47
48

PSA: SPD busting cyclists for not wearing helmets in the U-District (self.Seattle)

Quiznasty が 投稿

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。
並べ替え:
ベスト
ベスト
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]5782597283 -24 ポイント-23 ポイント  (36子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

If you were ever wondering why libertarians exist, this attitude is why.

[–]holierthanmao 19 ポイント20 ポイント  (35子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

If you get hit by a car while not wearing a helmet and get rushed to the hospital and rack up $100k in medical bills, that is society's problem, not just your's. That's why we incentivize safe behavior.

[–]XaxxonMatthews Beach 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

This is a load of bullshit that can be applied to a ton of situations to force people to do something you want.

[–]cldellow -5 ポイント-4 ポイント  (24子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

Cool! I pay more taxes than the average bear, do I get to dictate other people's behaviour? Don't worry--I'll only make you do things that I have decided are in your best interest. It's cool, I'm looking out for you.

[–]holierthanmao 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (23子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

It doesn't have to do with taxes, It has to do with the cost of health care. If the biker is insured, then it affects the cost of premiums for everyone in his risk pool. If the biker is uninsured, the hospital eats the charge, which just mean they pass it on to insurance companies by raising the amount they charge for services, which in turn is passed on to people with health insurance.

This is basic stuff. Don't people realize that the reason health care is so expensive is not only the cost of the care, but the subsidizing of care for people who have really high medical bills? This happens both through insurance premiums and the cost of care at the hospitals.

Helmets are a very low burden to ask people to carry, and it helps reduce the likelihood of a certain type of serious injury.

In addition, even if the driver of a car is at fault, a biker who receives a head injury and was not wearing a helmet is considered contributorily negligent and will have trouble collecting from the driver's insurance for the whole cost of their medical bills.

So just wear a fucking helmet. For all our sake.

[–]baconseaMaple Leaf 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (6子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

Wearing a styrofoam helmet isn't going to make you impervious to injury, just reduce the likelihood of immediate traumatic brain injury. Chances are that injured cyclists would still end up in the hospital with significant injury and medical needs resulting in significant medical bills.

To be extreme, perhaps the non-helmet wearing bikers are doing us a favor and dying a quick death on the road instead of burdening us with a prolonged expensive stay in the hospital.

[–]holierthanmao 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (5子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

Correct, helmets do not make a biker impervious to injury. However, it is a very low burden safety measure, so there is no real good reason for someone not to take it, especially if its absence creates a societal cost.

In a way, you are making the argument that some people make against all preventive care. The cheapest version of healthcare is to let all people succumb to their injuries/illnesses. Preventative care means people live longer, and end up requiring many more years of basic health expenses which typically adds up to be a lot of money, more in most cases than end of life care.

However, that logic ignore the basic societal value that living people serve as compared to dead people.

[–]baconseaMaple Leaf -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

WTH are you talking about? I am not making any comment about preventive care.

Your reply is a cut and paste from your other comment and really has nothing to do with what I posted.

[–]holierthanmao 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

To be extreme, perhaps the non-helmet wearing bikers are doing us a favor and dying a quick death on the road instead of burdening us with a prolonged expensive stay in the hospital.

The argument that it is cheaper to let people die is the argument against preventative care.

[–]baconseaMaple Leaf -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

No it's not.

Context, use it.

[–]holierthanmao 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

I read what you said and my post follows. Helmets might cost us more money... cheaper to let people in the street... yadda yadda.

Maybe it just doesn't make sense to you.

[–]nhluhrWedgwood 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

Don't get confused. The reason healthcare is expensive is twofold:

-general tendency toward healing instead of preventing illness; and a general increase in people's health risk factors thanks to inactive lifestyles and poor diets.

-The insurance companies which profit as middlemen between my wallet and my healthcare.

Emergent care is of little consequence in the face of the massive numbers of people taking pills and having operations for health issues which could be prevented.

[–]holierthanmao 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

Preventative care is not less expensive than emergent care or end-of-life care. The thing about preventative care is that it causes people live longer and therefore to require many more years of health care costs, and then at the end of their life, there still ends up being exorbitant costs associated with end-of-life care. That does not mean preventive care is bad; most people would agree that people living longer is a good thing. However, increasing people's access to/use of preventative care and healthy living is not the solution to the rising costs of health care.

There are way more than two aspects of the cost of health care. There is inefficiency in healthcare, with duplicative tests being frequent. People are oblivious to the cost of health care when they have insurance, and not question the fact that two equally effective procedures have a cost difference of $20,000 (such drug therapy v. a stent for a blocked artery). The patent system in regards to pharmaceuticals. The lobbying effort against allowing non physician medical professionals from expanding their scope of practice (such as PAs and ARNPs). Administrative costs of hospitals. The lack of sharing of medical records between health care providers. Charity health care and emergency health care for uninsured. It goes on and on.

[–]IndusSilverClub_ 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

you have a fitting screen name

[–]powerjeph -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (2子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

I love how tax revenue is only scarce when some liberal is promoting his nanny state shit.

[–]holierthanmao 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

It's about the cost of health care, not taxes.

[–]powerjeph -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

And everything is also all so interconnected until you want to make a counterpoint premised upon consensus reality. Then all the sudden, everyone is visiting the planet Earth for the first time and/or they lack a basic understanding of concepts like what money is. Hysterical.

[–]brainwadCapitol Hill -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

Isn't that the reckless driver's problem? Should we incentivise not mauling people with 2000+ lb machines?

[–]holierthanmao 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

We incentivize both drivers and bicyclists to take care, because that creates the best outcome.

You are also assuming that every bike accident is at the hands of a reckless driver, and are ignoring the accidents that are the fault of the biker, or the accidents that involve no vehicles.