Don't forget to wear your seat belt today....

[Jeffy]

because we all know it's not your fault if you are thrown through the windshield or out the window.

It's the government's job to protect you because you are too stupid to make that choice!

[Saulbadguy]

It's the government's job to protect you because you are too stupid to make that choice!

this is generally true.

[Goldbrick]

It's the government's job to protect you because you are too stupid to make that choice!

this is generally true.

Spoken like a true authoritarian.

[Jeffy]

It's the government's job to protect you because you are too stupid to make that choice!

this is generally true.

Spoken like a true authoritarian.

He's in favor of nobody voting, because they aren't smart enough.

[Kat Kid]

Meh.  Will save a decent amount in health care costs.

[Sugar Dick]

It's the government's job to protect you because you are too stupid to make that choice!

this is generally true.

Spoken like a true authoritarian.

He's in favor of nobody voting, because they aren't smart enough.

Why not something less arbitrary?  Say, white land owners?

[Sugar Dick]

Meh.  Will save a decent amount in health care costs.

link?

Pretty sure there aren't many healthcare costs for dead people.  If this was the goal of the legislature, they'd ban seatbelts, helmets, air bags, child car seats, etc.

Who told you to say this?

[Rage Against the McKee]

Meh.  Will save a decent amount in health care costs.

link?

Pretty sure there aren't many healthcare costs for dead people.  If this was the goal of the legislature, they'd ban seatbelts, helmets, air bags, child car seats, etc.

Who told you to say this?

That argument comes from National Safety Council estimates, which say that the average fatal car crash costs the economy $5.4 million in direct economic costs, including medical expenses, lost wages, property damage, etc. The estimate seems high, but there definitely is some cost involved.

[fatty fat fat]

because we all know it's not your fault if you are thrown through the windshield or out the window.

It's the government's job to protect you because you are too stupid to make that choice!

free market forces it.

[waks]

I mean, are there really not enough things too bitch about that you have to pick a law mandating seat belt usage of all things? A new low.

[chum1]

I'd be more sympathetic to the approach of acknowledging that people are stupid while maintaining that they have the right to do stupid things.

[Sugar Dick]

Meh.  Will save a decent amount in health care costs.

link?

Pretty sure there aren't many healthcare costs for dead people.  If this was the goal of the legislature, they'd ban seatbelts, helmets, air bags, child car seats, etc.

Who told you to say this?

That argument comes from National Safety Council estimates, which say that the average fatal car crash costs the economy $5.4 million in direct economic costs, including medical expenses, lost wages, property damage, etc. The estimate seems high, but there definitely is some cost involved.

Lost wages and property damage???    You've got to be f*cking kidding me.  What do the casket and undertaking industry studies say?

Seriously though, there isn't a cop on this planet pulling anyone over for not wearing a seat belt.  As we all know, cops only pull people over based on skin color and gender, it has nothing to do with obeying the law. 

Why live in reality, when you can live in rhetoric with Obamatards?

[Rage Against the McKee]

Meh.  Will save a decent amount in health care costs.

link?

Pretty sure there aren't many healthcare costs for dead people.  If this was the goal of the legislature, they'd ban seatbelts, helmets, air bags, child car seats, etc.

Who told you to say this?

That argument comes from National Safety Council estimates, which say that the average fatal car crash costs the economy $5.4 million in direct economic costs, including medical expenses, lost wages, property damage, etc. The estimate seems high, but there definitely is some cost involved.

Lost wages and property damage???    You've got to be f*cking kidding me.  What do the casket and undertaking industry studies say?

Seriously though, there isn't a cop on this planet pulling anyone over for not wearing a seat belt.  As we all know, cops only pull people over based on skin color and gender, it has nothing to do with obeying the law. 

Why live in reality, when you can live in rhetoric with Obamatards?

I was merely saying where the argument comes from, not what I personally believe. The reality is, it costs the government a ton of money to clean up a car wreck, and many car crash deaths occur in the hospital. Also, the government will lose some tax revenue over the period the victim would have lived had he/she not died in the crash. I'm not willing to say the cost is $5.4 million, but if you really think it is more costly to the government to have people survive crashes than die in them, you are pretty rough ridin' stupid.

Personally, I don't care if people wear their seat belts and I don't really care for the law.

[Jeffy]

Meh.  Will save a decent amount in health care costs.

link?

Pretty sure there aren't many healthcare costs for dead people.  If this was the goal of the legislature, they'd ban seatbelts, helmets, air bags, child car seats, etc.

Who told you to say this?

That argument comes from National Safety Council estimates, which say that the average fatal car crash costs the economy $5.4 million in direct economic costs, including medical expenses, lost wages, property damage, etc. The estimate seems high, but there definitely is some cost involved.

Lost wages and property damage???    You've got to be f*cking kidding me.  What do the casket and undertaking industry studies say?

Seriously though, there isn't a cop on this planet pulling anyone over for not wearing a seat belt.  As we all know, cops only pull people over based on skin color and gender, it has nothing to do with obeying the law. 

Why live in reality, when you can live in rhetoric with Obamatards?

I was merely saying where the argument comes from, not what I personally believe. The reality is, it costs the government a ton of money to clean up a car wreck, and many car crash deaths occur in the hospital. Also, the government will lose some tax revenue over the period the victim would have lived had he/she not died in the crash. I'm not willing to say the cost is $5.4 million, but if you really think it is more costly to the government to have people survive crashes than die in them, you are pretty rough ridin' stupid.

Personally, I don't care if people wear their seat belts and I don't really care for the law.

Did you remember to include the positive economic impact?  The hospital makes money.  The wrecker makes money.  The companies that provide equipment to repair everything and the repair companies make money.  The funeral home makes money.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Meh.  Will save a decent amount in health care costs.

link?

Pretty sure there aren't many healthcare costs for dead people.  If this was the goal of the legislature, they'd ban seatbelts, helmets, air bags, child car seats, etc.

Who told you to say this?

That argument comes from National Safety Council estimates, which say that the average fatal car crash costs the economy $5.4 million in direct economic costs, including medical expenses, lost wages, property damage, etc. The estimate seems high, but there definitely is some cost involved.

Lost wages and property damage???    You've got to be f*cking kidding me.  What do the casket and undertaking industry studies say?

Seriously though, there isn't a cop on this planet pulling anyone over for not wearing a seat belt.  As we all know, cops only pull people over based on skin color and gender, it has nothing to do with obeying the law. 

Why live in reality, when you can live in rhetoric with Obamatards?

I was merely saying where the argument comes from, not what I personally believe. The reality is, it costs the government a ton of money to clean up a car wreck, and many car crash deaths occur in the hospital. Also, the government will lose some tax revenue over the period the victim would have lived had he/she not died in the crash. I'm not willing to say the cost is $5.4 million, but if you really think it is more costly to the government to have people survive crashes than die in them, you are pretty fracking stupid.

Personally, I don't care if people wear their seat belts and I don't really care for the law.

Did you remember to include the positive economic impact?  The hospital makes money.  The wrecker makes money.  The companies that provide equipment to repair everything and the repair companies make money.  The funeral home makes money.

The hospital won't make money unless the victim is wealthy, as insurance companies will not pay medical expenses when the seat belt is not worn. The only times the positive economic impacts outweigh the negative are when the victim is either elderly or on welfare.

[Fitz Bath]

because we all know it's not your fault if you are thrown through the windshield or out the window.

It's the government's job to protect you because you are too stupid to make that choice!

The Govt. Isn't trying to protect us, they're just capitalizing off of said stupid people.

[TBL]

I try to pull people over, for not wearing a seat belt, according to breast size. 

[TBL]

All kidding aside, please drive safe.