Private Health Insurance requiring minimum gear for riders

At the company I work for, there is talk about the health insurance requiring that if you participate in "high risk" activities, they are going to issue minimum safety equipment requirements to be covered. I asked specifically about motorcycles. Was told that motorcycle riders must attend an approved safety class every 2 years, and we will have a minimum gear requirement. They are taking about 3/4 or better helmet, over the ankle boots, motorcycle spec gloves, and motorcycle spec jacket. There is going to be a bunch of angry people if this goes through, it's not just motorcycles.

Honestly, I have seen this coming for years. An insurance's obligation (any business really) is to its share holders or owners. How does an insurance company make money? By paying out for claims as little as possible. If they think making members wear safety gear will save them money, then of course they are going to do it. A hospital system I recently worked for would not hire you if you are a smoker. Lab work would test for it, and if positive, you are not hired. The reason: Smokers have a statistically increased rate of health issues and complications which would cost the insurance, and the hospital through increased premiums, money.

Do I agree with it? Overall, yeah. I think I am ok with this stipulation to a plan.

I could see the gear part possibly passing , but to require you to take regular training , the insurance company would probably have to pay for it.

Not to worry, The Government will soon dictate all heath insurance. Welcome to the Peoples Republic of the not so United States of America.

The government was SUPPOSED to be FOR the people , but now it's INSTEAD of the people. They're not here for us , we're here to support them. We USED to be a free country.

Try life insurance and a pilots license and watch your rate skyrocket. If they don't drop you first. :huh

Where should the line be drawn or shouldn't there be any line? If more risk categories can be identified and quantified isn't that the fairest way to determine who is most likely to submit the claims?

I'll be ok with it, as soon as they start raising the rates for fat people...and not America's idea of fat, the world's standard.

That would be a pre-existing condition. Can't deny you for that anymore.

I've had my motorcycle affliction since I was seven.

I have a problem with people getting disability because they are fat. But then the government tables call me fat when I am really in pretty good shape. Just wide and solid.

little off topic but any ideas on traveller insurance? im heading over seas and need this as part of my visa was wondering if riding over there now requires more equipment?

welcome to capitalism. those who don't like it? switch insurance companies, or employers.

fixed


recognized for what it is... you either get with the program. or figure something else out1

And here's is the problem. It's isn't capitalism because you can not pick between several plans or insurance
companies . The company is designated by your employer. Getting an outside policy will cost 3x what you pay through a work plan.

Been dealing with it for the past 4 years as Active duty. Some people will abide by the rules and some wont. Over all i bet you wont see any real change in what people wear.

health insurance through work ??

ahhh I remember those days

now we get 50 bucks a month and have to find our own

guess it beats a poke in the eye? so paying 200 bucks a month out of pocket and a 5k deductible my insurance is really on good for a major deal like a heart attack and even then it would put me in the poor house

I was asked about motorcycles when I signed up but I didn't have one then

I was asked about alcohol also LOL


i would abide by the boots,gloves,helmet , but the jacket would actually kill me faster here in the AZ desert

It would seem the insurance companies have access to some information that many motorcylists deny the existence of. I don't really have a problem with the idea but there needs to be an option to simply pay a higher premium rather than saying you HAVE to do this or that in order to have coverage.

Requiring people to wear certain gear or take training seems like opening a can of worms. What if someone has a wreck and is hospitalized for head injuries but wasn't wearing the "approved" footwear? Are they covered? What if their helmet doesn't fit or the faceshield is badly scratched, etc. Who is going to make the call as to whether it meets requirements or not and will they try to deny claims over such things. Should car drivers be denied coverage if their car doesn't have an airbag or ABS?

From what I gather the insurance companies already do deny claims if your not wearing the proper saftey gear


a seat belt

Can't wait!

Sheep.