ADVrider

Go Back   ADVrider > Riding > The perfect line and other riding myths
User Name
Password
Register Inmates Photos Site Rules Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 08-26-2013, 07:11 AM   #91
SgtDuster
Beastly Adventurer
 
SgtDuster's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Oddometer: 3,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by viverrid View Post
Okay, I'll explain it to you again!

OP's employment-sourced insurance EXCLUDES motorcycle injuries that occur when not wearing minimum gear.

Neither the insurer nor the employer REQUIRE protective gear to be worn, they don't employ gear police to wait outside your house and follow you down the road.

They just EXCLUDE you from coverage if you are injured when not wearing it. OP is free not to wear any gear. He's just EXCLUDED from coverage.
Don't get mad at me my friend. Explain it right the first time and everything will be ok and you won't have to explain it "again".

From the post I quoted, you said "Some employment-sourced health plans completely exclude motorcycle injuries", no mention of the "when not wearing minimum gear" part that you added in your answer. You even said "completely exclude".

It's why I said that it was a totally different story.

I meant, by the above, that having to wear minimal gear to be covered VS not being covered AT ALL (what I understood from your previous post) by an insurance company is two things.

In the first case, you can bitch and moan but all you really have to do is comply with this policy, which should be cheaper than shopping for another insurer on your own.

But in the 2nd scenario, it's different and one would have to find an insurer that covers an activity in which he is involved, which can be more expensive.
__________________
2010 Buell Ulysses
1984 Suzuki GR650 "Tempter"
SgtDuster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2013, 01:49 PM   #92
JimVonBaden
"Cool" Aid!
 
JimVonBaden's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Location: Alexandria, VA
Oddometer: 50,579
Quote:
Originally Posted by SgtDuster View Post
Don't get mad at me my friend. Explain it right the first time and everything will be ok and you won't have to explain it "again".

From the post I quoted, you said "Some employment-sourced health plans completely exclude motorcycle injuries", no mention of the "when not wearing minimum gear" part that you added in your answer. You even said "completely exclude".

It's why I said that it was a totally different story.

I meant, by the above, that having to wear minimal gear to be covered VS not being covered AT ALL (what I understood from your previous post) by an insurance company is two things.

In the first case, you can bitch and moan but all you really have to do is comply with this policy, which should be cheaper than shopping for another insurer on your own.

But in the 2nd scenario, it's different and one would have to find an insurer that covers an activity in which he is involved, which can be more expensive.
He is a lawyer, he will drag you down to his level and beat you silly with circular arguements. Best just to let it pass!

Jim
JimVonBaden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2013, 10:14 PM   #93
hippiebrian
Beastly Adventurer
 
Joined: Jun 2012
Location: Long Beach, Ca.
Oddometer: 3,060
Quote:
Originally Posted by SgtDuster View Post
Don't get mad at me my friend. Explain it right the first time and everything will be ok and you won't have to explain it "again".

From the post I quoted, you said "Some employment-sourced health plans completely exclude motorcycle injuries", no mention of the "when not wearing minimum gear" part that you added in your answer. You even said "completely exclude".

It's why I said that it was a totally different story.

I meant, by the above, that having to wear minimal gear to be covered VS not being covered AT ALL (what I understood from your previous post) by an insurance company is two things.

In the first case, you can bitch and moan but all you really have to do is comply with this policy, which should be cheaper than shopping for another insurer on your own.

But in the 2nd scenario, it's different and one would have to find an insurer that covers an activity in which he is involved, which can be more expensive.
Again, check what happened in California when health insurance companies tried this. They got shot down, and now are required to cover any legal activity (i.e. if you aren't speeding, etc, and are wearing the minimal required gear, a dot helmet in this state) you are covered. Period. This will happen elsewhere because precedent has been set here. It may take a law suit or two, but this will not fly.
hippiebrian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2013, 07:04 AM   #94
SgtDuster
Beastly Adventurer
 
SgtDuster's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Oddometer: 3,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by hippiebrian View Post
Again, check what happened in California when health insurance companies tried this. They got shot down, and now are required to cover any legal activity (i.e. if you aren't speeding, etc, and are wearing the minimal required gear, a dot helmet in this state) you are covered. Period. This will happen elsewhere because precedent has been set here. It may take a law suit or two, but this will not fly.
Geez...

I never said it was normal or correct or whatever. I just wanted to emphasize the differences, to me, between the two scenarios.
__________________
2010 Buell Ulysses
1984 Suzuki GR650 "Tempter"

SgtDuster screwed with this post 08-28-2013 at 06:54 AM
SgtDuster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2013, 08:11 PM   #95
pdxmotorhead
Studly Adventurer
 
pdxmotorhead's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2012
Location: Portland OR
Oddometer: 697
In most states, isn't your vehicle medical insurance the primary and your "health" insurance secondary? In which case we already pay "extra" for riding motorcycles..

Dave
__________________
Freedom is a delicate thing.
More easily lost than gained.
pdxmotorhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2013, 09:24 AM   #96
windmill
Beastly Adventurer
 
windmill's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2008
Location: Kent, Washington State
Oddometer: 4,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by viverrid View Post
You're wrong, our society has chosen to create a statutory right to food, that's why there are "food stamps".

We also supply public housing and homeless shelters.

Clothing would be part of "welfare", which indigent people have statutory rights to.

The poorest already have a statutory right to care under Medicaid. It's the rest of the folks who can't afford it, the working poor, the unemployed with too many assets to qualify for Medicaid, folks like that, who I worry about.

I've got mine, heck, I'm richer than 95% of the people of the US are. My opinion is that we should extend these statutory rights to include basic health care for everyone, because it is the humane & civilized thing to do. That's why. Not because of what a roomful of White land owners decided back in colonial times, not because of anything that your god says. But because it would be the right thing to do.
Your attitude and snide comments make it clear that you are simply using this issue as an excuse to display your prejudices, personal agendas, and contempt of what you assume others to be.

I have nothing against conditional social safety nets, including health care, for those incapable of helping themselves or in time of dire need, but I am strongly against guaranteeing something to all regardless of need or ability.
What makes this especially insidious is its going to be by government coercion to purchase a commerical for profit product, and they are going to be allowed to force prohibitions on individuals, and/or charge them exorbitant fees..

Your desire to punish will end up hurting everybody in the name of corporate profit, all because of your need to feel some sort of moral superiority.

No need for you to worry though, as you have said, "you got yours".
__________________
"Take care, sir," cried Sancho. "Those over there are not giants but windmills".
windmill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2013, 11:25 AM   #97
helotaxi
Gnarly Adventurer
 
Joined: Aug 2011
Oddometer: 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Navy Chief View Post
We recently had a survey for our health insurance at work, if you are a smoker you are going to pay more for insurance now; and additional $50 a month. How about we tag along with this and do heath screenings, your outcome determines your rates Want to be 90lbs overweight I have no problem with that, but you have to accept the consequence, you get to pay more for coverage since you are statistically going to have more issues, and more of them are going to be serious....

I would have no issue with the demands to wear a minimum of safety gear to continue to participate in the plan, providing that other risk groups are separated also, overweight, smoker, race driver, etc... If you want to be in a higher risk category, you should be paying more, not expecting everybody else to absorb the cost of your choices
This would be fundamental freedom and fundamental capitalism. You are free to do whatever you want providing you are willing to accept the consequences. In this case it would be free to not wear a helmet, etc., provided you're willing to live with the consequence of higher premiums/no insurance. If you don't like the insurance company that your employer chose, you are completely free to find outside insurance on your own. It IS capitalism. You freely entered into the employment contract. The employer chose the insurance company that provided them the most benefit for their dollar.

Get in a MC accident in the military while not wearing all the prescribed gear. Up to the mil whether they will consider it "line of duty". A LOD determination affects not only your medical insurance but also your life insurance and any survivor benefits. What does that mean? It means that off-duty and off post, you can choose not to wear a helmet, BUT you're on your own if you get in an accident. No reason that an insurance company can't/shouldn't enact a similar clause as terms of the policy. If you choose not to abide, you would be in breach of a contract that you freely entered and they would not be liable to pay.
helotaxi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2013, 02:37 PM   #98
joexr
Beastly Adventurer
 
Joined: Jan 2011
Location: S.E.
Oddometer: 3,773
Next you'll be saying it's OK to raise the rates ten-fold on someone with cancer. High risk people are merely another EXCUSE to raise rates. Sure insurance is a business and sometimes the company will just have to pay out. Millions of people pay in for decades and never collect on anything or are screwed over. Screw the companies , the CEO's will have to settle for $1,000,000 bonus's instead of $10,000,000.
joexr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2013, 03:52 PM   #99
viverrid
not dead yet
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Location: Western Mass
Oddometer: 30,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by joexr View Post
Next you'll be saying it's OK to raise the rates ten-fold on someone with cancer.
Insurance companies routinely entirely refused to cover your cancer if you already had it when you applied. Like, you know, "pre-existing condition" exclusion.

But if you had insurance before you had cancer, then you were already covered. The chance of any random insured person getting cancer has already been figured into the rates. People don't choose to get cancer on purpose. I didn't choose pancreatic cancer. People DO chose whether to ride motorcycles or whether to wear gear.

Some people are in favor of higher rates for smokers or fatties. Some are not. Nowhere near as clear cut as you'd like it to be.

Lots of folks here are against Obama dictating insurance requirement and want free choice in a free market. Well that's just what's going on here, the employer made a choice to buy a policy that excludes injuries occurring in certain circumstances. Some exclude ALL injuries sustained while riding on a motorcycle, others exclude only those injuries sustain while riding on a motorcycle without minimum protective gear.

Seems like the free marketeers should be cheering and saying if you don't like the employer policy, buy your own, or get another job. "Your choice!"
__________________
Advanced pancreatic cancer found 04/2010. Have outlived +/- 97% of patients with this diagnosis, but 08/2013 cancer now in liver, vascular system and lungs with 20+ lung tumors. Sick/weak sometimes, not riding much. No more treatments & now under Hospice care.
viverrid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2013, 04:01 PM   #100
viverrid
not dead yet
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Location: Western Mass
Oddometer: 30,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by SgtDuster View Post
It's why I said that it was a totally different story.
Is not! Is too!

Some employer policies exclude ALL injuries resulting from riding on a motorcycle.

Others employer policies exclude SOME injuries resulting from riding on a motorcycle

In this case, the exclusion is only partial, for injuries resulting from riding a motorcycle without wearing a specified amount of protective gear. Not "totally" different, just a matter of degree.

An interesting how many angels can dance on the head of a pin scenario: Exclusion for injuries occurring while not wearing a helmet. Rider without a helmet crashes and fractures his skull, not covered. Second rider without a helmet crashes and his head is fine but a sign post impales his abdomen. Injury has nothing to do with lack of a helmet, if push comes to shove in court, can the insurer make the exclusion stick?

The exclusion of ONLY injuries occurring while not wearing gear is better coverage than excluding ALL moto-related injuries. But the gear exclusion doesn't require anyone to wear gear, any more than the total exclusion requires someone to drive a car. You still can ride, gear or not, you're just not covered. Like a LOT (check your policy!) of life insurance policies exclude coverage for flights on other than scheduled commercial aircraft. That's not requiring you to fly airlines, it's just excluding coverage if you take a private plane.

The thread title is misleading, nobody is requiring you to wear gear, they're just telling you that you are excluded if you don't. Your choice. I'm not in favor of it, but don't make it out to be something that it's not. Do we want more government regulation to ban this sort of thing, or free market choice for employers and insurance companies to offer the coverage they want to?
__________________
Advanced pancreatic cancer found 04/2010. Have outlived +/- 97% of patients with this diagnosis, but 08/2013 cancer now in liver, vascular system and lungs with 20+ lung tumors. Sick/weak sometimes, not riding much. No more treatments & now under Hospice care.

viverrid screwed with this post 08-31-2013 at 04:08 PM
viverrid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2013, 09:53 AM   #101
SgtDuster
Beastly Adventurer
 
SgtDuster's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Oddometer: 3,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by viverrid View Post
Is not! Is too!

Some employer policies exclude ALL injuries resulting from riding on a motorcycle.

Others employer policies exclude SOME injuries resulting from riding on a motorcycle

In this case, the exclusion is only partial, for injuries resulting from riding a motorcycle without wearing a specified amount of protective gear. Not "totally" different, just a matter of degree.

An interesting how many angels can dance on the head of a pin scenario: Exclusion for injuries occurring while not wearing a helmet. Rider without a helmet crashes and fractures his skull, not covered. Second rider without a helmet crashes and his head is fine but a sign post impales his abdomen. Injury has nothing to do with lack of a helmet, if push comes to shove in court, can the insurer make the exclusion stick?

The exclusion of ONLY injuries occurring while not wearing gear is better coverage than excluding ALL moto-related injuries. But the gear exclusion doesn't require anyone to wear gear, any more than the total exclusion requires someone to drive a car. You still can ride, gear or not, you're just not covered. Like a LOT (check your policy!) of life insurance policies exclude coverage for flights on other than scheduled commercial aircraft. That's not requiring you to fly airlines, it's just excluding coverage if you take a private plane.

The thread title is misleading, nobody is requiring you to wear gear, they're just telling you that you are excluded if you don't. Your choice. I'm not in favor of it, but don't make it out to be something that it's not. Do we want more government regulation to ban this sort of thing, or free market choice for employers and insurance companies to offer the coverage they want to?
For God's sake!


You like to twist every conversations just for the fun of arguing, don't you?


Let me be clear...one more (last) time.


I'm just saying, and I guess that every 3rd grade school kids would understand, that IF YOU WANT TO:

1. Ride
and
2. Be covered



It's very different to have to wear gear than not being allowed to ride at all.

We all know that it's not an obligation, insurance companies aren't law enforcement agency. But you can say that it's not an obligation all day long and it won't change a thing; if you want to be covered (because I guess it's the main reason why we pay for insurance in the first place, right?), it's different to have to wear gear to comply with the insurance policies than having to stop riding or shop for another insurer outside your employer's plan.


It's all I wanted to say. Nothing more, nothing less. It's why I said it was totally different scenarios. So if you persist in not wanting to understand, whatever your reasons are, you'll continue all alone. I'm damn sick of this.
__________________
2010 Buell Ulysses
1984 Suzuki GR650 "Tempter"

SgtDuster screwed with this post 09-03-2013 at 11:07 AM
SgtDuster is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Share

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

.
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


Times are GMT -7.   It's 02:01 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ADVrider 2011-2014