Okay, here’s a kind of out-of-left-field diversion from our usual diet of policy, insurance, managed care and industry news. Lets talk about motorcycle helmets.
When jurisdictions have mandatory helmet laws, the number of fatalities goes down. By most measures, that is a good thing. However, it does mean there are fewer organs to be transplanted, which is a bad thing.
One of the “bad” things is the increase in medical costs. When Florida dropped its mandatory helmet law, hospital costs for motorcycle injuries jumped from $21 million in the thirty months prior to the change to $44 million for the same period post-enactment.
Readers with good memories will recall that Florida also has a lot of folks without health insurance; 81% of these folks are of working age.
EMTALA laws require hospitals to treat patients, including injured motorcyclists without insurance, who show up at the emergency room.
So society is paying for motorcyclists who want to exercise their free right (choice of words intentional) to suffer brain injuries by riding without a helmet. But I don’t want to pay for their health care.
Do you?
Aug
25
This is a serious and costly national issue. We last wrote about it at WorkersCompInsider on 13 June following Ben Roethlisberger’s accident. Here’s the link to that post: http://www.workerscompinsider.com/archives/000507.html.
Readers who are interested can get an excellent historical summary of the nation’s often woeful attempts to grapple with with the problem if they visit the website of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
Perhaps this is a price worth paying to get the organs you identified…. I know, I’m a cold-hearted SOB
I don’t want to pay for their healthcare either… Isn’t it ironic – that in most states seatbelts are mandatory – yet in other states – motorcyclists can ride without a helmet?
I don’t really want to pay for anyone elses healthcare – frankly, I have enough of my own bills.
One point however, is that by exercising their free right to go unprotected (as noted in the original post) – maybe there will be less health insurance claims due to the increased # of fatalities…?
Technically no, I don’t want to, at least not too directly. But I live in a western society that tries, no matter how poorly, to ensure everyone has access to lifesaving medical care. This includes a bunch of people who take legal but less-than-safe liberties with themselves including people who eat burgers and thick shakes for dinner every day, people who don’t look both ways when crossing the street, people who smoke, people who enjoy kayaking, people who choose to bear arms in an armed conflict, people who work for employers who do not provide adequate safety equipment, people who under-utilise preventive medicine, people who run with scissors…
Until we can outlaw every potentially unsafe act, we choose to compensate the system for the care these folks require. Not to mention, if there’s no law against it, we cannot hold it against the riders themselves, they live in a state where it’s not required by law. If it was, I’d be a lot more in agreement. On that note, should motorcyclists who sustain head injuries in states *with* helmet laws be denied care for their arrogant pig-headedness?
Society pays for a bunch of people, whether society wants to or not. That’s kind of what ‘society’ is all about, from Latin societās, fellowship.
I think it’s the fact that they don’t have health insurance is the real issue, not that they choose to ride a bike without a helmet.
While I do understand what you are saying, I also have to ask, are the statistics including bicyclists as well? What is the break down by age group? What is the breakdown by size of motorcycle? How many of these riders are properly licensed? What is the percentage of injured riders compared to the over all number of motorcycle owners? Has the number of owners increased during this reporting period? How does the increase of medical expenses compare to the over all increase in medical care itself?
Without this information, it is impossible to make an informed decision as to the true impact of this change in the law.
I’m also thinking of the increased liability of other drivers. Nobody wants to cause an accident, but stuff happens. If you have a bad day and cause an accident, your insurance company is on the hook for a lot more if the person you hit wasn’t wearing a helmet (or wearing a seatbelt in a car).
You’d think the insurance companies would realize this and push harder for helmet and seatbelt regulations.
Or, maybe a law that says “fine, you’re free to not wear a helmet or seatbelt. But if somebody hits you and causes injury, they’re only required to pay 1/3 of your expenses.”
Susan, the reason the hyperlinks are in the article is so you can read the sources. Please don’t ask questions that are answered in the source information. If you want to make a point, do your own research or at least read mine.
But because you may not have known the etiquette of blogs; no, bicyclists are not included, and the size of the motorcycle, number of riders, license status, etc are all red herrings.
The issue is simple – when helmet laws are not present, health care costs go up.