Rightists Want to Cost You Money

[Dancing David]

So there are these groups, like ABATE here in Illinois that fought for the right to not wear thier helmets on thier motorcycles, funny thing most of them are rightists.(or rideists)
Then there are these other people who claim that it is leftists who want to ban smoking in public places(Yeah like Koop was a leftie) and they think that smokers should just smoke anywhere they want.

So what about the fact that these behaviors cost me money. My health insurance is higher and my auto insurance is higher, because they go and get themselves all messed up , then we all have to pay thier medical bills.

So y'all on the right are costing me money.

Have a nice weekend, can't wait to read the responses on Monday.

Peace
dancing David

[Tony]

Why do you have to pay their medical bills?

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Dancing David

So what about the fact that these behaviors cost me money. My health insurance is higher and my auto insurance is higher, because they go and get themselves all messed up , then we all have to pay thier medical bills.

So y'all on the right are costing me money.



Absolutely. And those people who INSIST on not exercising enough during the day and have the gall to tell me to piss off when I remind them that a 20 minute work-out is mandatory.

And those people ordering cheeseburgers whenever they damn well please even though they know their eating habits are costing me money through heart disease. Why do we even allow people to buy fast food?

-- I'd be very, very careful about this particular jusitification.

NA

Oh, and the link between second hand smoke and medical costs is still a bit shaky. It may exist, but the studies have not been clear or without flaws. I say that as a non-smoker.

Moreover, (and as a slight aside) as smoking leads to earlier deaths, and as the most expensive health care is not for people who die early, but in keeping the most-aged population cared for, smoking effectively saves money when you look at medical expenses. The tobacco companies were not allowed to gain an offset on that issue because they were not allowed to benefit from unethical behavior or claim a credit for killing people, but the net effect on healthcare is actually a savings.


[edited to fix typos - probably missed more]

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Dancing David
So there are these groups, like ABATE here in Illinois that fought for the right to not wear thier helmets on thier motorcycles, funny thing most of them are rightists.(or rideists)
I think motorcyclists shoud be allowed to ride without their helmets. After they've signed an organ donor card.

[Richard G]

Sounds to me like your insurance company is costing you money. Shouldn't your beef be with them?

[Roadtoad]

I understand his point, and frankly, I wonder why anyone stupid enough to ride without a helmet has his medical bills paid by anyone. Frankly, if you're going to choose to do something so damned foolish, you ought to have enough money in the bank to cover your folly.

I have to agree, too, about the smoking. The link between second-hand smoke and cancer may be slim, but just out of decency, why would you do that to someone else? Aside from the health risks, it's rude. Makes no sense at all.

[corplinx]

"So there are these groups, like ABATE here in Illinois that fought for the right to not wear thier helmets on thier motorcycles, funny thing most of them are rightists.(or rideists)"

Yes, riding a motorcycle without a helmet is called Darwinism. We need people to be able to weed themselves out of the gene pool.

"they think that smokers should just smoke anywhere they want"

Pass that crack pipe you've been smoking. "Rightists" argue that if you open a business, _you_ should be able to dictate whether or not smoking is permitted.

"So what about the fact that these behaviors cost me money. "

Now you see the evils of social medicine when combined with a paternalistic state. The government can make high risk behaviors illegal out of "keeping the few from costing you money". Thank you for illustrating the danger. Welcome to the common sense club.

[shecky]

Originally posted by corplinx


Now you see the evils of social medicine when combined with a paternalistic state. The government can make high risk behaviors illegal out of "keeping the few from costing you money". Thank you for illustrating the danger. Welcome to the common sense club.

Except it's the private sector passing the cost on to you. Little consolation that the private secor is charging instead of the govt.

Regarding the "paternalistic state" discouraging risky behaviors, well, there's a very long precedent for that, and the left certainly has no monopoly there.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
Absolutely. And those people who INSIST on not exercising enough during the day and have the gall to tell me to piss off when I remind them that a 20 minute work-out is mandatory.

And those people ordering cheeseburgers whenever they damn well please even though they know their eating habits are costing me money through heart disease. Why do we even allow people to buy fast food? F*** off nazi --Drew Carrey :D

Great bit by Carrey.

The truth is that legislators are working right now to tax poor health realated choices.

Moreover, (and as a slight aside) as smoking leads to earlier deaths, and as the most expensive health care is not for people who die early, but in keeping the most-aged population cared for, smoking effectively saves money when you look at medical expenses. The tobacco companies were not allowed to gain an offset on that issue because they were not allowed to benefit from unethical behavior or claim a credit for killing people, but the net effect on healthcare is actually a savings. Undisputed to this day. Currently taxes from cigaretes fund many social programs and save lots of money in the long run. I think those that smoke have a responsibilty not to quit. And if the rate of smokers continues to decline we will lose a significant source of revenue and will have to spend more as those who would have smoked get older and don't die from smoking related diseases. We need more smokers :D

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

I think motorcyclists shoud be allowed to ride without their helmets. After they've signed an organ donor card.
Down at the ER, motorcyles are referred to as "donormobiles".

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by RandFan
And if the rate of smokers continues to decline we will lose a significant source of revenue and will have to spend more as those who would have smoked get older and don't die from smoking related diseases. We need more smokers :D

I hadn't fully considered that, but you're right -- As a true American, I need to start smoking immediately.

It's for the CHILDREN.

NA

[WildCat]

Motorcyclists have a greater chance of death of all kinds in accidents, not just head injuries. What about head injury deaths in automobile passengers? Shouldn't they be required to wear helmets also?
The health risks of second-hand smoke are unproven, and there have been numerous studies on the issue. See here:
http://www.ornl.gov/Press_Releases/archive/mr20000203-00.html
http://193.78.190.200/35/krager.htm
http://193.78.190.200/10h/ets.htm
http://jncicancerspectrum.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/jnci;92/20/1666?fulltext=%22Passive+Smoking+Exposure+and+Fema le+Breast+Cancer+Mortality+%22&searchid=QID_NOT_SET
In fact, the original study back in the 80's that found a link between environmental tobacco smoke and cancer was badly flawed and has since been thouroughly debunked. If you want to ban public smoking because it smells, stinks up ypur clothes, etc. fine but don't pull out some junk science study that claims it affects the health of non-smokers. I didn't expect a skeptics board to have so many beleivers in this nonsense.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

I think motorcyclists shoud be allowed to ride without their helmets. After they've signed an organ donor card.
Ya know I was gonna write a smart ass reply (about how my brain is my second favorite organ) but I actually think there's a lot of merit in your suggestion.

[Tony]

Originally posted by WildCat
Motorcyclists have a greater chance of death of all kinds in accidents, not just head injuries.

A motorcycling friend once told me that the only thing a helmet will do in a motorcycle wreck will determine whether the funeral will be open casket or not. I dont know if this is true, but it sounded cool at the time.

[subgenius]

Some helmets, according to my post-closed-head injury, twice in a coma motorcyclist brother, will actually accentuate head injuries because of their weight.

[GrapeJ713]

I think mortorcyclists in Texas can ride without helmets if they can prove they have insurance against such an injury. Sounds like the most fair in todays climate. Of course if everyone had thier own medical savings account then there would be less argument for nanny type laws incringing on freedom. If someone doesn't want to wear a helmet or seatbelt or life jacket then they should be able to, if something happens to them, then it's just darwin's theory at work, less stupid genes in the pool.

[corplinx]

Well, I was looking at the numbers and it looks like a larger cost is cost of trauma car for car accident victims. Maybe we should make a law requiring everyone to drive a volvo while wearing a helmet.

[GrapeJ713]

Originally posted by RandFan
F*** off nazi --Drew Carrey :D

Great bit by Carrey.

The truth is that legislators are working right now to tax poor health realated choices.

Undisputed to this day. Currently taxes from cigaretes fund many social programs and save lots of money in the long run. I think those that smoke have a responsibilty not to quit. And if the rate of smokers continues to decline we will lose a significant source of revenue and will have to spend more as those who would have smoked get older and don't die from smoking related diseases. We need more smokers :D

Also, since people smoke less now, they are more likely to get fat, since most nicotene addicts have less appetite and burn calories faster. More Americans should smoke to slow the great obesity epidemic! :D

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by GrapeJ713


Also, since people smoke less now, they are more likely to get fat, since most nicotene addicts have less appetite and burn calories faster. More Americans should smoke to slow the great obesity epidemic! :D

Hmmm... maybe you've zeroed in on the next target of the leftists, fat people. They cost you more on your health insurance. (Nevermind poor management, corporate greed or lobbying costs to get their cut of the cigarette taxes). They take up more room on airliners, this makes you pay more for your airline ticket. If only you could figure out how breathing the same air as fat people somehow harms you.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


Hmmm... maybe you've zeroed in on the next target of the leftists, fat people. They cost you more on your health insurance. (Nevermind poor management, corporate greed or lobbying costs to get their cut of the cigarette taxes). They take up more room on airliners, this makes you pay more for your airline ticket. If only you could figure out how breathing the same air as fat people somehow harms you.

Simple! Second hand cholesterol!:D

[Dancing David]

Actrually, the new scheme for obese people is proportional representation, it won't be the numeber os hgumans voting but thier collective wieght which will carry votes in congess.

Peace
dsncing David

[Tmy]

Ive heard the old "wearing helmets = less insurance costs" arguments for years. Is there any proof that mandatory helmet laws result in less medical bills? Wouldnt they do the opposite. If you crash wh/o a helmet arent you more likey to be killed, and therefore have almost no medical costs. If you wear a hemet and survive, then you'll actually be spending alot more in medical bills for your recovery.

[Smalso]

I would buckle up even if it were not required by law. What I resent is that the legislature evidently believes that I am not capable of making that decision, so it makes it for me. Helmet laws don't affect me; I haven't been on a putt in almost 30 years.

[Tmy]

Some of these seat belt laws are used as pretext to pull over and harass motorists.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Tmy
Ive heard the old "wearing helmets = less insurance costs" arguments for years. Is there any proof that mandatory helmet laws result in less medical bills? Wouldnt they do the opposite. If you crash wh/o a helmet arent you more likey to be killed, and therefore have almost no medical costs. If you wear a hemet and survive, then you'll actually be spending alot more in medical bills for your recovery.
I recall seeing the same argument raised in connection with airbags. In fact, though, according to a recent study by the University of Michigan (http://www.med.umich.edu/opm/newspage/2002/helmet.htm), hospital costs are much higher for motorcycle crash victims who don't wear helmets.

Interestingly, according to the same study, crash victims who did not wear helmets were more likely to be riding without insurance coverage.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by ceo_esq

Down at the ER, motorcyles are referred to as "donormobiles".

"Sui-cycles"

"rolling coffins"

"two-wheeled widow makers"

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Kodiak


"Sui-cycles"

"rolling coffins"

"two-wheeled widow makers"

What do they call automobiles, since thousands more die in auto accidents?

Let me guess... Automobiles? Autos? Cars?