Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Image

Real-Life Frogger Ends In Hospital Visit 314

Posted by samzenpus
from the going-for-the-logs dept.
BigSes writes "A 23-year old man has been hospitalized after police in South Carolina say he was hit by an SUV while playing a real-life version of the video game Frogger. Authorities said the 23-year-old man was taken to a hospital in Anderson after he was struck Monday evening. Before he was hit, police say the man had been discussing the game with his friends. Chief Jimmy Dixon says the man yelled 'go' and darted into oncoming traffic in the four-lane highway. Has it come time to ban some of the classics before someone else goes out and breaks a few bricks with their heads after eating a large mushroom?"

*

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Real-Life Frogger Ends In Hospital Visit

Comments Filter:
  • Sorry... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Wednesday December 29, 2010 @10:26PM (#34706440) Journal
    You may be more than 18 years of age, and in possession of a y chromosome; but there is No. Fucking. Way. that you have yet graduated to the status of "man" if you are actually playing in traffic because of the influence of Frogger.

    Honestly, I can't think of a stupidity-related term that is strong enough and doesn't end up insulting the garden-variety mentally handicapped by putting them in the same basket as this pathetic man-child-thing...

    We can only hope that he is sold for parts before he comes up with any other brilliant plans.
  • by Penguinshit (591885) on Wednesday December 29, 2010 @10:43PM (#34706574) Homepage Journal
    Sorry, douchebag. The new rules would ensure he has insurance so we don't pay for him in unpaid emergency room expenses which raise costs for the rest of us.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 29, 2010 @10:48PM (#34706600)

    Really? You think this assclown deserves sympathy? He's lucky only he got hit, I can see several drivers freaking out and swerving, slamming in to other cars and causing a much larger accident. He better be jailed for this crap, and pay his own damned hospital bills. Insurance premiums for all of us shouldn't have actuarial tables that account for intentional acts of stupid.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 29, 2010 @10:54PM (#34706644)

    And if he'd not been insured or covered in any way, do you think the hospital would just go "crap" and not pay the doctors, suppliers of medicines, etc, involved in treating this incident?

    No. No they would not. They would just do what they've always done, and jacked up the prices for everyone else, until the hospital was no longer taking a loss.

    Emergency room medical costs of those who can't afford it will always be payed by the rest of society, either explicitly and easily predictably and fairly by government mandate, or implicitly and moderately predictably and less fairly by the costs of everyone else who uses that hospital/ER.

    In one of those scenarios, the overhead of the system is like 2% of the costs of the overall healthcare system (e.g.: Canada). In the other, it's like 25% (e.g.: U.S.).

  • by SydShamino (547793) on Wednesday December 29, 2010 @11:33PM (#34706886)

    You're attracting flames because you are acting so smug, thinking you're totally in control of your own life. You aren't. Some people figure this out on their own, and then at least respect those that have fallen. Others, perhaps like you, need to be T-boned by a guy with no insurance, then screwed over by your own insurance company, while trying to manage the onset of cystic fibrosis, before they realize that sometimes bad things happen to good people.

  • by digitig (1056110) on Wednesday December 29, 2010 @11:40PM (#34706932)

    Can we pass a law that will make it MANDATORY to either execute or sterilize anyone who reacts to this by suggesting that we ban something?

    You've just been caught under your own law. Well done.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 29, 2010 @11:42PM (#34706944)

    arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhh really? You have no sympathy for another human being whatsoever? I'd rather be missing intelligence than missing empathy and basic human kindness

    i have compassion for a human being who is an innocent victim of someone else's wrong-doing and suffers through no fault of his or her own.

    when it comes to people like this guy, i have compassion for the poor SUV driver and the trauma that person had to endure. i have compassion for the human race when i see there are too many people like him who drive, vote, believe propaganda, call tech support lines and otherwise inflict their idiocy on others.

    mother nature only ever came up with one cure for stupidity. i don't believe mankind is going to one-up mother nature, not this time.

  • by kawabago (551139) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @12:51AM (#34707328)
    This is how the gene pool cleans itself.
  • by dangitman (862676) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @05:36AM (#34708422)

    No they shouldn't. It isn't his fault that they chose a different job that pays or is worth less than what he gets paid to do.

    They chose? People at the bottom of the socio-economic scale don't have a lot of choice in jobs. And in fact, it might be partly his fault for people's lack of job opportunities depending on how he votes, etc.

    Not everything is even or the same. People are not the same. I don't know where this idea came from that somehow everyone has to be made the same.

    I never suggested everybody needs to be made the same. Just that we shouldn't be so cruel as to let people die in the street if they can't afford insurance. I'm not sure where you are getting this idea that I think people should be "made the same" from.

    You are not entitled to pull the rich down and steal from them because you think they make too much. They took huge risks that you wouldn't take.

    Bullshit. Many rich people have never taken a risk in their lives. Did Paris Hilton work really hard and take risks to get all of her money? Also, it's generally the poorer workers who help make the rich people's fortune.

    We should hold the parents of the kid responsible who decided to have a kid and couldn't afford all the costs of actually having a kid.

    So what do we do when the parent is dead or otherwise can't take responsibility? Pointing fingers and blaming people isn't going to save the problem.

    Orphans have insurance or get medical care from private charities and doctors who donate their services to charity run orphanages.

    So, that's going to solve all the problem, private charities? It doesn't appear to be working very well.

    It is not compassion when you steal from me by threat of violence, forcing me to pay for you or your kids when I may or may not want to do that.

    Oh, threat of violence. That's funny. You live quite comfortably isolated from the actual threat of violence, while the poor deal with it as a daily threat. By "threat of violence" you actually mean "a few dollars of my taxes."

    The government has never been able to do anything better than what the private sector does.

    Except for the roads, the fire departments, health services, etc? Do you know what happened when fire departments were privately-run? They went around starting fires to get business. Public health services seem to do quite well outside the US, lowering costs for everybody.

    We can take care of ourselves and each other, if the government would just get out of the way.

    So, how is government stopping people from doing that now? It's pretty clear that people don't always take care of themselves or others. How is eliminating government services going to magically change that?

    Instead the government wants to inject itself in to every aspect of our lives. We have allowed a giant nanny state to develop.

    I never said anything about supporting a giant nanny state, or government in all aspects of our lives. I just suggested that we shouldn't let people die in the street, or deny them care when in desperate need. Hardly a radical Statist proposition.

    We absolutely can take care of ourselves and do it far better than the government ever possibly could. We don't need the government to do charity or tell us to do charity

    There's your problem - the government is supposed to be of the people and for the people. It is supposed to be a part of the "we" you are referring to. But people have become so distanced from the ideas of governance that they have allowed it to become an alien entity.

    Ultimately, you're just being selfish and whining about money. But even that is counter-productive, because it would cost a lot more if we did let society fall apart and people die in the streets. Wouldn't you rather pay a lower amount in preventative action to avoid the collapse of society? It's going to be hard to run that business when there's death, disease and looting in the streets.

  • by BeanThere (28381) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @07:55AM (#34709148)

    2) Get disability insurance too
    3) Save money so that I can pay for someone to look after me
    4) Get sick
    5) Pay for own care

    That is exactly what I'm doing. If I get sick, I will be able to pay for my own care. If for some reason my savings get blown or I haven't managed to save enough before I get sick, I STILL don't see how the logic leads you to "I should be able to steal from other people so they must look after me". I would frankly rather just put a bullet through my brain at that point. What is the point of living if you're just a leech on everyone around you? I will never leech off others, and no matter how many conniptions you do, leeching off others is theft.

    What you are basically saying is that your "right" to see a doctor is so important that it's OK to steal from other people to pay for it. Funny how that's always easier to argue when you're the beneficiary of the theft.

    The funny thing is, for all YOUR lecturing, I in fact am the one who DOES have a debilitating sickness that runs in our family, so there is a very good chance I WILL land up in this very situation by 50 or 60. And guess what, I'm NOT going around crying 'boo hoo I should be able to steal from others' while simultaneously living in a nice house with nice car etc. On the contrary, I know "that's life", that life can be harsh, and so I do what's called "planning" for it --- I live within my means, I live in a small house, I drive a small older car, I put away money into risk-spread investments so that I'll have savings to pay for my OWN care if and when I get sick.

    That way I STILL get to pay my own way in life, AND I don't have to steal from anyone.

    And if I don't use those savings, then my family can use that money as rainy-day money.

    It's not rocket science.

    The fact that I'm getting modded "Troll" for this left right and center is beyond bizarre, while the guy who calls me a "douchebag" for living my life so that I don't steal from other people gets "insightful", I've never seen so much incredibly biased moderating in one go.

  • by BeanThere (28381) on Thursday December 30, 2010 @08:08AM (#34709208)

    You couldn't be more wrong. You are the smug one --- I know already that 'shit happens' in life more than most - there is a horrible debilitating illness that runs in my family, I've watched family members slowly die from it, and I have a good chance of getting it.

    So you know what I do? I am living well within my means, and saving money so that if it hits me, I will be able to pay for my own healthcare.

    I know that 'shit happens' in life, and instead of arguing that that somehow makes me entitled to other peoples money, I do something called "planning for it", unlike most people. I long ago figured out that "shit happens' and I live a lower quality of life to save money, now you're arguing that my savings should be taken to pay for people who *didn't* plan, and were having a nicer life, spending money on more luxuries, and then got "surprised" by shit happening.

Mathematicians stand on each other's shoulders. -- Gauss

Working...