Motorcycle Forum

Motorcycle Forum (
-   Paranoid News Clips (
-   -   Surprising Turn In CA Helmet Battle. (

squidwardo 08-18-2006 04:47 PM

Re: Surprising Turn In CA Helmet Battle.
I knew a guy from high school who was involved in an accident without a helmet. After spending about a month in a coma, he has spent the rest of his time living with his mother, because he cannot even wipe his own butt. Ultimately, there is no way of knowing if a helmet would have changed things or not, because no two accidents are the same. That said, why take the chance?

I guess if some people feel confident enough in their abilities, and don't want to wear one, it's up to them. I had an employee of mine tell me once that all helmets do is cause neck injuries, because they add too much weight to your head. He said if you don't want to bash your head on the ground, keep your head up if you crash.

Guys like that, I just hope they have enough money and insurance, so if they can't keep their head up, I don't have to pay for their extended stay down the street.

ksquid 08-18-2006 05:05 PM

I am not talking about Socialized medicine...Supplemental is ..
I would not go with a total Government solution. Only basic care would be paid for with tax money. Companies and individuals could still purchase supplemental health insurance... So no it wouldn't be totally socialized.

Dangerousdave_2 08-18-2006 05:26 PM

Re: Surprising Turn In CA Helmet Battle.
Advice we both no doubt could stand to follow.

Dangerousdave_2 08-18-2006 05:40 PM

Re: Surprising Turn In CA Helmet Battle.
I read somewhere that the bulk of most people's health insurance gets spent on their final illness-a stroke/heart attack/tumor that leaves them lingering for weeks or months in a hospital, at a thousand or two bucks a day. I've got a million bucks worth of coverage, and it's possible that in the future, that won't be enough, if I get something really lingering. I don't know that the cost of those people who almost die from a head injury, and incur costs for the rest of their lives wouldn't get made up for by those who die on the spot, and cost nothing.

Kinda cold, but I'm not sure that the math wouldn't work out that way. Don't get me wrong, I think you're an idiot to not wear a helmet, but who's to say that you shouldn't rock climb or skydive, or whatever, because you will add to the insurance costs. I know this is plowing old ground, but I would like to keep the nannies, in Government and out, out of my business.

jocallaghan 08-18-2006 08:12 PM

Re: Surprising Turn In CA Helmet Battle.
Well, I think I was misunderstood. Or maybe not. All I was trying to say is that I think a person should be able to do anything they want, no matter how stupid, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else or cost anyone else. I realize it's not always easy to tell if some person's action is in fact harmless to others/society or not, but I'm not speaking specifics here, just generalizing.

BTW, I always were all the gear all the time when I ride - including my full faced helmet and I think it's nuts to ride with out one, however I'm not willing to tell other people that they should or should not wear one as a matter of law - only as a matter of opinion.

BMW4VWW 08-18-2006 08:30 PM

Re: Surprising Turn In CA Helmet Battle.
No just

BMW4VWW 08-18-2006 08:36 PM

Re: Surprising Turn In CA Helmet Battle.
You're starting to sound more rational already Dave!

conchscooter 08-18-2006 10:27 PM

Re: Surprising Turn In CA Helmet Battle.
The beauty of the system is that everyrthing is up for discussion. Decisions in the political arena are never final. This is also the drain of the US system- witness the endless tedium of never ending debates on abortion, health care, gun laws and all the other issues that don't deal with economics and that ar eof no real interest to corporate America. The helmet law debate also brings out the worst on this website. Endless pointless debate missing the subtle point that Quigley for all that he is a lunatic gets his say in court and gets heard. What a wonderful crazy system that allows people to express themselves...

Thruxomatic 08-18-2006 10:28 PM

Re: No it isn't
Baloney, baloney, baloney.

"None of the people I've known ..."

The leading cause of bankruptcy in the US is unpaid health bills. Look it up.

"Under socialized medicine sick people don't go bankrupt, they just don't get treatment because there's not enough to go around."

Wonder what the wait time is for someone without insurance ... oh, yeah, its FOREVER. In the US, there are 40 million FOREVERS that just aren't getting counted in their statistics on wait times because they never apply for any procedures. Add those in so you have an accurate statistic and then start crowing about those great wait times in the US.

"GRH would also mean the end of medical advancement since there would no longer be any incentive to do more than the minimum... "

LOL, you are too rich. The incentive to falsify research, gouge customers with ridiculous drug prices, fire researchers for findings that don't correspond with expectations, rush treatments to market by bypassing normal quality controls, create 'favourable' relationships between HMOs and hospitals, create 'favourable' relationships between doctors and companies, create 'favourable' relationships between research schools and companies, bury cures in favour of long-term treatment, restrict customer choice artificially via patents, restrict customer choice by competitor purchase, restrict customer choice by legal challenges and smear campaigns of alternative treatments, create 'cures' for non-existent disorders that you create a demand for via artful media campaigns, manipulate demand via drug 'commercials' ... oh, man, I'm getting tired of listing all the BS the occurs in the health field just because of that nasty word "profit".

You will get research, but it will be research done for the public benefit ... period, and not for the general benefit of the shareholders first and the public a dim second.

Besides, socialized medicine is hardly the void of creativity you think it is. Wait times in Canada are only marginally longer than the US for virtually all procedures (and is far, far cheaper per capita), with a few notable exceptions like hip replacements.

A for-profit company would see the 'market demand' for hip replacements and would jack up the price of their patented hip procedure so that they could make as much money as possible off the trend. Poor people would live without new hips, get crippled for life, and watch their rich neighbours walk in for a replacement over a weekend.

The commie Canadian solution was to create hip clinics with streamlined triage and specifically trained hip doctors. Everywhere it was tried, the wait times dropped down close to or below the US norm without having to deny care to anyone. It was such a successful trial that most health regions are planning on opening similar clinics for other high-need procedures.

Thruxomatic 08-18-2006 10:31 PM

Re: I am not talking about Socialized medicine...Supplemental is ..
That's kind of what you see in Germany, actually. They have a never-ending battle between the non-profit and for-profit sector to see who covers what, with the latter lobbying hard to extend their portion to 100%, of course.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:49 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.