> You have no evidence that the seat belt would have helped
There's no evidence either that it wouldn't have helped, but a good chance of it having potentionally helped and a vanishingly small chance of it being detrimental. The article says he hit a patch of ice. It's entirely possible that that momentary loss of control would have been dampened by a belt keeping him straight in his seat so he could've avoided the obstacle.
> You have no evidence that his treatment was funded by taxpayer money and not by insurance.
True. I admittedly do come from a society where in almost all cases tax payer money would be involved in the medical treatment and i did jump to a conclusion there.
> You've made no explanation of how he could have been "a physical danger to others."
There was no need to since it's utterly obvious. Lack of belt excacerbates any kind of loss of control in which the driver is subjected to forces moving them about in the seat, by making any further control attempts much more difficult; thus increasing chances of further uncontrolled collisions with other traffic participants.
> I don't believe [...] I marched right into his hospital room
Now you're jumping to conclusions. The kind of thing you're saying is obviously unreasonable so i did not consider it worthy mentioning that i was not talking about that. I was talking about what would have happened throughout his life before that.
> You're a short step from channeling Reagan ranting about "welfare queens."
There's no evidence either that it wouldn't have helped, but a good chance of it having potentionally helped and a vanishingly small chance of it being detrimental. The article says he hit a patch of ice. It's entirely possible that that momentary loss of control would have been dampened by a belt keeping him straight in his seat so he could've avoided the obstacle.
> You have no evidence that his treatment was funded by taxpayer money and not by insurance.
True. I admittedly do come from a society where in almost all cases tax payer money would be involved in the medical treatment and i did jump to a conclusion there.
> You've made no explanation of how he could have been "a physical danger to others."
There was no need to since it's utterly obvious. Lack of belt excacerbates any kind of loss of control in which the driver is subjected to forces moving them about in the seat, by making any further control attempts much more difficult; thus increasing chances of further uncontrolled collisions with other traffic participants.
> I don't believe [...] I marched right into his hospital room
Now you're jumping to conclusions. The kind of thing you're saying is obviously unreasonable so i did not consider it worthy mentioning that i was not talking about that. I was talking about what would have happened throughout his life before that.
> You're a short step from channeling Reagan ranting about "welfare queens."
See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9713606