03 May 07
Originally posted by mrstabbyYou know it doesn't matter... the idea is the politicians can go home and tell their constituents how much they care for them and their safety.... quality helmets? Thats not his fault... he'll look into it... because he cares and will protect his voters.
Nice idea, but it's not even worth trying seeing as how we'll be sold substandard helmets.
The poor will be the most affected of course as they'll buy cheap, substandard helmets in the belief that they will be protected, but the companies selling them will get away with it as the poor "chose" to have no money.
03 May 07
Originally posted by lepomisPerhaps i should have taken more care in typing how i felt..... i would like it to be law for cyclists to wear helmets so there is protection at least for their heads if they should regrettably be involved in an accident.... i wasn't joking....but what i wrote wasn't put very well......
I thought you were joking when you wrote...
so i want it to be law for all cyclists to wear helmets so we can all live if we are involved in an accident.
...
hope this clears it up.....
03 May 07
Originally posted by Jay JoosMy bad... I thought the fact that you only wanted to save cyclists from head injuries and the big grin at end... it is clear now.
Perhaps i should have taken more care in typing how i felt..... i would like it to be law for cyclists to wear helmets so there is protection at least for their heads if they should regrettably be involved in an accident.... i wasn't joking....but what i wrote wasn't put very well......
hope this clears it up.....
03 May 07
Originally posted by hamltnblueThis is actually the first sensible argument I've ever heard in favour of seat belts.
Seat belts are different. Not because they just save the drivers life but because they keep the driver in the seat during an emergency and allow him/her to have a chance to control the vehicle. If I'm on the other side of the road and a car is out of control, I would rather the person be in the driver seat and not thrown into the passenger seat and not be able to control the car.
I don't know if I agree with you, but it certainly does give me some food for thought. Thanks.
03 May 07
Originally posted by hamltnblueDoes that happen?
Seat belts are different. Not because they just save the drivers life but because they keep the driver in the seat during an emergency and allow him/her to have a chance to control the vehicle. If I'm on the other side of the road and a car is out of control, I would rather the person be in the driver seat and not thrown into the passenger seat and not be able to control the car.
03 May 07
I've in the past thought whether the govenment shoul dbe allowed to nanny us or not. However, should we be allowed to do stupid stuff and then expect the govenment to pick up the pieces?
How about a compramise - you can do what you like (as long as it's only dangerous to you), but you give up your rights to state healthcare or even a fireman to cut you out of the wreck/helecopter to take you off the mountainside... if it goes wrong it's your own problem.
03 May 07
Originally posted by belgianfreakThat is an interesting idea. Insurance companies do that to some extent now in the states...
I've in the past thought whether the govenment shoul dbe allowed to nanny us or not. However, should we be allowed to do stupid stuff and then expect the govenment to pick up the pieces?
How about a compramise - you can do what you like (as long as it's only dangerous to you), but you give up your rights to state healthcare or even a fireman to cut y ...[text shortened]... wreck/helecopter to take you off the mountainside... if it goes wrong it's your own problem.
03 May 07
Originally posted by lepomisyeah, they do. When you want to take out a policy they ask "do you smoke", "how much do you drink", "do you dangerous sports" and they base your premium on this. If you're too dangerous they won't insure you. If you don't declare something the insurance is invalidated.
That is an interesting idea. Insurance companies do that to some extent now in the states...
So with state healthcare should it be "follow these rules, or if you chose not to that's OK - you just don't get any insurance/help against things going wrong"
One flaw with this is it targets the end user. In a case like illegal drugs you could say "do drugs if you want, but you don't get healthcare when they've screwed your X up" but that wouldn't deter the people selling the drugs and making the money.
03 May 07
Originally posted by belgianfreakThe way it should be.
I've in the past thought whether the govenment shoul dbe allowed to nanny us or not. However, should we be allowed to do stupid stuff and then expect the govenment to pick up the pieces?
How about a compramise - you can do what you like (as long as it's only dangerous to you), but you give up your rights to state healthcare or even a fireman to cut y ...[text shortened]... wreck/helecopter to take you off the mountainside... if it goes wrong it's your own problem.
Hoorah
04 May 07
Originally posted by belgianfreakI like that system.
yeah, they do. When you want to take out a policy they ask "do you smoke", "how much do you drink", "do you dangerous sports" and they base your premium on this. If you're too dangerous they won't insure you. If you don't declare something the insurance is invalidated.
So with state healthcare should it be "follow these rules, or if you chose not to ...[text shortened]... up" but that wouldn't deter the people selling the drugs and making the money.
05 May 07
Originally posted by belgianfreakThe other problem is that it doesn't work in practice. Doctors take oaths to help injured people, and even in the US someone who's hurt will get treatment regardless of whether they have insurance. When someone has no insurance and no money, it's a write off, which everyone else pays for in the long run.
yeah, they do. When you want to take out a policy they ask "do you smoke", "how much do you drink", "do you dangerous sports" and they base your premium on this. If you're too dangerous they won't insure you. If you don't declare something the insurance is invalidated.
So with state healthcare should it be "follow these rules, or if you chose not to ...[text shortened]... up" but that wouldn't deter the people selling the drugs and making the money.
Regarding helmets, there are certain activities in which you have a good chance of getting hit in the head and sustaining serious brain damage. If you're stupid enough to do these things without a helmet, chances are you're going to be stupid enough to continue even if the government outlaws it.
05 May 07
Originally posted by richjohnsonWhile this is true, it is only in regards to life threatening conditions. Once a person is going to live... all bets are off. Continuing care for the condition will not be taken care of as a write off by the doctor... and the doctor should not be expected to.
The other problem is that it doesn't work in practice. Doctors take oaths to help injured people, and even in the US someone who's hurt will get treatment regardless of whether they have insurance. When someone has no insurance and no money, it's a write off, which everyone else pays for in the long run.