survival of fittest? reductio ad absurd...

[SL S <stepnout@swva.net>]

Hoho, it's about helmets, et al safety measures:  Good for you folks who say
you want to bear the consequences of your behavior!  I'm all for it, because
if everybody did, my taxes and health insurance premiums could go WAY down.
The hospital I work for could charge everybody a more reasonable fee because
they wouldn't have to foot the bill for folks who cause themselves
injuries/illness and require expensive care.  Yeehah!  We could leave the
smashed up drunk/otherwise impaired drivers sans money or insurance on the
roadside for the (oops, who will pick up the remains?  Maybe family will do
it, but if they don't, and the deceased can't pay for it, we will still be
in their loop.)  Before long, the Darwinian principle will weed those folks
out because they won't be back for a repeat.  We will still have charity
care, but at least it won't be for folks who brought it upon themselves.
Please put a Medic-alert bracelet on that tells the rescue folks you can pay
for the trauma care, and up to what amount, so they can decide whether or
not to treat you.

One other thought:  if the odds of being electrocuted (killed) when you
touched a wire were 1:10,000, would you touch it?  How high (close to unity)
would the odds have to go before you would leave the wire alone or use an
insulator?  What if you didn't know the odds?

Sally in Floyd, VA