Originally Posted by
AmericanMade
The "when your money/bennies run out" was the PRECURSER. This is a monetary item but some were intent to slam my wife's profession. Anyone can do almost whatever they like in this country, but in an instance where you choose not to do what is recommended by those who have to fix you (AMA etc) and your actions drain all your resources how is it your bill is paid? If you choose not to wear a helmet, fine, you know the final outcome if your insurance runs dry. If you follow the "nanny states" regulations you will be covered by the tax payers. We in this United States all pay for the guy who chooses to go for the minimums and tempts fate. Why? Should you be the gambler, go for minimum insurance why do we have to pay? Actually why do American hospitals have to absorb a bunch, the states reimburse part and the feds at times? And in the end we the American taxpayer......only speaking of this country
You can choose to wear a helmet or not, I should be able to choose not to have to pay for you when some protection is possible and you refuse that course. But the Flat Earth Society still exists so this will never be resolved in the near future.
Which takes us right back to my earlier question (which you ignored) about Levi's vs. leathers, half-helmets vs. full face, MSF courses, etc: who gets to decide whether any given individual took enough precautions to justify the expense of his health care? Hell, I knew nurses that thought
any motorcyclist who got hurt deserved it, through the very act of riding a motorcycle. Why are their opinions any more or less valid than your wife's? For that matter, does "America" have the right to go through your refrigerator after your heart attack to determine whether we should pay for your care? Of course not. The entire concept of "Your behavior doesn't meet my standards so I don't want my taxes used for your care" is laughably stupid to anyone who puts even the slightest thought into it.