>Realistically - life has price and most healthcare organizations have worked out what it is. Would you spend $1 million to save 1 life if that same $1 million could save 1000 others?
Depends on whether that one is a JF Kenedy Jnr and heir or just Jo Public.
>
>>I'm in the camp who think that a life doesn't have a price. Beside, where else the money will be better applied (other than charity)? It will certainly create new jobs in the helmet market.
>>
>>>Because you need to do a cost/benefit calculation between the cost of requiring *all* skiers to buy and carry helmets vs. the benefit of saving the few who get injured in this way. It's a non-starter if you think it through. The same money, if it must be spent, could do much better applied elsewhere.
They didn't cost/benefit analyse forcing motorists to use a seatbelt. Besides, the cost of a helmet lies on the skier, not on the health care authority, so why would one be done anyway?
- Whoever said that women are the weaker sex never tried to wrest the bedclothes off one in the middle of the night
- Worry is the interest you pay, in advance, for a loan that you may never need to take out.
