Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is a public health aspect to a head injury. Head injuries often cause death or a permanent disability. Either one has a cost to society.
We ALL pay for people doing stupid things, like smoking or not wearing helmets. The more sick and disabled people the higher the healthcare costs for everyone.
Ah, the old "protect yourself so we don't have to pay" arguement.
I thought liberals fixed that with mandated healthcare?
Again, it's all too obvious that this is just another example of wanting to tell someone else what to do, even if it the consequences do not affect fellow motorists.
Ah, the old "protect yourself so we don't have to pay" arguement.
I thought liberals fixed that with mandated healthcare?
Again, it's all too obvious that this is just another example of wanting to tell someone else what to do, even if it the consequences do not affect fellow motorists.
Statism knows no boundaries. Dems love Big Government. So progressing toward a complete nanny state is fine with them.
Now that Obama has mastered the health insurance system, and wowed us with his devotion to all, should a nationwide helmet law be put in place?
After all, we'll all be chipping in to pay for this awesome healthcare for all, and people flying around on bikes unprotected is almost as dangerous as smoking in a bar isn't it?
If it was up to me I'd make it mandatory for posters here at CD to wear helmets. The libbies at least.
The way I see it is similar to health insurance. . .or car insurance
Not wearing the helmet puts a significant higher liability on us (the non motorcycle wearing public). Though Motorcyclist will talk about freedom and choice yet we, as a society, do not have the choice as that person has a wreck on the road to turn down medical service without proof of funds
So here is a fair compromise
Do not wear a helmet
insurance companies may decline coverage
Hospitals may assumed declined admitance from insurance, and decline without proof of funds
We won't even pick your body off the road, unless you have proof to pay for the ride (i.e. someone has to roll you to shoulder, that's the minimum)
Wear a helmet
insurance company may not decline coverage, and your allowed to go to hospital without proof of funds
We are protected from you, and you get your freedom to take your own risks. . but not the freedom to place the cost of those risks on us.
The way I see it is similar to health insurance. . .or car insurance
Not wearing the helmet puts a significant higher liability on us (the non motorcycle wearing public). Though Motorcyclist will talk about freedom and choice yet we, as a society, do not have the choice as that person has a wreck on the road to turn down medical service without proof of funds
So here is a fair compromise
Do not wear a helmet
insurance companies may decline coverage
Hospitals may assumed declined admitance from insurance, and decline without proof of funds
We won't even pick your body off the road, unless you have proof to pay for the ride (i.e. someone has to roll you to shoulder, that's the minimum)
Wear a helmet
insurance company may not decline coverage, and your allowed to go to hospital without proof of funds
We are protected from you, and you get your freedom to take your own risks. . but not the freedom to place the cost of those risks on us.
Can I assume that you would support these same steps for those who abuse alcohol, drugs, etc?
Yes, go ahead use drugs but if you get hauled into the hospital they can simply refuse to treat you.
Now that Obama has mastered the health insurance system, and wowed us with his devotion to all, should a nationwide helmet law be put in place?
After all, we'll all be chipping in to pay for this awesome healthcare for all, and people flying around on bikes unprotected is almost as dangerous as smoking in a bar isn't it?
If it was up to me I'd make it mandatory for posters here at CD to wear helmets. The libbies at least.
Riders without helmets often don't have to worry about healthcare after an accident.
They are however a great source of corneas, kidneys, lungs etc.
Helmet laws for motorcycle riders, are they necessary?
I think they're necessary, for the protection of the person(s) riding the motorcycle. I understand, also, that it's a comfort/choice/lifestyle issue for motorcycle owners. My thought is that if someone chooses not to wear a helmet and suffers head injuries in an accident ... their healthcare insurance company should not be required to cover the costs of the injuries and the first responders should be permitted to finish other tasks before responding to the accident.
Now that Obama has mastered the health insurance system, and wowed us with his devotion to all, should a nationwide helmet law be put in place?
After all, we'll all be chipping in to pay for this awesome healthcare for all, and people flying around on bikes unprotected is almost as dangerous as smoking in a bar isn't it?
If it was up to me I'd make it mandatory for posters here at CD to wear helmets. The libbies at least.
You have to decide, do you want your brains scattered all over the pavement, or, in a brain bucket?
Do seat belts in cars and aircraft save lives?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Some_Random_Guy
Ah, the old "protect yourself so we don't have to pay" arguement.
I thought liberals fixed that with mandated healthcare?
Again, it's all too obvious that this is just another example of wanting to tell someone else what to do, even if it the consequences do not affect fellow motorists.
I have many conservative friends who ride, that are insured, and wear helmets, what is your argument? Insurance companies are liberals?
I think they're necessary, for the protection of the person(s) riding the motorcycle. I understand, also, that it's a comfort/choice/lifestyle issue for motorcycle owners. My thought is that if someone chooses not to wear a helmet and suffers head injuries in an accident ... their healthcare insurance company should not be required to cover the costs of the injuries and the first responders should be permitted to finish other tasks before responding to the accident.
And please, make sure that they finish every other task before responding to inner-city gun crime, too, right?
The way I see it is similar to health insurance. . .or car insurance
Not wearing the helmet puts a significant higher liability on us (the non motorcycle wearing public). Though Motorcyclist will talk about freedom and choice yet we, as a society, do not have the choice as that person has a wreck on the road to turn down medical service without proof of funds....
Source for it putting higher medical liability on us than a non-helmet wearing rider? I think you might have it backwards.
It's kinda like the *burden* of morbidly obese smokers on social security....there isn't one....they die young.
Most helmet law statistics cite savings by factoring in lost productivity. Meaning that you just lost some 25 year olds future productivity and it excludes benefits of organ donation etc.
I'm not against helmet laws but it's a lot more grey of a discussion than some sides like to present.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
