you don't like, it's called a 'progressive decision'.

E.g, "The Nanny State won't let me smoke a joint..." or "Single Payer Healthcare is a Progressive Decision"

One of the most over-used, flavor-of-the-month sobriquets used today, I'd bet.

I really would love a precise definition of it, but alas-- there is none.

[DangerDave921]

72. Good Point

I have found that when the government passes a restriction that a person favors, that person sees it as a valid exercise of government power. But when a person disagrees with a new government restriction, then that person sees it as overreaching and an abusive government.

I think we have to be consistent in our approach to government intrusion. Either we want our freedom or we don't. Seatbelt laws and helmet laws are intrusions on our personal freedom. But some people eagerly give up freedom for the illusion of safety.

[LanternWaste]

81. Seatbelt laws are merely an illusion of safety?

Seatbelt laws are merely an illusion of safety? Did I infer that correctly?

Darn red-lights! The government is intruding on my freedom to go as fast as I want!!!!

[DangerDave921]

83. Complete misunderstanding

Red lights are there to prevent me speeding through an intersection and hurting SOMEONE ELSE. By contrast, seatbelt laws are there to prevent me from hurting MYSELF. Those are two entirely different concepts and are critical in how one approaches what our government should be allowed to control. Yes, government needs laws to prevent me causing injury to others. But when it comes to my personal decision to engage in risky behavior, a different analysis applies.

Yes, seatbelt laws are an intrusion on my personal freedom. The fact that they may have a good end does not mean it is any less of an infraction on my rights.

I don't want RW'ers passing laws eroding my liberty. Nor do I want Dems passing laws eroding my liberty. Just because we like the end result does not make the conduct any less odious.

[leaninglib]

71. I began wear my seatbelt long before it was mandated by the government.

But I still do not think that it's appropriate for the government to dictate that policy to us. I feel the same way about helmet laws.

[scrinmaster]

73. You shouldn't be forced to wear a seat belt, but you're a dumbass if you don't.

The government's job isn't protecting you from yourself.

[cutlassmama]

84. really? then why do they make seatbelt laws?

[ecstatic]

75. No, but I resent the ticket threat

If I'm just driving for a short distance of a mile or two, at low speeds, then I shouldn't have to worry about a cop looking inside my vehicle and pulling me over.

[SteppingRazor]

76. I don't resent it, per se, but I don't think it should be a law. n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

79. No, of course not.

I think it's a small price to pay in exchange for sharing the road. The same way I feel about having to get a license, buy insurance, stay in the right lane, not drink, and so on.

I'm also in favor of mandatory check-ups, assuming you're going to exploit nationalized health care.

[Phoonzang]

80. Wear a seatbelt to save me time and money

in case of a wreck. If someone hits me and isn't wearing a seatbelt, I'll not only have to pay to get the dents removed from my car, but I'll also have to scrub all the blood and hair off my car. Also, picking teeth out of my side door would be a pain.

[Netbeavis]

82. I hate it when the law thwarts Darwin....

although wearing seatbelts makes sense, I think we've inadvertanly removed a process to thin our herd of those a bit slower than the rest of us in the gene pool.

[cutlassmama]

85. nice. I don't have $88.00 to buy an extender. Would you buy me one please?

[Netbeavis]

110. most state laws exempt seatbelts for health conditions....

and other organizations like AAA have programs for those in need.

[cutlassmama]

117. thanks. I'll check with AAA. Right now, I'm disabled with no

extra money whatsoever.

[D-Sooner]

86. Not at all

It's second nature to me. I don't really get the whole Libertarian outrage over seatbelt laws.

[Paladin]

89. This Is Directed To All The Knuckle-Draggers On This Thread...

...that are making public spectacles of themselves, whining about the innocuous, overwhelmingly beneficial practice of wearing seatbelts.

My family's habit of always using seatbelts began a few years ago, when some idiot ran a stop sign and slammed into another vehicle in which one of my two daughters' best friends from high school was riding; she was not wearing a seatbelt. The collision threw her from the car and she struck the pavement, dying instantly from a broken neck. A beautiful, intelligent, extremely popular girl, dead at sixteen years of age. It was a closed casket funeral.

My wife and I did our best to comfort our traumatized daughters, but after reading some of the entries on this thread, I'm thinking maybe I didn't do as good a job as I could have. For instance, I could have told my two girls that their friend's death was a beneficial, Darwinian cleansing of the gene pool. Or, I could have said that by dying the way she did, she was thumbing her nose at the evils of the Nanny State. Maybe I could have put the icing on the cake by saying that the dead girl was simply exercising her sacred right to be stupid.

Come to think of it, I could contact the dead girl's parents now and direct some of those comments to them; I bet it would perk them right up. Of course, I'd have to make a couple of calls---their marriage was destroyed as a result of their daughter's death.

You people who are squealing about mandatory seatbelt usage need to either shut up or take your ugly comments over to Free Republic, where they'll be appreciated......

[Mojorabbit]

97. I am sorry for your loss

but I was thrown from a car while not wearing a seatbelt years ago and the paramedics told me that is what saved my life. I do wear seatbelts by choice. It could have gone either way for your child's friend. Unfortunately the worst happened.

[noamnety]

90. The last time I put on a seatbelt

It didn't force me to undress, or jam something cold up my ass while repeatedly telling me to spread my legs wider, nor did it casually ask how many people I am sleeping with and then turn around and immediately enter that information into a computer data base.

If you use coercion and threats to force a person to submit to having something stuck up their vaginas or rectums, that's rape. My seatbelt never pulled that sort of shit on me. The Edwards plan amounts to systemic government sponsored rape.

The last time I wore a seatbelt, I didn't have to take time off work without pay to do it. It didn't force me to hire a babysitter using money I didn't have, and a babysitter I didn't know or trust, for the duration of the time I was wearing it. Must be nice to think everyone's got money growing on trees for paying babysitters while we sit around for a day NOT getting paid.

The last time I wore a seatbelt, I had transportation available to me while I was wearing it. I didn't have to worry about how I was going to manage to get a ride to the seatbelt, or worry that if I couldn't get a ride, or time off from work, or a babysitter, or afford a babysitter if I found one, I was going to lose access to my health care.

[1932]

99. Those are all examples of battery and I doubt a tort lawyer is advising a program that would

do any of that.

I guarantee that this program merely requires you to show up and answer a few questions and you can deny any test or procedure you want.

But I wonder what kind of person would refuse a test that would diagnose a disease after the patient describes symptoms warranting that test. And if they do, and end up having costlier treatment because of that decision, I would understand why it might not be appropriate to give that treatment for free.

[noamnety]

101. not acceptable

"guarantee that this program merely requires you to show up and answer a few questions"

repeating: "The last time I wore a seatbelt, I didn't have to take time off work without pay to do it. It didn't force me to hire a babysitter using money I didn't have, and a babysitter I didn't know or trust, for the duration of the time I was wearing it. Must be nice to think everyone's got money growing on trees for paying babysitters while we sit around for a day NOT getting paid."

"if they do, and end up having costlier treatment because of that decision, I would understand why it might not be appropriate to give that treatment for free."

Hmmm. How are you with this statement:
I wonder what kind of person smokes, or doesn't exercise, or drinks soda. If they do, and end up having costlier treatment because of that decision, I would understand why it might not be appropriate to give that treatment for free.

[1932]

102. I suspect the time you spend over the course of a year putting on and taking off your seatbelt

adds up to more time than you would spend seeing a doctor, and you could probably find more valuable ways to spend that time (if you didn't count the fact that it might save your life). And with the doctor's visit the value is much more quantifiable. What do you spend on health care every year? If the mandatory visit to the doctor is the cost of free healthcare, it's probably worth a couple thousand to you.

If a smoker could avoid lung cancer by having a doctor say, "hey, you smoke and have a cough? let's take an x-ray. Look, here, this is your lung clogged with cigarette tar. If you stop now, that will clear up and you can avoid getting lung cancer. Will you do that? Yes. Good."

So the smoker gets free health care, and early diagnosis, and society and the smoker are better off.

You really have a problem with that?

[noamnety]

112. I believbe you are avoiding the issues

and not understanding the plight of the working poor.

Seatbelt use does not cost a person unpaid time off from work, nor does it require trying to find a babysitter, or pay for one if it's not in your budget.

If you don't understand that concept, I suggest reading Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America.

[1932]

118. So you're arguing that it's OK that poor people don't ever get to see a doctor because they

should be at work instead?

[noamnety]

119. I'm saying that there were times I worked 7 days a week

as a single mom, and did not get paid sick leave or any vacation days, and could not afford to take days off without pay.

If you don't understand how a person could be in that situation, you should be grateful.

[maximusveritas]

92. Bad poll question

as many of the comments have noted, while one may not resent wearing a seatbelt, they may resent being mandated by law to do so.
That's probably what you meant with your question, but the ambiguity led to problems.

[Milo_Bloom]

93. Yes.

I resent the seatbelt laws (but I wear one)
I resent the mandatory no smoking in bars/rest law (but I don't smoke)
I resent the anti-prostitution laws (but I don't use them)
I resent the drug laws (but I don't use them)
I resent anti-gay marriage laws (but I am not gay)

I resent any law that exists only to protect me from myself and/or society from something which can do it no specific harm.

[high density]

94. I feel weird without it on to be honest NM

[hyphenate]

95. I definitely think it's an intrusion on my rights

I think it's one issue which should be pushed as a "good idea" but being told I MUST wear one makes me want to haul back and punch someone in the face. I firmly believe the long-standing bumper sticker: "Question Authority."

I also don't think the government should have ANYTHING to do with my gender preferences, what I read, who or what I worship or believe in, or anything else which compromises my choices in private matters. The government needs to stop interfering in MY life, and whether I'm exercising my rights in some fashion.

Private matters are just that--PRIVATE.

[1932]

98. So what price are you willing to pay for low-cost health insurance?

[Mojorabbit]

103. This is a straw man argument

I am not willing to pay Edward's price but am perfectly happy with Kuchinich's plan which does not require me to give up my freedom of choice. I have lost enough freedom in the past six years and shouldn't have to be blackmailed into losing more just so I can get health care.

[hyphenate]

107. Well, to be perfectly honest

I'm at poverty level and have Medicare. However, I've been there with COBRA, and I was, at one time, paying $212 a month to keep my insurance when I had it.

I think, depending on one's income, $100 a month per individual is not a lot to pay; if a person's income is not high enough to cover that, there are ways to compensate--if the family is on welfare, for example, taking out a sum of money from that to cover everyone; utilizing sliding scales to make sure no one is paying more than they should be, etc.

However, since the thread was initially about wearing a seatbelt, what I opine about low cost medical care really isn't an issue, is it? I answered that I resent being told to wear a seatbelt--I wear one anyway, but think the government telling me that I MUST wear one is the root of the answer. It should be a matter of choice--like with all other things which should be up to the individual--there is simply too much government interference in personal rights, and it goes well beyond the scope of what the government should be doing. It's become quite obvious to me that this regime has sadly placed privacy rights aside, and have been using fear and trepidation to erode all those rights. Any matter that carries a choice with it seems now to be heading in only one direction--lockstep with the fascists in charge.

Wearing a seat belt should be as much a choice as who we share our bed with, whether we want to use contraception in sexual relations, whether we want to own a Hummer or a hybrid, whether we care to donate to the American Cancer Society or to PETA, whether we want to own a gun or not, whether we believe in a god or not, and most importantly, if we want tea with lemon or with milk. :)

Our founding fathers would have been very concerned about how things are run now--if they saw King George (of England) as a tyrant, I wonder what they would have thought of the Bush administration. I think they would fervently believe that another revolution needed to take place, and one that would be long overdue.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

113. Me too.

And I'm also pissed at the law that requires me to drive sober.

It's my body, dammit!

[Cameron27]

100. No I don't resent having to wear a seatbelt,

but I do resent John Edwards telling me as a woman, when I need to visit my own doctor. A seatbelt doesn't demand an intrusion on my privacy the way a forced doctors visit would.

[Enthusiast]

104. I'm a rare individual

I'm one of those rare individuals that survived both a serious motorcycle accident and a head on collision auto accident. My life was saved due to wearing a motorcycle helmet and a seatbelt. Both accidents have compromised the quality of my life. Right at this moment the bone spurs on my neck vertebrae are causing me severe discomfort, enough so that I will need to turn off the computer and return to bed. I'm glad that we had that seatbelt law as I never wore one before the law was enacted. I still wear a motorcycle helmet when I ride, even though they are no longer required in Ohio. Due to disabilities sustained in these accidents, my motorcycle seat time is very limited. Well, even my computer seat time is limited.

[redqueen]

105. Don't give a crap about mandated visits. Want SINGLE PAYER.

This mandatory visit crap is distraction, nothing more.

[xchrom]

106. in the 70s -- when seat belt laws and helmet laws first began being discussed -- it was because

the injuries sustained from accidents had become so expensive.

you might resent having to wear a helmet -- but if you crash and aren't killed but severely traumatised -- you can't afford your treatment.
the same if you hurt someone else.

that treatment is passed on to everyone else. in all kinds of ways.

it's the same with seatbelts -- you are not an island -- though you might A) feel like you are or B) feel like you wanna live on one.

to live in society with each other -- and to make it a better place we all need to stop think so much ourselves in certain circumstances and more about the group -- same with single payer medical or universal medical care.

libertarians will never be convinced of course -- but that's the deal -- it's as much a matter of dollars and cents as it is anything else.

[LanternWaste]

109. I resent them almost as much as I resent

I resent them almost as much as I resent being told to stop at red-lights and to slow down in a school zone.

Seatbelts are as bad as (if not worse than) environmental regulations and a mandated education through High School. I have a God-given right to breathe polluted air while basking in my own ignorance.

Let us kneel together and pray that a Libertarian sits in the Oval Office one day and gets rid of that pesky, intrusive, Nanny-Stated FDA mess-- if consumers are stupid enough to die from eating tainted meat legally sold for fun and profit, that's their problem!

You'd think that some people believe Health is some kind of Right, or good for the economy. That's just crazy talk, man...


(Brought to you by The Nanny State(TM)-- "Because you can only blame local law enforcement for so much...")


:sarcasm: Just in case.

[Hersheygirl]

111. That's like saying

Do you resent being alive.

[ileus]

115. I've know plenty of people killed who didn't wear...

their seat belts....I don't know one person killed because they were belted. I used to drive around a huge pool of dried blood in the road that was contained within a friend of mines body. He was ejected after hitting the end of a guard rail...if he'd been belted he'd still be my friend today. We had a female here in our town that was ejected and then her truck rolled over her last week. I was driving on I77 a few years ago when we come upon an Van accident, one of the people was kinda weaved out the drivers window and back into the side window, the other was around 30 feet behind, both were dead. I come upon a guy in college that had just plowed into a piece of parked construction equipment he wasn't belted in and his head told the tale, he lived one day after that. I can go on and on about people I either knew or remember that have died in accidents, almost all weren't buckled. I've had no fewer than 5 friends die in crashes. It's sad to see people who aren't smart enough to buckle up.

[DemBones DemBones]

116. I don't, because I was in a major accident before seat belts existed

and had a lot of injuries that continue to plague me many years later. Accidents happen even to careful drivers when someone else runs into them.

I don't drive or ride without seat belts.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

120. I would have died an early and violent death without one.

I was in a headon hit and run crash in 1977. I was in college. A cop saw the whole thing and chased the other guy down and wheeled him, so I was able to sue him.

I was in a little Japanese car. I had a lap and shoulder belt on and would undoubtedly have gone straight thru the windshield, had I not been tied down at 3 points. As it was, I got a concussion from banging my head on the top left headliner above the driver's window, bruised my tummy on the bottom of the steering wheel, banged my knees on the AC hanging off the dashboard, and had a sprained right ankle, which was turned to the right, from all the jostling in place I endured. My glasses landed in the floor on the far side of the passenger's seat.

I spent about a month mostly in bed, bruised all over.

I am a big fan of seatbelts. Isaac Newton's laws always win. That includes inertia. Inertia in this case means "the car stops and you keep going".