Rollin without a helmet is loud and windy

[Brackstone]

That only works if the person has a 7 figure asset and agrees to turn it over without a fight, which usually don't happen. Even if the person has a ton of assets, there are ways out like quick claiming the house to his wife or mother or whatever to prevent it from being taken away. Even if the Hospital does recover the costs, they will have spent a ton of money on lawyers and court fees.

Unfortunately the reality is, no matter how you look at it, an unhelmeted rider is more likely to be a burden on society than a helmeted one.

You don't need a 7 figure salary to be able to pay those costs. I guess you've never been without insurance, or you've never had a nice doctor. But the times when I've been without insurance and had to visit the doctor they have always lowered the costs for me. Instead of paying what they would bill the insurnace company ($300 or whatever) they would just say "Give me $50 and here's all the medication in sample form so you don't have to pay".

Hospitals could drop the costs down if they wanted to make it more reasonable if the person didn't have that 7 figure salary as you say. If the hospital didn't want to adjust the fee well then let them chase after the guy for the money.

Just put in a clause that says they can also sue for their legal fees back and they'll be done with it.

[koji52]

Helmeted or not...Generally, motorcycle insurance providers (though i'm sure there are a few out there that actually do) do not include personal injury protection. So whether you have a helmet or not and you wreck, you better have health insurance (and even some health insurance plans don't cover motorcycle injuries) or you will be footing the bill.

[Brackstone]

Helmeted or not...Generally, motorcycle insurance providers (though i'm sure there are a few out there that actually do) do not include personal injury protection. So whether you have a helmet or not and you wreck, you better have health insurance (and even some health insurance plans don't cover motorcycle injuries) or you will be footing the bill.

Well I think what people are saying here koji is even your medical insurance shouldn't cover any head trauma caused if you aren't wearing a helmet.

[koji52]

Ok my bad...I misread the overall point of the thread.

Consider, though, that when some maniac murderer gets injured in an arrest the police take the bastar* to a hospital? If someone like that can get hospital care, I think you'd be hard-pressed to single out and refuse care to unhelmeted motorcycle riders.

[HYPERR]

That only works if the person has a 7 figure asset and agrees to turn it over without a fight, which usually don't happen. Even if the person has a ton of assets, there are ways out like quick claiming the house to his wife or mother or whatever to prevent it from being taken away. Even if the Hospital does recover the costs, they will have spent a ton of money on lawyers and court fees.

Unfortunately the reality is, no matter how you look at it, an unhelmeted rider is more likely to be a burden on society than a helmeted one.

You don't need a 7 figure salary to be able to pay those costs. I guess you've never been without insurance, or you've never had a nice doctor. But the times when I've been without insurance and had to visit the doctor they have always lowered the costs for me. Instead of paying what they would bill the insurnace company ($300 or whatever) they would just say "Give me $50 and here's all the medication in sample form so you don't have to pay".

Hospitals could drop the costs down if they wanted to make it more reasonable if the person didn't have that 7 figure salary as you say. If the hospital didn't want to adjust the fee well then let them chase after the guy for the money.

Just put in a clause that says they can also sue for their legal fees back and they'll be done with it.

The example you gave is an absurd comparasion. You actually think that a guy hits his helmet-less head on asphalt, it's going to be a $300 procedure(discounted to $50) to cure him??? We are talking more like a $30K heli ride, and a $300,000 + hospital bill.

It's not rocket science, whether the money comes out of the insurance company's pocket or the hospital's pocket, the money is coming out of somewhere. You can put all the legal clauses you want, you ain't collectin' from the helmet-less rider. If you believe otherwise, you are being very naive. There is no question about it, the more severe the injury, higher the cost. In the end the cost will filter down to you and me.

[HYPERR]

Hospitals could drop the costs down if they wanted to make it more reasonable if the person didn't have that 7 figure salary as you say. If the hospital didn't want to adjust the fee well then let them chase after the guy for the money.

Mr. Brackstone, ironically you are posting two examples that support my side of the argument, and indirectly agreeing with me.

In the first example, the hospital reduces the $300K bill to $85K as this is all they can collect from the injured.

In the second example, the hospital spends significant time and money trying to collect. They may or may not succeed but either way, they spent money that they really shouldn't have had to.

In both cases, the losses will eventually filter down to you and me.

[HYPERR]

Consider, though, that when some maniac murderer gets injured in an arrest the police take the bastar* to a hospital? If someone like that can get hospital care, I think you'd be hard-pressed to single out and refuse care to unhelmeted motorcycle riders.

Koji, you are correct. The hospital cannot refuse treatment regardless of their criminal or insurance coverage status.

Thus my point of the cost and the burden being shifted from the insurance companies to the hospitals.

[RhadamYgg]

I'm sure the helmet debate has a long history here but, since I'm new, I thought I throw in my two drachmas.

I'm a libertarian of sorts, so place great value in personal freedom. But I also believe that freedom requires responsibility. So here's where I am on the helmet thing--I think anyone who wants should be free to ride without a helmet, but also that medical insurance companies and the state should be authorized to refuse to pay the expenses for anyone who had a head injury while riding without one. No one should expect other insurance policy holders to help underwrite the costs of exercising their personal freedom. The way it is now, safe insurance policy holders pay more than the risk of their behavior and unsafe ones pay less. If someone is willing fully bear the risks and costs of riding without one themselves, they should be free to take it off.

Of course, under this reasoning:
1) Fat people who develop Type 2 diabetes should not be covered.
2) People who smoke should not be covered
3) People who live with people who smoke should not be covered (as they have a choice in whom they live with)
4) People who ride motorcycles shouldn't be covered (risky behavior)

Of course.... I think driving a car is risky behavior... So
5) People who drive cars shouldn't be covered.

In the end, not covering people on insurance due to their behavior would result in a severe restriction of freedom... It just isn't done by law.

RhadamYgg

[RhadamYgg]

I agree with both Rockbottom and Hyperr. I would like to add that if we enacted a law tomorrow that said no helmet no coverage then we need to extend that to other vehicles as well. No seat belts no coverage. No bicycle helmet no coverage. How many thousands of people have been treated in hospitals with severe injuries that were caused by their own stupidity by drinking and driving? Why should insurance companies (and you and me) have to pay for that? If you want to see a real cost impact leave the non-helmeted riders alone and focus on these drunks out on the road.

And of course....

More people are killed/injured each year by drunk drivers than all motorcyclists killed (helmet or no helmet).

So, clearly they have bigger chicken to fry before going after insurance questions for unhelmeted motorcyclists.

RhadamYgg

[RhadamYgg]

That only works if the person has a 7 figure asset and agrees to turn it over without a fight, which usually don't happen. Even if the person has a ton of assets, there are ways out like quick claiming the house to his wife or mother or whatever to prevent it from being taken away. Even if the Hospital does recover the costs, they will have spent a ton of money on lawyers and court fees.

Unfortunately the reality is, no matter how you look at it, an unhelmeted rider is more likely to be a burden on society than a helmeted one.

You don't need a 7 figure salary to be able to pay those costs. I guess you've never been without insurance, or you've never had a nice doctor. But the times when I've been without insurance and had to visit the doctor they have always lowered the costs for me. Instead of paying what they would bill the insurnace company ($300 or whatever) they would just say "Give me $50 and here's all the medication in sample form so you don't have to pay".

Hospitals could drop the costs down if they wanted to make it more reasonable if the person didn't have that 7 figure salary as you say. If the hospital didn't want to adjust the fee well then let them chase after the guy for the money.

Just put in a clause that says they can also sue for their legal fees back and they'll be done with it.

Typically, my understanding is that if you can't pay a hospital - they will work out a payment plan.... All the way down to $10 a month against tens of thousands of dollars of cost - even if you'll never pay it all back, they want you to pay something.

As far as reducing costs. You'll find your doctor does that, but not a hospital.

And it cost $17K for my mother-in-law to spend 23 hours in the hospital to die due to their screw-up. Good thing she was insured or I'd have to go berserk on their bottoms. Bad enough they thought a DVT was a stomach flu.

RhadamYgg