Replies to this message are sent to The Chevelle Mailing List
------------------------------------------------------------
On 22-Jun-2001 Frank Evan Perdicaro wrote:
>
> Replies to this message are sent to The Chevelle Mailing List
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>> > Seat belts are good. Helmets too. But they do not reduce the overall
>> > cost due to accidental injury. Death reduces cost.
>>
>> So in an accident where an unbelted occupant would sustain major injuries
>> and
>> cost a bundle, a belted occupant who sustains light injuries wouldn't cost
>> less?
>
> The question is the overall cost to, not a particular cost. The
> argumetation technique you are using, picking a contrived example in
> attempt to prove a point, is rather lame.
>
I'm trying to come up with an example in opposition to your argument. If I can
find one example that shows helmets and seatbelt are cheaper to society then it
blows your argument out of the water. But I think I have gotten off track and
you aren't making your point clearly. My question for you is, overall cost to
whom? I was considering only government cost, as in my tax dollars. Someone
whe get's a bruise from a seatbelt shouldn't cost me a dime. Someone on
disability, welfare or medicare can cost me.
>> A person with a helmet that falls off ther bike getting scratched and a
>> concussion isn't cheaper than someone without a helmet falling off their
>> bike
>> and causing brain damage and becoming unable to work, move, or think?
>
> Circular reasoning alert!
> A person that cannot think has to have others care for him. So
> society must pay. Another bad example and lame argument.
>
> If the person cannot think, with no aid from society, he will die.
> Death is cheaper. So yes, a concussion is more expensive.
>
So then that was not a lame example. That's what I wanted to hear. You
suggest that anyone who sustains fatal injury due to their unsafe practices
should be left to die. That works for me. Pay for your own mistakes. That
goes for non-fatal injuries, too. If it's due to your stupidity, then you pay
for it. I don't think society should support stupidity.
Are you suggesting we leave them to die or just stating that it would be
cheaper if we did? So the point is not what type of incident would cause more
injury and therefore cost more in medical aid but what should be done if
someone needs aid due to their non adherence to safty.
Tim.
-----------------------------------------------------
To Unsubscribe please visit www.chevelles.net/list.html
To start a new topic, send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
