Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[moscooter]

 
Geez,  this thread has drifted around as to the intended topic.  I'm noting some repeated rants about (Wall Street),  our financial industry is already highly regulated,  now Yomoma and Co. are looking to add some more "regs".

Back in 2005,  when Yomoma was a Senator,  he was on the Demo side of denying increased (Financial regs) being proposed by the Bush Admin. and (at the time) a Repub controlled Senate.  The Dems kept the (increased regs proposal) from getting to the floor for a vote........Now,  the situation is 180 degrees different.  Go figure.

Had the increased regs legislation passed back then,  it might have prevented the Fanny May and Freddie Mac debocle that ended up creating the whole "sub-prime" mess.  It was this (mess) brought about by pressure from C. Dodd, Barney Frank and others to loan mortgage money to those that (clearly) could not afford it......thus (in turn),  some Wall Streeters figuring some backdoor ways to pass on the "mess".........and off we go.

[TIF2]

I still don't agree with your assertion that society doesn't pay.  I don't know where your relative was hospitalized, but around here any hospitals that accept any government money or tax breaks cannot refuse treatment based on ability to pay.  They also are expected and required to "donate" a certain percentage in free care to maintain that tax free status.  And when hospitals lose money, which a lot of them have been doing the past few years, those of us who still have the ability to pay make up the difference in higher fees, premiums, deductibles, copays, and coinsurance.  So yes indeed, society as a whole does pay.  Just because you don't get an itemized bill stating X is for uninsured illegal aliens, Y is for care for working poor folks who don't qualify for Medicaid but don't have insurance, and Z is for long term care for people who refused to wear helmets or use seatbelts, doesn't mean you aren't paying those costs one way or another.  It is rather disingenuous to claim otherwise. 

Jerry

Jerry -

I would almost agree with you here, except there is no X, Y, Z as you pointed out. You are trying to state that my points are "disingenuous" and that is not correct. What you are missing is the fact that helmet laws - whether they exist or do not exist - simply do not factor into the overall costs of medical care. I'll make a postulation here - had motorcycles never been invented our present costs of insurance would be exactly as they are (society as a whole). The percentages are so small (for Motorcycle accidents - with or without a helmet) that it simply has no impact on a "burden to society". I'll agree that society always pays - I'll disagree that helmet laws have an effect on the AMOUNT that is paid.

Incidentily - using a large "general" issue such as medical insurance, and purporting that a specific issue (helmet law) contributes significantly to the larger issue without supporting facts is truely disingenuous.

[TIF2]

I think it's amazing that having a choice to wear a helmet or not seems like the last bastion of freedome for some people.  Really bizzare...it seems funny that we don't want to be told we have to wear a helmet because that's taking away my right to choose and I don't want to be told I have to do something.  Yet we live in a society where we are told what to do all the time.  We are told we have to pay taxes, we are told we have to obey the law (whether they make sense or not), we are told to wear seat belts, now tell me does your wearing a seat belt protect the person in the other car that just hit you, or does it protect you?  Yet I don't hear any complaints that your freedome to choose has been trounced upon by being told by the government that you have to wear a seat belt.  What's the difference in being told you have to wear a helmet?  You still have the freedom to go out and ride your motorcycle (just like you still have the freedome to go out and ride your car).  Has that freedom been infringed upon one bit by being told you must wear a helmet?  Not at all.  Like Jerry said, if riding your motorcycle is predicated on whether you are told you have to wear a helmet or not, then you have deeper rooted issues than being told to wear a helmet.  Freedom isn't free doesn't just pertain to wars, it pertains to everything.   There is no such thing as a free ride.  (Including our wonderful new health care program.)  Sometimes, other people do know what's better for us.  If you think mandatory helmet laws is going to change the thrill of riding or motorcycle or in any way change the over all experience, then there may be something else wrong.  If It was ordered that I had to wear a helmet, full leathers, and boots to ride a motorcycle, I would.   That's how much I love to ride.  None of that impedes on the freedom I feel when I'm on my bike.  Now that's true freedom.

All I have to say to this is just... wow.

I'll ask you directly .... what is YOUR (Red Devil) last bastion of freedom?
You must have missed (or ignored) my post:

"Whether a person wears a helmet or not ... the issue here is whether it should be REGULATED for use by a Government. IMHO, it is outside the scope of Government (esp the Feds) to legislate acts against oneself. Any law that protects me from me just doesn't make sense. It just simply cannot be supported that non-use of a helmet causes any harm (financially or physically) to anyone but the individual."

Yes .. this applies to seatblets. It protects me from myself and is outside of the authority of regulation by Government. Discussing the seatbelt issue would be off-topic; this is a helmet law discussion. And unless you are Psychologist, please refrain from discussions of "deep-rooted issues" - like you would know.

But since we're here ...

About 6 million folks took your advice of doing what they were told under their trusted government. It didn't work out very well for them.

[CVORick]

"Whether a person wears a helmet or not ... the issue here is whether it should be REGULATED for use by a Government. IMHO, it is outside the scope of Government (esp the Feds) to legislate acts against oneself. Any law that protects me from me just doesn't make sense. It just simply cannot be supported that non-use of a helmet causes any harm (financially or physically) to anyone but the individual."

Yes .. this applies to seatblets. It protects me from myself and is outside of the authority of regulation by Government. Discussing the seatbelt issue would be off-topic; this is a helmet law discussion. And unless you are Psychologist, please refrain from discussions of "deep-rooted issues" - like you would know.

But since we're here ...

About 6 million folks took your advice of doing what they were told under their trusted government. It didn't work out very well for them.

Absolutely outside the scope of the Feds.  Totally agree.

[RedDevil]

I think if you don't want to wear a helmet, then don't...the gene pool needs some cleaning up and that would contribute to it.   I'm tired of this debate...it flies right up there with religion and politics for bordering on the rediculous.  Regardless of what the 535 clowns in the clown car on Capitol Hill decide to do, I'm still going to enjoy riding my motorcycle.  And to me, that's much more important than worrying about being told I have to wear a helmet or not.

[tazmun]

I think if you don't want to wear a helmet, then don't...the gene pool needs some cleaning up and that would contribute to it.   I'm tired of this debate...it flies right up there with religion and politics for bordering on the rediculous.  Regardless of what the 535 clowns in the clown car on Capitol Hill decide to do, I'm still going to enjoy riding my motorcycle.  And to me, that's much more important than worrying about being told I have to wear a helmet or not.

PLUS 1

[Ultra2010]

It can't REALLY be about us........ if they were REALLY worried about our health/safety they should go after tobacco. (I smoke, down to 5 butts a day, but I do smoke). 
I wear a helmet, even when the law says I don't have to, MY choice.

[TIF2]

I'm still going to enjoy riding my motorcycle.  And to me, that's much more important than worrying about being told I have to wear a helmet or not.

Sounds good to me ... unfortunately we are getting some much needed rain here so I am relegated to polishing and dreaming up my next mod.  

[Screamin]

the gene pool needs some cleaning up and that would contribute to it.  

Real effn nice. I totally disagree w/ some opinions here but certainly don't wish ill upon them.

I'm tired of this debate.

That's easy enough to fix.

[RedDevil]

Real effn nice. I totally disagree w/ some opinions here but certainly don't wish ill upon them.

That's easy enough to fix.

Not wishing ill-will on anyone Screamin, just voicing an opinion.    

[moscooter]

 
I don't know if any of you remember this,  but some state senator (can't recall) which state.......but yrs ago.....the guy stood up and proposed that all motorcycle riders be required to wear seat belts while riding.

No B.S.

[marshall10]

I was going over a vehicle inspection at my last unit when the guy realized I didn't have any seat belts. It upset him for a moment, and was really funny.

[TIF2]

Not wishing ill-will on anyone Screamin, just voicing an opinion.    

Right ... and your opinion is anyone that doesn't wear a helmet should be cleansed of the gene pool.

[CVORick]

Right ... and your opinion is anyone that doesn't wear a helmet should be cleansed of the gene pool.

Freedom of Choice and Freedom of Speech.  It was just an opinion, lighten up...

[RedDevil]

Right ... and your opinion is anyone that doesn't wear a helmet should be cleansed of the gene pool.

Nope, never said that...said the gene pool needing some cleaning up (not pertaining to anyone in particular) and that it would contribute.  Never said everyone.