National Helmet Law

[alchemysa]

Helmets are compulsory in Australia for motorcycles and bicycles.

In Australia we also have a free national health and hospital service. This means that if some fool smashes his head open doing something stupid then we all pay for it.... and the bills could run into millions.

So, in light of the fact that we ALL pay for the cost of injuries, I think its reasonable that motorcycle and bicycle riders are forced to wear a helmet and take other precautions to reduce injuries.

If you don't want to wear a helmet, fine... as long as you don't expect other taxpayers to fund a lifetime of medical bills, rehabilitation and disability care.

[Weldangrind]

Same deal in Canada, and I agree completely.

[FastDoc]

"In Australia we also have a free national health and hospital service."

I would imagine it is NOT free but taxpayer supported....

This is of course the sort of socialized medicine the US is being forced into by our current administration.

I understand about 'public burden' and all which is one of the reasons I am opposed to socialized medicine but rather support individual responsibility and accountablity.

[FastDoc]

In a system such as your's and Canada's I think a national helmet law makes sense, although I would still be opposed, but it makes sense.

My opposition would be to the govenment run health care in the first place.

[Wild_Alaskan]

Another thing to consider is that it is possible not wearing a helmet will reduce life time health care costs of an individual. I have read a couple studies that found the total health care costs of smoking and obesity are actually lower than the people who live longer and build up medical conditions over the years until death.

perhaps the increased chance of instant death from wearing no helmet would offset the cost of vegetables?

[Wild_Alaskan]

for anyone interested

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworst...systems-money/

[FastDoc]

The best case scenario for a govenrment health care system is for a person to pay into it and finance others until he/she reaches an age when he/she may require services in return, and then die suddenly. This is the wet dream for govenment insurance planners.

A slow lingering death over perhaps decades (i.e. obesity, diabetes, heart disease) is where the real money gets spent.

Perhaps the future mandate will be for all riders over age 50 to be prohibited from wearing helmets, and they must ride 15 MPH over the posted speed limit at all times.

[alchemysa]

Originally Posted by FastDoc

"In Australia we also have a free national health and hospital service."

I would imagine it is NOT free but taxpayer supported....

This is of course the sort of socialized medicine the US is being forced into by our current administration.

I understand about 'public burden' and all which is one of the reasons I am opposed to socialized medicine but rather support individual responsibility and accountablity.

Yes you are right about that of course. Its a significant drain on the tax system. So its reasonable that efforts should be made to keep costs under control.

As I understand it, its quite different from the proposed US model. There was never much opposition to it when it was introduced about 30 years ago. About half the population (such as myself) also has private health insurance over here. I think this private/free competition helps keep costs down.

[alchemysa]

Originally Posted by Wild_Alaskan

I have read a couple studies that found the total health care costs of smoking and obesity are actually lower than the people who live longer and build up medical conditions over the years until death.

Yes its an inconvenient truth and the anti-smoking lobby wants it kept secret. Smokers pay far more in taxes and duties than they use up in medical costs. Anti-smokers want us to believe that smokers are a burden on the tax system but in fact its the non smokers who are a burden on the health and pension system. In Australia, smokers pay about 7 billion in taxes but use up only about 600 million in public health expenses. Smokers just tend to get sick and die.

(The figures above come from the website of the Victorian Anti-cancer foundation of all places).

[GlennR]

That's a real problem with health care in the US, the costs just keep getting higher & higher. The AMA, hospitals, insurance, pharmaceutical industry hold all the cards. It's a huge racket, and while we spend more per capita than any other country we do not achieve the best results.

Profits are more important to the health care "industry" than patients' health.... In this case Capitalism is a "conflict of interest". It's a bad situation.

[david3921]

As always, follow the money. Who benefits from helmet laws? I'm guessing insurance companies. They do not want to pay out long term care to riders that have head injuries. The problem is that I can get the exact same injury tripping while walking across the street. My head hits the pavement with the same force weither I'm walking at 2 mph or riding at 100 mph because of gavity. In fact, sitting closer to the ground on a cruiser, the force would be less because I would hit the ground sooner. I might have a few layers of skin scraped off but my head doesn't hit any harder. Yes there are other things to consider like falling off a bike, rolling, and hitting something at speed. But, that's not what I hear and read as to the reasons why we need helmet laws.

By the way, I always wear a helmet and it saved my face if not my life when I was hit by a car in '85. I do not believe they should be manditory, however.