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 08-15-2013, 10:06 AM   #61
Bhammer
Adventurer
 
Bhammer's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Location: Bellingham, WA
Oddometer: 44
Helmets for Car Drivers

Just for fun I like to propose that car drivers wear helmets. How much would that save insurance companies? If you suited up like Jeff Gordon every time you went out in the car we would save about 40,000 lives a year and a hundred billion of medical and other costs.
__________________
2007 KTM 300 XCW
2006 DRZ400S

http://dualsportmoto.ning.com/
Bhammer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2013, 10:26 AM   #62
orangebear
Beastly Adventurer
 
orangebear's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Location: dumfrie scotland
Oddometer: 1,210
Reading all of this make you happy to be British as I don't need any Health insurance an less I go to a place on holiday.
__________________
bmw r100gs i ride it all year round
bmw r100/7 x2 sold
road legal stomp pitbike sold
Klr650c the 1 I should not of wasted my money on
Honda xl125rc powered by a cg125 block fun wee bike
orangebear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2013, 12:57 PM   #63
Double H
Hurricane Harry
 
Double H's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2010
Location: Seattle
Oddometer: 1,347
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cage_Bham View Post
Just for fun I like to propose that car drivers wear helmets. How much would that save insurance companies? If you suited up like Jeff Gordon every time you went out in the car we would save about 40,000 lives a year and a hundred billion of medical and other costs.
I was thinking the same thing. While we are at it pedestrians could benefit by wearing helmets as well.
Double H is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2013, 01:46 PM   #64
Ceri JC
UK GSer
 
Ceri JC's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2009
Location: All over, usually Wales or England
Oddometer: 2,462
It's not that bad in principle. It's just that you know the implementation is going to be clunky, draconian and poorly thought out. I bet the risk analysis is full of holes, too. To give one example: This scheme would doubtless consider it 'dangerous' to cycle through central London without a helmet. It is statistically better for your life expectancy, to cycle there, rather than driving. The reason being the number of years your predicted life expectancy goes down due to the increased risk is more than offset by your decreased risk of heart attack due to being unfit and overweight. The fact that this is counter-intuitive doesn't matter, it's correct. The same is also true of a lot of sports that are perceived as dangerous. You also need to consider whether it is healthcare or a life insurance policy: If the former, they shouldn't care if you die on the bike, so long as you don't get injured. In which case, they should insist you wear a spine protector and enduro boots, but mandate that you ride helmetless.

Also, do they have the balls to stray into eugenics territory by making the genetically inferior pay increased premiums or do they conveniently pussy foot around that one, despite it being just as simple, if not more so, to broadly discriminate reasonably accurately using it?
__________________
I like my bike because I can overtake 4x4s down farm tracks with a week's worth of shopping on the back.
Ceri JC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2013, 04:16 PM   #65
EJ_92606
Rider
 
EJ_92606's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2007
Oddometer: 1,779
Ride with what you want, just don't expect others to pay for your skin grafts.
__________________
'13 R1200 GSW
EJ_92606 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2013, 03:47 AM   #66
hippiebrian
Beastly Adventurer
 
Joined: Jun 2012
Location: Long Beach, Ca.
Oddometer: 2,895
Here in California health insurance companies have to cover you so long as what you are participating is legal. In other words all that is required on a street motorcycle is a license or permit and a helmet. Crash in Daisy Dukes and no shirt and you're covered. On an off road motorcycle, a helmet is still required by law here, btw.

As soon as someone takes the insurance company to court for refusing to cover an injury incurred while participating in a legal activity, this minimal gear thing will disappear. It'll take a lawsuit, however. It did in Ca.
hippiebrian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2013, 01:37 PM   #67
SATEX
Beastly Adventurer
 
SATEX's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2002
Location: San Antonio, TX USA
Oddometer: 4,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by RxZ View Post
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.
Yup. The reason we have no choice is because gov policy offers all tax benefits to employers that provide health insurance and almost zero benefit to individuals. We are doubling down with stupid on Obamacare by requiring even more employers to be involved in a business that has nothing to do with their core purpose. The US can fix its insurance problems by changing tax benefits. We don't have a health care problem... it is the world's best. That will change after the nannies see to it that all profit is removed from healthcare and advancement slows to a trickle.

All that said, I have no problem with paying for what I buy. Insurance is about managing risks, and I should pay more or less than others, depending on my overall risk level.
__________________
2012 Husaberg TE300 - "Huzinger"
'07 Husaberg FE650E - "The Monster" - Dual sport
'05 Husaberg FE450E - Sold
'03 KTM 640AdvR - Sold, and I miss her
Several other KTMs, Suzukis, etc.
SATEX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2013, 02:24 PM   #68
Barnone
Beastly Adventurer
 
Barnone's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2007
Location: WNC SWFL
Oddometer: 3,821
Quote:
Originally Posted by SATEX View Post
We don't have a health care problem... it is the world's best.
Googling "US healthcare ranking" and you are dead wrong.

New Health Rankings: Of 17 Nations, U.S. Is Dead Last

Ranking 37th Measuring the Performance of the U.S. Health Care System

How much is good health care worth to you? $8,233 per year? That's how much the U.S. spends per person.


The U.S. spent $8,233 on health per person in 2010. Norway, the Netherlands and Switzerland are the next highest spenders, but in the same year, they all spent at least $3,000 less per person. The average spending on health care among the other 33 developed OECD countries was $3,268 per person.

These Are The 36 Countries That Have Better Healthcare Systems Than The US
__________________
Vince @ SWFL or WNC 2001 Kawasaki W650
2012 Dong Fang DF250RTB hard tail bobber
2014 Sky Team ST125-8A Z50 clone monkey bike
2014 Ice Bear PBZ110-1P Z50 clone monkey sidecar
2014 Sky Team MC-D34 CT70 clone
Barnone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2013, 04:40 PM   #69
Navy Chief
Beastly Adventurer
 
Navy Chief's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Location: Waynesboro, PA
Oddometer: 1,522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barnone View Post
Googling "US healthcare ranking" and you are dead wrong.

New Health Rankings: Of 17 Nations, U.S. Is Dead Last

Ranking 37th Measuring the Performance of the U.S. Health Care System

How much is good health care worth to you? $8,233 per year? That's how much the U.S. spends per person.


The U.S. spent $8,233 on health per person in 2010. Norway, the Netherlands and Switzerland are the next highest spenders, but in the same year, they all spent at least $3,000 less per person. The average spending on health care among the other 33 developed OECD countries was $3,268 per person.

These Are The 36 Countries That Have Better Healthcare Systems Than The US
So less money is the fix, that should be easy.....
Navy Chief is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2013, 06:32 AM   #70
markk9 OP
Gnarly Adventurer
 
Joined: Jun 2008
Location: Greensboro, NC
Oddometer: 187
If the US health care is so bad, why do so many people come to the US for care, when money is not the object? Our health care is expensive, but one of the best in the world. Remember a few years ago the Canadian leader came to the US for hear surgery.
markk9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2013, 07:50 AM   #71
cliffy109
Beastly Adventurer
 
cliffy109's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2009
Location: Spotsylvania, VA
Oddometer: 1,588
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cage_Bham View Post
Just for fun I like to propose that car drivers wear helmets. How much would that save insurance companies? If you suited up like Jeff Gordon every time you went out in the car we would save about 40,000 lives a year and a hundred billion of medical and other costs.
Absolutely correct. If it really is about saving every possible life and it has nothing to do with control and/or greed, we would simply drop the speed limit to 25, require the installation of speed governors on all cars and ban motorcycles completely. I like your idea of also requiring helmets for all car occupants and even better is for all pedestrians. Think of how many lives would be saved and how few people would ever need emergency medical care!

Of course, all of that is absurd, but if we are going to follow the logic of the safety fanatics, this is the only logical path.

It isn't all about safety though, is it? In this nation, we accept certain levels of risk, death and dismemberment in the name of freedom.

So where do we draw the line? The insurance company in this thread is drawing it at what is essentially ATGATT (except for the pants) and training. What is to stop the next one from putting engine size restrictions on what you can ride? How about no coverage for riders at all?

At this point, you can't even argue that since it is a private company that you can simply opt out of purchasing. Once Obamacare is fully implemented, you will not have a choice.
cliffy109 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2013, 08:17 AM   #72
feathered
Gnarly Adventurer
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Location: Denver
Oddometer: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by markk9 View Post
If the US health care is so bad, why do so many people come to the US for care, when money is not the object? Our health care is expensive, but one of the best in the world. Remember a few years ago the Canadian leader came to the US for hear surgery.
The best care is available in the US, but that's not necessarily what is given. The compensation system is fouled up, and doctors are often incentivized towards making more expensive decisions even if they aren't the best for health or budget. The issue isn't getting the best care for movie stars, politicians and plutocrats. The issue is getting timely, effective care for the average Joe without bankrupting Joe or the country. If your only concern is how well we provide health care to foreign leaders, then I guess we're already doing fine.

As for cost, the exact same procedures in the US can be many times more expensive (NYT article about cost of giving birth in US vs abroad).
feathered is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2013, 08:26 PM   #73
Digasi
Gnarly Adventurer
 
Digasi's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Location: Salem, OR
Oddometer: 108
Honestly, it isn't the fact that the health insurance is requiring it that bugs me, it is the fact that you don't have a real choice in your health insurance as your employer picks it.

One of the best things we can do is to decouple the choice from your employer and give it to the employee. Employer can still choose a health insurance provider to use their numbers as an advantage. But an employee can choose to have their share go to a different company if they choose. So if the company contributes X to their health plan with company A, the employee can choose to take on the risk and have X got to company B instead.

Thus if the companies choice was with a company that did have these requirements, employees could choose to leave to another provider if they wanted. Of course the risk is, that they might not get the same level of benefits by leaving.
Digasi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2013, 02:57 PM   #74
Mat
Gnarly Adventurer
 
Joined: Apr 2008
Location: Heidiland
Oddometer: 332
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digasi View Post
Honestly, it isn't the fact that the health insurance is requiring it that bugs me, it is the fact that you don't have a real choice in your health insurance as your employer picks it.

One of the best things we can do is to decouple the choice from your employer and give it to the employee. Employer can still choose a health insurance provider to use their numbers as an advantage. But an employee can choose to have their share go to a different company if they choose. So if the company contributes X to their health plan with company A, the employee can choose to take on the risk and have X got to company B instead.

Thus if the companies choice was with a company that did have these requirements, employees could choose to leave to another provider if they wanted. Of course the risk is, that they might not get the same level of benefits by leaving.
Why not decouple it entirely from your employer? Obviously it is not cheaper the way you have it now, so there really is no reason why you couldn't insure yourself without your employer. Then you would have a choice.

But as long as enough people are convinced that the US has the best health care system in the world (probably the same people who believe US taxes are low), it will stay that way and people will get bankrupted by bad health or an accident...
__________________
I think there might be a more scenic route somewhere...
Mat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2013, 06:13 PM   #75
Digasi
Gnarly Adventurer
 
Digasi's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Location: Salem, OR
Oddometer: 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mat View Post
Why not decouple it entirely from your employer? Obviously it is not cheaper the way you have it now, so there really is no reason why you couldn't insure yourself without your employer. Then you would have a choice.

But as long as enough people are convinced that the US has the best health care system in the world (probably the same people who believe US taxes are low), it will stay that way and people will get bankrupted by bad health or an accident...
I am not saying it would make things cheaper. Going through the employer's choice would most likely be the cheapest route being that they can likely use number to bring the priemiums down. My suggestion would be to just make more choices acalaible.
Digasi 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 10:03 PM.


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