Motorcycle safety and public healthcare

I read an interesting piece on the sikh man who was refused the right to go without a helmet in Canada in spite of the fact that his religious beliefs hold that he should wear nothing but his traditional turban.

I don't want to get into a debate on religion. What I found was so interesting, was that as Canada has a socialized health care system, the government painted the victim of this man not wearing a helmet. If he were to get hurt, they would have to pay.

I know that wearing a helmet can be a serious safety issue for the rider if they choose not to wear one.

My question is, how many of the "safety" issues on the written rule books are really just financially guided, over any regard for real safety, or over even the individual persons choice?

I definitely think that this ruling had nothing to do with this man's or anyone else's safety.

That's a load of crap. the next thing they will want to do is tell us that we can't choose our own food, because we might give ourselves heart disease or something. Let the guy loose his head if he wants to, hell , let me loose mine if I want. There is no way that you can protect everyone from everything, especially themselves. Sounds like the National Insurance lobbied this one pretty hard.

the next thing they will want to do is tell us that we can't choose our own food,

http://wcbstv.com/topstories/Connecticut.skittles.suspension.2.675314.html

I don't want to get into a debate on religion. What I found was so interesting, was that as Canada has a socialized health care system, the government painted the victim of this man not wearing a helmet. If he were to get hurt, they would have to pay.



Welcome to the so-called utopia of socialism. With government control comes government control. You're gonna pay for these programs, but that doesn't give you the RIGHT to use them, no matter WHAT you think. Don't toe the line we draw for you? Don't worry about trying to get your gall bladder inflammation treated.


My question is, how many of the "safety" issues on the written rule books are really just financially guided, over any regard for real safety, or over even the individual persons choice?



The answer is, ALL OF THEM. If they were all repealed tomorrow, we wouldn't become deathly ill, not make our house payments, begin to kick puppies, and become cannibals. If it was about safety, there would be a TEMPORARY loss of property (i.e. the vehicle would be impounded), not a fine imposed.

I wear one to give myself at least half a chance, hense the half helmet. As for others, I have no true opinion on what is safe and what isn't. All I know is that if a state abolishes it's helmet law and allows people to choose, the ones who crash and leave their brains all over the road wind up dead and their poor bleeding heart loved ones sue the state for not having a helmet law. Why didn't you protect my baby, can't you see he's stupid. Then the state re-enacts a helmet law and bikers protest against it because it infringes on personal choice. Personal choice hell, most bikers hate helmets because they think it looks ridiculous to wear them. Granted some find them vison restrictive, other find them hot and uncomfortable. Most just don't like the idea of wearing a fruit bowl on their heads while trying to look cool. I'm guilty of this. Why go to all the trouble of trying to find a look that says, I'm a biker, then stick a full face flower pot on your head that hides your sunglasses. I wear one because like seat belts, it's something I did when it was the law and just got used to it. But if I have a health care opinion, if a rider refuses to wear equipment that can reduce his risk of being severly injured in a crash, then he should have to pay his own hospital bill.

Personally I think we should ALL pay our own fare as far as healthcare. If we do that, there won't BE any need for socialized, subsidized, or highly regulated healthcare. And this question will be another moot point of discussion for pointy-headed academians who have nothing better to do with their time.

Of course, I think anyone who drives a car without a helmet should ALSO be held to the same standard. After all, they're more inclined to get into crashes that not only severely injure themselves, but scores of others. Let's be fair and honest about this whole thing.

Well, I think we should have personal choice.. I also think that the government should not have to pay for stupidity (if they have social health care).

Wouldn't the perfect middle road be "If you don't wear a helmet, you will NOT be covered for any medical problems that result in not wearing a helmet" . You have the choice, and the people paying taxes wont have to pay for your stupidity :)

The denial of benefits for injuries stemming from the decision not to wear a helmet would be fine just so long as benefits were denied to people whom developed illnesses from their choice if diet; you suffer a stroke because you eat cholesterol for breakfast, lunch and dinner...pay your own medical bills, it could have been avoided, right? How about alcohol related illnesses?

Now that probably doesn't sound like such a good deal to some people, and it shouldn't, neither should the helmet provision. Insurance is just legalized gambling, the seller is betting you won't need it and the purchaser is betting he/she will need either need it or is hedging his/her position to minimize downside risk. The only real thing to discuss are the odds and the wager, now the seller may (if he's smart) add a clause stipulating the rates are based on eating healthy, no smoking or drinking and wearing seatbelts and helmets. So what happens if you make a claim but were not in compliance with said stipulations? Denial of coverage of course, not because you didn't eat healthy, but because you didn't pay the premium for eating unhealthy, therefore no coverage was in effect at the time of loss.

I think what my whole point centered around, was that medical services should be just that--PAID SERVICES. They shouldn't be 'benefits' per se, to be allocated by any single or collective payer. When they're benefits, then they can be restricted for any reason. As a paid service, the only restriction is price, or the charity of the provider.

I believe that if we removed ourselves from the insurance model of medical payment, the costs would correct themselves far faster than ANY government program could. More importantly, the folks who would abuse the system would suffer the slings of those who don't, and there would be no question as to the WHY.

I do not think that a biker who refuses to protect himself at least to a minimal level should have the same privileges than a rider who embraces safety. But to be honest I do not belive in religion .