Quote:
Originally Posted by flameswin
Wait, so you're saying if the number of deaths was cut in HALF it would not be a significant saving of lives? 
I ****ing hate these types of arguments. "You are also at risk from problem B, so therefore why fix problem A?" |
Because nothing happens in a vacuum, and if you save 150 lives, but the cost is electing more republicans, which in turn takes away access for health care for many, and makes poorer people poorer, then is saving 150 lives worth it? I saw a story where 45,000 people died from lack of health insurance in the US in 2009. Which is the more important issue? Priorities matter in public policy.
Too much decision making is being based on what happens to be sensationalized on the news. My making mandatory a few key safety features on cars, you could save 10,000 lives in a year. Why are we getting all worked up about saving 150 lives. No one seems to care about vehicle deaths, because they don't make the news. But I for one would love it if we could make the highways safer, because that is something that could statistically improve my kids chances of seeing their 18th birthday, and to me that is what matters.