Replies to this message are sent to The Chevelle Mailing List
------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
Hmmm, considering " government cost ". Bad idea. There is no such
thing. Government is a cost of society. The use of "government funds"
to pay for anything always involves a markup, usually a huge one.
> > 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.
My point is cost. Not sentimentallity, stupidity, religion or any
other distraction. Cost. If you want to talk about cost, leave all
that other stuff out of the discussion.
> 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.
I am not suggesting any course of action. Nor do I want to roll
morality into the argument.
For a given, fixed number of incidents, N, since death is nearly free,
and medical cost is expensive, anything that can raise the probablity
of death will lower the cost.
Skipping back to reality, raising the probablity of death also reduces
the absolute number, N, again lowering cost.
The argument quickly comes down to the cost of medical care vs. the
efficacy of safety systems. If the cost of medical care is infinite,
the safety must be perfect for the cost to remain fixed.
To make gains, to reduce the overall cost of all medical care, each
marginal cost of safety has to beat each margial reduction in medical
expense.
Look at the overall US stats for the cost of airbags. Research + cost
+ carrying costs for the whole US fleet over the past decade and
compare that to marginal change in the death rate. The US DOT
publishes the saved-life-cost; I do not have the numbers at my finger
tips, but the number is astounding. Like in the millions.
A million per life saved with airbags? With that cost, morality pops
up again with reference to providing health care to the poor, where a
million dollars will provide more extended life years than the life
expency of the airbag-saved person.
Hardly anybody out there is heartless enough to talk about cost and
only cost. So the argument gets confused and emotional, while the
"cost" wording is used only for the sake of confusion.
This discussion is too far from Chevelles. If you want, continue by
email.
-----------------------------------------------------
To Unsubscribe please visit www.chevelles.net/list.html
To start a new topic, send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
