Socialized Medicine and Helmet Laws

[BeHereNow]

Not may people tow the party line 100%. There are some exceptions, I’m thinking of a few, maybe you are too.
Most of us are a little mix. Moderation is good.

There has been some discussion about socialized medicine. My son works in a hospital and I asked him about 7 years ago, and he said the doctors were not liking the trend to socialized medicine. He doesn‘t work in billing, but he sees who is paying the freight. I asked him if he thought that considering all of the revenue the hospital got, considering what bills the government was paying, Medicaid, Medicare, government employees with insurance, and possible grants and subsidizes from the Feds, was that amount over 50%. He thought a few minutes, considering what he knew and he said ‘Yeah, probably so.”

As far as I’m concerned, if the government is paying over half the bills, that’s socialized, been that way for a while now, and the medical professionals weren’t complaining when they were getting the easy money form the Government.
Different story now.

Now we have some people who believe that society bares a burden from motorcyclists without helmets, and think we needs laws to reduce that burden.
If we accept that line of thinking, don’t question a single thing, and look at that $ number, and we compare that to the cost of Social Services recipients, who are getting disability benefits, and having babies, the second number dwarfs the first. No comparison. I don’t have to look it up, I know what I know.

The cost of health care for disabled adults who have children, is HUGE.
I have a right to say that because I’ve been dealing with those people for a quarter of a century. This thing some of you fear from afar, I live every day. I had call Friday from a woman getting disability for herself (mental, nothing physical) and a check for her child, and lived with her disabled boyfriend (mental, not physical). It seems they have fallen in love, and want to get married, but she was calling first to be sure she wouldn’t loose any of her check. She won’t, so they’ll get married, probably have a few kids. What do you think the chances are they will be mentally disabled? I put it at 50% or better.

If you’re still reading, you may be asking, ‘Well BeHereNow’, what does this have to do with helmet laws and socialized medicine?’.

I want to see the plank of the Republican party, or the Tea-Baggers, or the Libs, that says if you are getting disability payments, you are getting sterilized. If you are pregnant, and getting Social Service benefits (but not disabled), you are getting an abortion.

Your choice, another baby when you can’t take care of the ones you have now, or no Social Service benefits.

I want to see what the ones who think I should not have the right to ride without a helmet because of the social cost, have to say about forced sterilization.

Where is the public outcry against the real cost to society.
Where are these do-gooders who think society needs protected from me, self sufficient, insured, homeowner and taxpayer, when the leeches are all around us, sucking the blood from us?

Tell me you are as outspoken for coerced sterilization and abortions as you are helmet laws, and I’ll have some respect for you.

Helmet laws are low hanging fruit.
Go after the real crap.
You don’t have to ask for a single cut in Social Service benefits. That will happen at lightening speed, one way or another.
All you have to do is tell your favorite politician that you want sterilization and abortions to be a requirement for most Social Service recipients.


~ ~ ~ ~
If you’re wondering why I don’t get out of the system, in just a few years I will, and retirement will be great.
The Social service system has been on a down hill spiral since they started SSI in 1974.

[FX]

No matter how you frame it, no one should have a right that infringes on anothers right.

YOU want to play, YOU have to pay. It's a really good policy.

No matter what your political affiliations, you know that's it's just common sense that we be responsible and accountable. In other words, we don't create burdens and have others bear them. It does not matter if it's about choosing to bash your head on the wall or jump out of planes.

That's the point. No one is saying you can't ride without a helmet. We're saying if you do, we don't want to pay the bill for your medical.

Just because other sectors of society are a burden on the medical system and cost money does not mean you are entitled to do the same. That kind of thinking is socialism, right? I find it appalling that you would say we're entitled to a piece of that pie in the way you did to justify taking free medical care if you crash wearing a helmet.

That's where you lose me. It's a lazy mans arguement. Get a job and be responsible. You owe it to yourself and society. I'm tired of lazy Americans sucking Uncle Sam's tit. Cause guess what? We fund Uncle Sam. Get the connection?

[bigwater]

I don't think anybody here is trying to say that they support helmet laws. I certainly haven't, although I do wear one myself.

The point is and always has been personal responsibility. That if you choose to ride without a helmet, you should have to carry enough medical insurance to cover yourself in case you split your skull open. If somebody hits you and you crash, your medical bills will be covered up to the limits of the mandated liability insurance requirements in your state. Beyond that, your Personal Injury Protection limits of your policy (if you've chosen to purchase PIP) will take over.

We're mandated by law to carry liability insurance, but not PIP. The point is that if you choose to ride without a helmet then a certain level of PIP should be mandatory as well so that you will be covered by your insurance and not the taxpayer when you bust your brain sack in an accident. This insurance wouldn't have to cover general injuries when involved in an accident, just head injuries.

This PIP wouldn't necessarily be that expensive. If you consider the number of riders who go without helmets, and the number of serious head injuries per year from riding without helmets (maybe you can quote me some statistics here ) I can't imagine the cost added to your insurance for choosing to ride without a helmet would be very much. $25/year maybe, 50$?. But it would place the onus of your $250,000 bill on your insurance company and take it off of the taxpayers.

[BeHereNow]

I don't think anybody here is trying to say that they support helmet laws. I certainly haven't, although I do wear one myself.

The point is and always has been personal responsibility. That if you choose to ride without a helmet, you should have to carry enough medical insurance to cover yourself in case you split your skull open. If somebody hits you and you crash, your medical bills will be covered up to the limits of the mandated liability insurance requirements in your state. Beyond that, your Personal Injury Protection limits of your policy (if you've chosen to purchase PIP) will take over.

We're mandated by law to carry liability insurance, but not PIP. The point is that if you choose to ride without a helmet then a certain level of PIP should be mandatory as well so that you will be covered by your insurance and not the taxpayer when you bust your brain sack in an accident. This insurance wouldn't have to cover general injuries when involved in an accident, just head injuries.

This PIP wouldn't necessarily be that expensive. If you consider the number of riders who go without helmets, and the number of serious head injuries per year from riding without helmets (maybe you can quote me some statistics here ) I can't imagine the cost added to your insurance for choosing to ride without a helmet would be very much. $25/year maybe, 50$?. But it would place the onus of your $250,000 bill on your insurance company and take it off of the taxpayers.

well, I must be misreading FX's reply to my freedom of choice position. He seems dead set against it.

[FX]

well, I must be misreading FX's reply to my freedom of choice position. He seems dead set against it.

Once again provocative statements devoid of facts.

I said any right that infringes upon anothers rights is not a right.

You seem to think that somehow putting this half assed patriotic spin on things they suddenly become soemthing everyone will get on board with without thinking. Quite frankly, I don't want to be around constituents of that nature. I prefer intelligent life.

Have and enjoy all the freedom you want Mr. Libertarian, but it doesn't include socialized medicine as your parachute when you screw up and can't afford medical care while exercising your so called right.

As a libertarian you don't seem to really get the agenda. You call yourself a libertarian because you have some sort of freedom crusade you are on and yet you want to support your right to exercise that freedom with socialized medicine as your crutch. They don't reconcile for conservatives or libertarianism.

But hey, you will get a base of weak minded people who don't think for themselves supporting you to some degree. You know how it goes, people of like minds...

[HD_sux]

We're mandated by law to carry liability insurance

haha, not me !!

[HD_sux]

If you’re still reading, you may be asking, ‘Well BeHereNow’, what does this have to do with helmet laws and socialized medicine?

ABSOLUTELY. and even after you explained it, i still don't see the connection.

Tell me you are as outspoken for coerced sterilization and abortions as you are helmet laws, and I’ll have some respect for you.

I'm ALL for it! and i think those of us who were smart enough to sterilize ourselves, should be exempt from paying school taxes. i don't have kids, i never will have kids, and i hate kids. why the f*ck should i pay for YOUR kid's education? if someone wants kids, they should pay for them, NOT me. and i resent having to drive past their schools slowly.