Seatbelt law (Manchester, Barrington, Plymouth: insurance, house, live in)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If yo live in Plymouth, Barrington, or Manchester, please contact your senator and express your feelings about mandatory seatbelt use!
There is an article in the Monitor about the state of the bill Seatbelt article (http://cmstage.sx.atl.publicus.com/article/20090226/FRONTPAGE/902260301 - broken link) Apparently it passed the house resoundingly, and is still due in the Senate. There are 5 senators who are currently undecided (otherwise it looks like the mandatories have it).
"Gov. John Lynch has declined to offer an opinion on the seatbelt bill. He has said he thinks seatbelts are important, but he has not said whether he thinks the state should mandate their use."
<sigh> what's the state coming to?! Why can't the insurance companies simply state in their policies that if you choose to not use a seatbelt (or wear a helmet), should you find yourself in an accident they will only cover up to $X - whatever would be reasonable for someone who did wear them. It's still your choice but the insurance isn't raising everyone's rates to cover the expenses.
"Gov. John Lynch has declined to offer an opinion on the seatbelt bill. He has said he thinks seatbelts are important, but he has not said whether he thinks the state should mandate their use."
What a leader he is! I am hoping someone with some substance gets elected governor in 2010....
We're looking at a house in Plymouth area. I'l be calling and kindly letting them know, that as a future resident, that I oppose this piece of legislation, and that I'll be watching them like hawks.
As your resident leftist I would like you all to know that using the state power to force people to wear helmets or seatbelts is improper because it interferes with the basic right of individuals to create their own risks. I do agree with the concept that the state help protect children by requiring the kids to be helmeted or belted in as appropriate. Forcing responsibility for children is proper; forcing responsibility for yourself is not. I think Wannacomehome has the right idea by making this part of the insurance contract.
BTW - I have been in some very dangerous environments and I personally always wear a seatbelt while driving and a helmet while riding. This is by choice.
What a leader he is! I am hoping someone with some substance gets elected governor in 2010....
I know-yet all we ever hear is how wonderful he is.
Since spineless Lynch won't let us know how he feels, all the more reason to call all the senators and tell them how you feel. Don't just call your own senator-call them all!
I'm not trying to start an argument (no dog in this fight) and I don't know the answer to this question, but maybe someone here does. Are hospitals here required to treat every emergency case, regardless of insurance coverage? I know that in some states when uninsured people show up at the er with life-threatening conditions, the hospitals are required to treat them for free (can't turn them out to die on the streets). So in a lot of cases, they end up spending millions of dollars out of pocket if, for example, the uninsured person slips into a coma and lingers for years or has a baby that goes to NICU.
If that's the case here, insurance waivers wouldn't help. It would protect the insurers and other clients, but it would shift the financial burden of paying to care for those injuries onto hospitals and the state which really means all of us.
Unless you could argue that people who don't wear seatbelts/helmets are more likely to die quickly than to linger injured, and that not wearing seatbelts or helmets actually saves money? Which might well be true, I have no idea.
NH2008- you bring up a good point. If someone doesn't wear a seatbelt their injuries potentially create a fairly large liability tail. If you really wanted this to be focused entirely on personal responsibility without imposing a "burden" on others- you'd essentially have to direct EMTs and medical personnel to let accident victims without proper coverage die on the scene. Yes- that IS the cost of not taking responsibility for your own wellbeing. But from a human perspective could you (supposing you're an EMT) say "oh, let him bleed out- he doesn't have insurance and he wasn't wearing his seatbelt". I don't think we, as humans raised in the developed world, are really able to deal with that.
Instant elevation to organ doner status is likelier with the sans helmet bunch. Modern cars protect (airbags, structural regidity, better door latches etc) the unbelted from fatal injuries.
I'll not bother with health care except to say the entire society pays for health care no matter how it is insured.
Yeah...the motorcyle issue is a lot less "grey". Not many folks survive to have high medical bills if they don't wear a helmet.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
