?Let those who pay have a say.??

[SCBuckeye]

RE: insurance:

It's a straight, hard line to self righteousness, and I hope to catch myself as often as possible when I start to become "that guy". I mean, it's pretty easy to sit around and talk about what other people should or shouldn't be doing. In the end, all we as individuals can effectively do- as Paul, I believe, suggested, is to lead by example.

I think the dilemma we all face is when is it right to force OUR PERSONAL values on others and when is it not. I know that we are not to bring in religion or politics into this, but how each of us view these subjects will affect our position on the "helmet" law.

I think people should make their own decision (I always ride with a helmet and so does my son and all of the friends that we ride with), and if a person's decision is to ride without one, and if it is proper for me to express my view to him/her kindly, I will. But each is ultimately responsible for his/her own decision - and the costs of that decision should be borne by them and not the rest of us.

 

[36654]

But each is ultimately responsible for his/her own decision - and the costs of that decision should be borne by them and not the rest of us.

OK, let's take the example of Bob, the penniless, village idiot. Bob make lots of choices. They're typically less than brilliant and he has the lack of teeth to prove it. His Jeep pick-up has seen much better days, but he can still make it to the tavern and club to sign the book on the weekend. We're really not sure how Bob makes his money, but there is that patch woods behind the shack he inherited from his Old Man. We hear that good shade helps maintain the potency of the weed.

Now, when Bob writes his own rules, he has no problem being responsible. He had no problem when the old lady took the kids and left. Leading by example, he's trying to make them independent and responsible. When Bob drinks too much and takes a swing at the ex-football team captain, he spends a few days in the county jail. Once again, Bob is taking responsibility and enjoys the regular meals. When Bob decides to open the throttle on the old Jeep going down Main Street..........I'm sure he'll have no problem being responsible after he T-Bones your wife/mother/daughter/son at the next intersection. You'll be welcome to every worthless thing Bob owns. Won't you feel better?

 

[EMSimon]

YOU were hit and YOUR insurance company paid the medical????

I would think that the person who hit you's insurance would be liable.

Not if you are in one of the states with this stupid "no-fault" insurance set-ups

 

[osbornk]

YOU were hit and YOUR insurance company paid the medical????

I would think that the person who hit you's insurance would be liable.

My insurance company paid the bill and they then subrogated the guilty party to recover the money. That is frequently the way they do it because the guilty party's insurance has not legal obligation to the hospital (they actually owe me). At the time of the treatment, liability and insurance coverage of the guilty party has not been determined and my insurance's obligation to cover my bills is clear.

 

[greenwald]

OK, let's take the example of Bob, the penniless, village idiot. Bob make lots of choices. They're typically less than brilliant and he has the lack of teeth to prove it. His Jeep pick-up has seen much better days, but he can still make it to the tavern and club to sign the book on the weekend. We're really not sure how Bob makes his money, but there is that patch woods behind the shack he inherited from his Old Man. We hear that good shade helps maintain the potency of the weed.

Now, when Bob writes his own rules, he has no problem being responsible. He had no problem when the old lady took the kids and left. Leading by example, he's trying to make them independent and responsible. When Bob drinks too much and takes a swing at the ex-football team captain, he spends a few days in the county jail. Once again, Bob is taking responsibility and enjoys the regular meals. When Bob decides to open the throttle on the old Jeep going down Main Street..........I'm sure he'll have no problem being responsible after he T-Bones your wife/mother/daughter/son at the next intersection. You'll be welcome to every worthless thing Bob owns. Won't you feel better?

Bit of a graphic scenario, but it does help point all of us to the core of the issue.

The problem here needs to be split into two arenas: the emotional side that we're all aware of, where the decision to wear or not wear a helmet is everything from a "personal choice" to a "constitutional right" to "my God-given freedom" to "I won't wear one and you can't make me!"

However, what should be in the spotlight is the practical side of the coin: the fact that the skyrocketing costs of ER visits (which eventually get reflected in the base charge we ALL pay when we visit for whatever) and the higher premiums we ALL pay so that insurance companies can absorb the costs of long-term care for poor decision-makers are viral.

When a "personal decision" affects the safety and economy of the majority, it is no longer an act of personal responsibility - typically, an economic or traffic safety threat is usually dealt with by new 'lowest common denominator' laws or caveats to an insurance policy contract.

I'm in no rush to see even more motorcycle-related laws get inked onto the books. But I'd welcome the insurance industry going on the offensive and penalizing any client who crashes without a helmet (easily verified by a little box checked on the Crash Report by the investigating officer).

Let their premiums, and not mine, reflect the chosen level of risk, and save the chest-thumping over that never-ending list of 'shadow freedoms' attributed to the "liberty and the pursuit of happiness" clause of the Constitution to campfire discussions with like-minded buddies.

 

[ricochetrider]

I think the dilemma we all face is when is it right to force OUR PERSONAL values on others and when is it not. I know that we are not to bring in religion or politics into this, but how each of us view these subjects will affect our position on the "helmet" law.

I think people should make their own decision (I always ride with a helmet and so does my son and all of the friends that we ride with), and if a person's decision is to ride without one, and if it is proper for me to express my view to him/her kindly, I will. But each is ultimately responsible for his/her own decision - and the costs of that decision should be borne by them and not the rest of us.

I agree that we face a dilemma in if, how, or when to question others' decisions or choices. The areas of political or religious choices are obviously hot turf, and of course everyone likes to exert their beliefs in these fields, or have them be face forward as a basis for many a stance. But do we still have friends whose religious or political beliefs vary from our own? Sure we do- so, on some level, we accept and possibly also respect the views, beliefs, and subsequent actions of others.

....the fact that the skyrocketing costs of ER visits (which eventually get reflected in the base charge we ALL pay when we visit for whatever) and the higher premiums we ALL pay so that insurance companies can absorb the costs of long-term care for poor decision-makers are viral....
....When a "personal decision" affects the safety and economy of the majority, it is no longer an act of personal responsibility....
......Let their premiums, and not mine, reflect the chosen level of risk.....

This exact argument could be used against obesity and bad food choices- as well as against many many other "choices" made by a seeming majority in the U.S. Can you not say that our fellow citizens' poor health choices do not affect your/our premiums and costs? You seem to draw a clear line with regard to helmets, but the demarcation isn't as crystal clear anywhere else. Let's face it- there's no black & white.

I see a problem (and since it's been brought up already, pretty sure others do too) when we ask those who choose to ride without a helmet to pay for insurance or medical costs, rather than deferring the costs out amongst the entire population of insurance or hospital/medical services users. My point was, and somebody already said this (was it Kantuckid?) - that do we then also accept direct responsibility for our own choices not to consistently eat healthy food, drive like angels, or work out obssessively? If we don't want anyone telling us how to live if it displeases us or upsets our sensibilities,
then how exactly, do we draw the distinction between, say, smoking and helmets?
Or between a $1.00 cheeseburger at a fast food joint and a tofu cake with wilted kale?
Etc., etc.
(Notice, please, that I am making every attempt to keep religion and politics out of this)

I'm saying that it's hypocritical to ask someone who chooses not to wear a helmet to pay insurance or healthcare costs in accordance with that specific choice, if we, in turn don't own up to our own responsibility in driving other similar costs up if we don't live the perfect lifestyle in other regards.

I'd like to add that we are all most likely pretty much in the same camp regarding helmet use. The real question is how and where do we draw a line between one choice over another? Probably, we all could be singled out as offenders in some regard, as I find it likely that none (or darn few) of us are perfect. As it currently stands, we all apparently share responsibility for the actions of ourselves and everyone else. How exactly, would we determine/agree that there even IS a line we could draw? Would it really ever get any "better" than it currently is?


(Edited to remove anecdotal content)

 

[kantuckid]

That's a good point. There aren't many ER doctors or nurses that are motorcycle fans. I guess I can understand why.

Boston doc I mention-he & his dad/doc ride
98lee-don't argue(discuss) insurance with a former insurance man?
I.E., Greenwald-"chosen level of risk" don't stay up at night waiting for that to happen,huh?

 

[royce]

That's a good point. There aren't many ER doctors or nurses that are motorcycle fans. I guess I can understand why.

Actually, that MAY not be true. I read a study somewhere (cannot recall exactly where) that said docs tend to be "adrenalin junkies" and frequently seek high-risk activities as either a stress reliever or a boredom reliever, when their stress level is not high enough. Motorcycle riding is one of the specific examples mentioned in the article.

 

[classicvw]

As Ron White says: "Ya can't fix stupid".

But Darwinism teaches us that it's self correcting!

 

[classicvw]

Actually, that MAY not be true. I read a study somewhere (cannot recall exactly where) that said docs tend to be "adrenalin junkies" and frequently seek high-risk activities as either a stress reliever or a boredom reliever, when their stress level is not high enough. Motorcycle riding is one of the specific examples mentioned in the article.

That's about as fair as saying motorcycle riders tend to like loud pipes.

In my experience being in law enforcement for 40 years and also FD and EMS, most doctors. DO frown on motorcycle riding and several from two different hospitals have made sure I heard them refer to M/Cs as "donor cycles" after hearing me talk of riding.

 

[classicvw]

That's because she works in a "focal point" location for MC crash people.

No. My point wasn't that I was surprised she had M/C crash victims, I was surprised of the number or frequency of victims. You can work in JUVY and I can say you shouldn't be surprised because you see Juv delinquents, but you can be surprised at the number of them in any given town or facility.

 

[36654]

When my neighbor has an accident, develops cancer or some other degenerative disease, I want them to have healthcare. It's a shame that others take advantage of that compassion as they conduct themselves foolishly.

That is all you can say............

 

[kantuckid]

No. My point wasn't that I was surprised she had M/C crash victims, I was surprised of the number or frequency of victims. You can work in JUVY and I can say you shouldn't be surprised because you see Juv delinquents, but you can be surprised at the number of them in any given town or facility.

No argument here,it's a discussion-I was not saying she was surprised, simply that she worked where they bring the accidents,period.That makes certain activities stand out, right?
Having worked in "regular public school" & with juvy too I can attest that most kids ARE good kids! Thank god, as I have worked with some really sick & abused kids! Sadly, they are/were the kids nobody wants. Nobody! They screw up in treatment, lockup,classroom,on the highway,on the street,in foster care(some have been in literally dozens of placements) & home replacement. Our job was professional, empathetic, treatment to hopefully save a few. Most "regular school kids" don't have a case file 2-6" thick. I , of all people "see the good in kids"!

In juvy not all are what I'll call for explanation a "bad kid" but many will(albeit sad to say) not be helped. Having worked in juvy has not resulted in me "seeing the bad side" of kids. Going from there, I don't get your point?
Back to helmets & MC's...

 

[SCBuckeye]

When my neighbor has an accident, develops cancer or some other degenerative disease, I want them to have healthcare. It's a shame that others take advantage of that compassion as they conduct themselves foolishly.

That is all you can say............

You DO have that ability to have compassion. You can voluntarily give of yourself, or through another group, like a church, to help others.

My objection is that the help shouldn't be forced, and it certainly shouldn't be administered through or by the government which has about a 30% success rate. Real compassion would suggest going through by yourself or some religious or church group which has a help rate around 97%.

 

[squeaky4432]

You DO have that ability to have compassion. You can voluntarily give of yourself, or through another group, like a church, to help others.

My objection is that the help shouldn't be forced, and it certainly shouldn't be administered through or by the government which has about a 30% success rate. Real compassion would suggest going through by yourself or some religious or church group which has a help rate around 97%.

Can you validate the figures 30% and 97%?

 

[EMSimon]

I realize that we are a motorcycle forum and we discuss related issues, i.e. helmet use. But why does the whole discussion about optional vs mandatory never compare it to seatbelts???

 

[pffog]

..................My objection is that the help shouldn't be forced, and it certainly shouldn't be administered through or by the government which has about a 30% success rate. ...............

Funny, we are still leaving Healthcare in the hands of insurance companies, the Government is just requiring people get it and regulating it so the insurance companies play on a level playing field. I still think single payer would have been better. The big insurance companies have way to much $$ to buy politicians, and pocket billions in profits. The insurance companies are why we spend the most $$and ranks so low for quality.

But to your statement, there is a couple Government administered health care systems the Veterans benefits, and medicare, and both seem to work quite well, and in fact the military benefits are one big draw to get people go to a large sand box to become targets.

 

[henzilla]

I realize that we are a motorcycle forum and we discuss related issues, i.e. helmet use. But why does the whole discussion about optional vs mandatory never compare it to seatbelts???

I've mentioned this before as have others....seems to be "not the same" in some folks minds...or are the same ones who don't wear the belts until in view of a LEO...or "would have been killed" if wearing the belts
Click-it-or-ticket is just the way it is here in TX as were mandatory helmet use at one time. The anti -seat belt lobby didn't do as well as the helmet one it seems.

Both helmets and seat belts have saved my hide...more than once.Wish I had my helmet on in my Jeep rollover!


< mod note

This has been a good discussion and just keeping within posting guidelines. Let's keep on with that in mind.Trying to let things roll on in this always interesting topic.

 

[SCBuckeye]

Can you validate the figures 30% and 97%?

No, not without a lot of searching. I recently did hear the 97% number about several church charities.

I have heard the other (30%) but it has been a while, and I am not sure where.

However, even if the numbers are not spot on, it is pretty accepted that the difference between the two (averages of each) are so far apart that there is no question of the competency of the better method.

Seems to me that compassion is more compassionate when the funds actually get to the people who need it, and not bureaucracies with lots of overhead.

 

[SCBuckeye]

I realize that we are a motorcycle forum and we discuss related issues, i.e. helmet use. But why does the whole discussion about optional vs mandatory never compare it to seatbelts???

Actually, I have made that connection for years. Seat belts shouldn't be required either!