Helmets

[David]

I'm with you, and those are good observations. I've always wondered about the car thing, too.

 

It just seems that the majority frequently looks to be judgmental about the minority in a fairly inconsistent way.

 

Until there's serious discussion about limiting healthcare for all "choice" issues, I'm pretty nervous about singling out helmets.

[AZKomet]

David,

If you reread my original post, I did not say anything about denying care.

 

My point is who pays the bill based upon what level of responsibility the injured person took upon themself.

 

If the victim's health insurance doesn't pay, and the government doesn't pay, then there are three options:

 

A) Victim pays out of pocket for emergency care/rehabilitation. Not likely; if he could pay, he wouldn't have bothered buying insurance.

 

B) Hospital pays for emergency care/rehabilitation. All this means is that the rest of us pay indirectly via inflated costs for the care that we/our insurers pay for.

 

C) No emergency care/rehabilitation is provided.

 

Since option B is little different than having our insurance pay, the only remaining option that restricts the consequences of the victim's actions to the victim himself is C, denial of care, i.e. victim is discharged onto the front lawn.

 

And so the question persists: are you willing to see such policies adopted, and are you will to accept that they will creep to other aspects of personal injury?

 

To cite David's example, when a 50-year-old man needs a quad-bypass operation due to a lifetime of cheeseburgers and indolence, should we make him pay out of pocket?

 

If a guy's car falls on him because he was too stupid/cheap to use jackstands while he worked under it, should the rescue crew fish a credit card out of his wallet (or wait while his wife writes a blank check) before they extract him?

 

JFF...your last statement reminds me of a news blurb last week. I think it was Houston??? The dispatcher will ask for a Credit Card # before sending the rescue team. Hmmmmmm....better keep mine handy!!

[Dave McReynolds]

But in theory, the insidious gobbling of one BigMac per day is no less different in the end result. One means blood on the cracked head and the other means no blood in a heart starving for oxygen. But somehow we're more forgiving of "the public" that does these little things to itself while being a bit self-righteous about the more obvious acts of omission.

 

If the rider gets injured while riding without a helmet, and also has eaten more than his share of BigMacs, he will be allocated a cot in the hall rather than a bed, and all requests for extra helpings of Jello will be denied.

[Bob Palin]

If the rider gets injured while riding without a helmet, and also has eaten more than his share of BigMacs, he will be allocated a cot in the hall rather than a bed, and all requests for extra helpings of Jello will be denied.

Except in Utah (it's the official State Food).

[Jerry in Monument]

First, I realize that these are very difficult issues legally, ethically, morally, emotionally. As with most things, there are no easy or perfect answers. These are just ideas.

 

 

1) Should insurance companies be allowed to exclude any claims related to your motorcycle riding, whether or not you were wearing a helmet? In other words, are you okay if THEY draw the line elsewhere?

 

No, insurance companies should NOT be allowed to exclude claims related to MC riding, no matter whether you're wearing a helmet or not.

 

However, there should be sort of mechanism; i.e. higher premiums, reduced coverage, higher deductibles, restitution; for those who are are injured while not wearing the appropriate protective gear.

 

If the gov't (taxpayers) are not going to be allowed to help a helmetless rider in an accident, what's the net result? Are you going to force the hospital to absorb it? Would you be okay if the ambulance pulled up to emergency admitting and--upon the hospital discovering that the rider was not using a helmet and had no insurance--they dumped his stupid bloody self in the grass next to the handicapped parking area and called a relative? These kind of pulpit pronouncements seem to be fairly devoid of significant thought.

 

This is probably the most difficult of the issues. But how do we get back to a sense of personal responsibility and stop putting the burden on other people?

 

The hospitals 'absorb' the costs now for the uninsured, illegal aliens, and pass those costs on to us.

 

One of our daughters has a friend that recently spent nearly a week in the hospital with some serious health issues. they do NOT have any insurance and are happy as clams. Not to get political, but her mom said that is why she votes for Democrats, because they provide 'free' healthcare. I could not get her to understand that her 'free' healthcare is paid for by me, my wife, her neighbor, etc. "It's the government paying for it".

 

My wife has been in healthcare for nearly 30 years, worked for companies providing the interface between SS, Medicare, Medicaid, traveled to Europe to review seven different countries 'socialized' medicine, etc. I get first hand info on how screwed up the system is, yet how much worse it could get.

 

So, if someone does not wear a helmet, recieves head trauma, receives treatment, but does not have insurance, what to do?

 

Public service, if they are able. Mandate public service, garnish wages, ?????

 

Some how this has to be made personal to those that adversely affect the rest. Very difficult and confusing.

 

[Bob Palin]

No, insurance companies should NOT be allowed to exclude claims related to MC riding, no matter whether you're wearing a helmet or not.

 

However, there should be sort of mechanism; i.e. higher premiums, reduced coverage, higher deductibles, restitution; for those who are are injured while not wearing the appropriate protective gear.

I thought you said you were a conservative? I'm a raging liberal and I think insurance companies should be able to write whatever policies they want, I just won't buy one I don't like. (I am in favour of a national health care scheme however, which - in my version - would eliminate this issue).

 

If riding without a helmet was a significant actuarial issue premiums would be higher to take that into account. It's actually insignificant in the overall health care budget, which is part of David's issue, you are focusing on a small minority point because it is an easy/obvious target.

[Jerry in Monument]

I view it as a contract. If you sign up for insurance, pay your premiums, then the company should be required to stick to the contract.

 

The company should have the right to write their policies as they want and the consumer have the choice to purchase or not based on preference, but once the contract is entered into by both parties, then each party should abide.

[Jerry in Monument]

I never have understood why anyone would want the government in charge of healthcare.

 

Other than breaking things and blowing things up (military), what programs does the government run that work well, are efficient and economical?

 

If you look at the federal budget and the way our politicians through out the "billion" dollar figures, put this in perspective:

 

1 million seconds = 11.5 days (one dollar each second)

1 billion seconds = 33 years (one dollar each second)

 

Our government currently spend one billion dollars every 8 hours, 20 minutes.

 

How much of what they do makes us happy or even makes sense?

[Bob Palin]

We've discussed health care to death numerous times in the past on this board without changing anybody's mind, there's no point in doing so again. And FYI, I'm no fan of the government.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

No, insurance companies should NOT be allowed to exclude claims related to MC riding, no matter whether you're wearing a helmet or not.

 

However, there should be sort of mechanism; i.e. higher premiums, reduced coverage, higher deductibles, restitution; for those who are are injured while not wearing the appropriate protective gear.

 

So who decides what is "appropriate" gear?

 

Should a car not be considered "appropriate" gear? In terms of crash protection, it performs much better than a motorcycle/helmet/racesuit combo; the data on this matter is (are?) much more compelling than the helmet/no helmet dichotomy.

 

So, if someone does not wear a helmet, recieves head trauma, receives treatment, but does not have insurance, what to do?

 

Public service, if they are able. Mandate public service, garnish wages, ?????

 

Some how this has to be made personal to those that adversely affect the rest. Very difficult and confusing.

 

Why is the line drawn between helmet wearers and the bare-headed? What shall we do with the cheeseburger-swilling quad-bypass candidate, or the jackstand-eschewing auto mechanic?

[Dave McReynolds]

You might want to page through these posts. Sorry you weren't around when we had this discussion, but you can see that we've been through this fairly recently, and I think I'll sit it out this go-round. Didn't mean to let the genie out of the bottle again.

[Jerry in Monument]

I guess we really are too stupid to take care of ourselves.

 

We need the Nanny State to think for us.

 

Orwell was just off by a few decades.

[Bob Palin]

I guess we really are too stupid to take care of ourselves.

Does anybody actually question that - just look around - its obvious! In truth we've never been able to look after ourselves, way back when we were living in caves we had Shamans who knew how to look after us. We hunted in groups, we farmed cooperatively, it's human nature.

[Dave McReynolds]

Just because someone misreads something and then disagrees with what they failed to understand, does not warrant verbal assault.

 

I meant no offense, but have my own opinions based upon my life experiences. You have yours and while we may disagrre, I respect your opinions and will try not to be judgemental or offensive in my replies.

 

I guess we really are too stupid to take care of ourselves.

 

Interesting juxtaposition of comments. On the one hand, you're objecting to what you considered an offensive comment, while on the other hand, you're calling everyone who is in favor of national healthcare "stupid" (which includes a fair number of the people on this board).

[David]

In spite of social pressure otherwise, I'm going to stand by the original statement I used to close my comment above.

 

Next.

[AlanBrown]

Mitch

 

To pick up on your last point, a news story was aired a few weeks ago where a couple of scuba divers were rescued off the Great Barrier Reef after their dive boat had (allegedly) abandoned them. No problem there. But, within minutes of arriving on dry land, the stupid people did a deal with a magazine and sold their story for big money. The rescue services got to hear about it and, indignant, (and rightly so) promptly turned round and said "If you are going to make money out of this, why don't you turn some of it back to the poorly funded service that saved your sorry arses?" (or words to that effect).

 

Not quite the same as the arguments I see raging round this thread, but weren't they doing just what some of your scenarios were intimating, i.e. allowing the irresponsible individual to benefit from the consequences of their own unacceptable behaviour (getting somebody else to pay for it)?

[AZKomet]

Yes, isn't that a hoot???? In AZ we have a "Stupid Motorist Law" which means that if one drives into a flooded river or some other no brainer situation (which common sense should say; " I wouldn't do that if I were you") and your tail has to be rescued you are stuck with the bill. So...back to helmets. Same thing? No helmet are you stuck with the bill?

[Quinn]

Yes, isn't that a hoot???? In AZ we have a "Stupid Motorist Law" which means that if one drives into a flooded river or some other no brainer situation (which common sense should say; " I wouldn't do that if I were you") and your tail has to be rescued you are stuck with the bill. So...back to helmets. Same thing? No helmet are you stuck with the bill?

 

What do I care, I'm a vegetable.