Re: OT: Roll Up Your Sleeves

That had to be a 1974, my ex had one. The trick was you disconnected the seat sensors. The salesman showed us how although he couldn't do it. I still wore my belt but I didn't want one more thing that would stop my car from starting. If we were just moving cars around in the driveway or I was working on it, I didn't what to have to put on the belt first. Yeah I know buckle the belt then sit on it but then it is a PITA if you forget to unbuckle it before you get in when you are going somewhere. It was such an unpopular thing the law only lasted one year.

I don't eat fast food, but you can pry my extra-virgin olive oil out of my cold, dead hands.

Cindy Hamilton

IIRC, there used to be an exception if your car was built before 1968.

It could be a pain in the ass for me to have to have the belts bulked just to start a car. I have a ham radio antenna on the car that has to be manually lowered to get it in the garage. That means when I want to go somewhere I have to buckle up , back out, goet out and back in the car.

Wife just had some medical problems and has to use a walker for a couple of months. That means i have to back out of the garage , get out and assist her getting in the car. No need for a seat belt for that either. I do buckle up any time I am on the highway. Have been doing that before the belt law was passed in the state.

A guess that another really umpopular thing was the automatic belts that were motor driven and the big mess that some cars had where the belts were partly fastened to the door.

On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 11:16:12 -0400, Ralph Mowery posted for all of us to digest...

My wife had a Sundance with the motor driven belt, what a **

That is exactly what I said. The helmet COST NHS money, It didn't save a single pence. So let's not hear about "health costs". Sad as it is, it is pretty cheap if they pronounce you at the scene.

My brother had a Camry with those. I think Toyota gave up on the idea after a couple of years.

Seat belts are required if offered as original equipment.

No seat belts on Model A fords or MG TDs with wooden floor bords - - -

It's so easy to say that if someone else is paying.  How much would you personally be willing to spend to save Grammy?

I am not the one who brought up the "medical cost" thing.

So the British government does have a financial motive in making you wear a helmet.

Grandmother

Doctors, lawyers and insurance companies spend a lot of bribe money to insure that never happens and when they do pass a law, it benefits doctors, lawyers and insurance companies so those bribes pay off. You only have to look at Obamacare to see that.

I had a 1988 Camry with motorized seat belts. I don't remember any problems with that. It also required pulling something under the driver's seat to access the gas cap.

Isn't that something they used to use as a shortening of "gramophone"?

Based on the fact that I rarely get any use out of my health insurance, the answer for me would be about as much as I'm paying in premiums. That's for someone else's grandmother, since mine is dead.

Cindy Hamilton

I love what Obamacare did for me. I retired at 62 so had to get health insurance from a private company. Found a plan for about $ 250 a month with a high deductible. As I was in good health I took the chance. About halfway to 65 Obama care started . Price jumped to over $ 600 a month, but as I was at a certain poverty level the price for me stayed about the same or maybe a few dollars less. So the insurance companies got paid about $ 400 a month to make up the difference.

While not true unions or monoplies the Medical and lawyer professions have great influence on the pricing and competition.

For almost any business any can start one up. If say I wanted to start a car repair shop, all I have to do is get a work place and business license. If I wanted to be a lawyer or doctor I have to jump through all kinds of hoops to get certified and such.

While I am not really for it, I often think of socialized medicine. In one sense we already have a good part of it. If you do not have any money, the government pays for it. If you do have money you pay for the ones that do not.

In order to think of it, you need to understand it first. And it's clear you don't understand it.

It's simply insurance. Everyone pays premiums into a single pool (usually along with their taxes, just like SS and Medicare) and that pool (which is _not_ the government) pays the healthcare providers.

Simply expand medicare to all ages, take the existing insurance premiums paid to the insurance companies and pay them to the pool instead. That knocks off over 25% of the overhead in the current medical system (contrast with Medicare, which pays less than 4% in overhead).

Sure, it puts the insurance companies out of business (sob), but any good republican knows that employees are fungible assets that can easily be redeployed to other occupations.

Prior to the PP-ACA, the insurance premiums for my small company (50 employees) were increasing by double-digit percentages _every single year_ during the Bush administration. After the PP-ACA, the premium increases became significantly less and millions of additional Americans became covered. That's a good-good result.

How about the people that did not do so good? Many of the DME (Durable Medical Equipment) suppliers went out of business or reduces services because of the payment cuts. Patients have to pay for previous covered services. Many of those covered have a huge deductible before coverage too.

The ACA is a really poor system when you see all sides of it.

Not totally true. It has to come out of the pocket at some point if you earn an income.