helmets are not optional

[Crankin]

I am not dumb enough to think that my medical insurance would pay the entire price of a major brain injury rehab (although my insurance pretty much pays for everything without questioning. And I mean some pretty expensive stuff, no referrals, etc). I only brought up the health insurance aspect because medical costs and not wearing a helmet are related. Also, with the advent of mandatory, state sponsored health insurance in MA (for those who don't have it through work), people are saying the same thing that they say about helmets and seatbelts: "The government should not tell me I have to..."
Last year my son had the norovirus. He was really sick and used his mandated state sponsored health plan (he works for a company with less than 10 people). His girlfriend, who had no insurance, because she is too cheap to pay the small premium for her income level, went to the emergency room and got "free care." Who do you think paid for that?

[OakLeaf]

And what is the Massachusetts program, but a massive state subsidy of four private health insurance/managed care companies? Who's paying for that?

(And what would be wrong with it if my tax dollars did go to help people who really need it, rather than helping insurance and drug company executives buy new yachts as they do now?)

Really, uncompensated ER care is the most innocuous of the bunch, because there's a complete disconnect between the funding and the usage. The hospital gets construction/development money from the feds, and everyone benefits from the existence of the hospital. In exchange they're obligated to treat all emergent needs.

In your example, State and federal dollars probably paid less for your son's girlfriend than they did for your son. Almost certainly so. And that's before you take into account the fact that his services would've been billed at a deep discount, whereas she will be taken to collection for the face value of whatever the hospital wants to charge.

[Jolt]

Really, uncompensated ER care is the most innocuous of the bunch, because there's a complete disconnect between the funding and the usage. The hospital gets construction/development money from the feds, and everyone benefits from the existence of the hospital. In exchange they're obligated to treat all emergent needs.

In your example, State and federal dollars probably paid less for your son's girlfriend than they did for your son. Almost certainly so. And that's before you take into account the fact that his services would've been billed at a deep discount, whereas she will be taken to collection for the face value of whatever the hospital wants to charge.

That may be true, but the other problem with people going to the ER for things like that is that it contributes to overcrowding and long waits in the ERs. A lot of people seem to think it's OK to go to the ER for minor/non-emergent things because they know they'll get treated and possibly for free, but it really isn't appropriate use of the ER. That's what urgent-care centers are for.

[motochick]

The other day I was riding in a rural area and another cyclist came toward me going the other way. He was not wearing a helmet and I gave him a very small kind of flippant wave hello. He gave me a big wave hello and said hi. He must have thought I was being rude because he turned his head around and gave me a huge "what's-up-with-that-attitude" wave. I wish I wasn't going uphill and had more time to prepare, I would have skipped the wave and pointed to my helmet instead.

My husbands life was saved wearing a helmet, and a friend of ours has permanent brain damage from not wearing one. We won't even take short test rides up and down the street without one. Same with the motos, never ride any distance without one. I guess I am so used to wearing a helmet because everything I participate in requires one. Another reason to have really short hair!

Brenda

[Blueberry]

I didn't have a helmet until I bought my first bike in college for transportation. I've *always* worn one ever since. As does my DH.

Yep - I rode bikes as a kid. It was never even suggested I should wear one, much less that anyone would buy me one. It just wasn't an option. I don't think my parents knew any better. I would have worn it.

If someone makes an informed, rational choice that they don't want to wear a helmet - then fine. Kids should have to wear them, and we need to work towards making it socially acceptable to wear them.

CA

[Crankin]

Well, Oakleaf, I guess that I am just an old hippie. I have no problem at all with the government paying for things for people who need it. I guess my problem is that one, people just complain about all of these things that are mandated, but are too irresponsible to take responsibility for their health, safety, etc. In the end, it is really not my problem. But, I wish we could find a way to make things equitable. I don't know why this country has to be so "individualistic" that we have come to this point. Sure, EU countries are highly taxed, but the quality of life just seems better. My husband manages several EU branches of his company and I am envious of the benefits and the lifestyle. Some people would tell me to move, or that I am anti-American, but somehow, there has to be a solution. I am not an expert on this topic. All I know is that my son is very happy to have good coverage for a reasonable premium. He paid about a hundred dollars a month more before this, to insure himself, while most of his friends had none. I don't love insurance companies, but in the past year I have had occasion to use mine for some very expensive diagnostic tests and specialists; 3 MRIs, a CT scan, several ultra sounds, blood work galore, PT, and specialists at the Brigham. I was not questioned on anything. A couple of years ago my husband had 2 stents put in and 2 angioplasties within a year period, which was all paid for, 100%. And there's people on this forum who have to wait months to get approval for an MRI! It's really not fair that all people can't have this; I mean I only have it because the policy at my husband's company is really good.

OK, this is way off topic of helmets. I do get on a rampage about safety and health issues. Just riding with Denise G. and hearing the story of her accident on a personal level has given me a view on this issue that most don't get.
I won't say anymore.

[OakLeaf]

((Robyn,)) how can you and I agree on all that stuff, and have gotten into a disagreement on some technicality?

[bean fidhleir]

+1 on preferring social coverage of all medical costs, even those caused by an individual's negligence. I reckon that no matter what it costs the rest of us in dollars, the victims are paying the most in every other way, every day.

Apropos wearing a helmet, I like this aphorism: don't bother with a helmet if you've nothing to protect.

Ages ago, I came across a 2-page excerpt from a trial transcript. The case involved a 40yo man, hs grad, responsible job, solid citizen, who was clipped by a car as he was peddling along. Not a big hit, just a brush with the fender, enough to knock him off the bike. But he wasn't wearing a helmet. Despite how minor the accident was in superficial terms, he suffered permanent brain damage to the point he could no longer work and could barely function at any level. The transcript made poignantly clear that the poor soul could hardly string a coherent sentence together, and it was questionable whether he could truly understand much that was said to him. The excerpt closed with him saying (not as clearly as this) "I should have been dead. They tell me I should have been dead".

I wish I still had that excerpt, because it was terrifying to read. I can't imagine anyone reading it and then going out on their bike without a helmet. They'd truly have to have nothing to protect.

[Tuckervill]

That may be true, but the other problem with people going to the ER for things like that is that it contributes to overcrowding and long waits in the ERs. A lot of people seem to think it's OK to go to the ER for minor/non-emergent things because they know they'll get treated and possibly for free, but it really isn't appropriate use of the ER. That's what urgent-care centers are for.

I've used the ER three times since I've lived here. That's 3 times more than the last 10 years before that.

Because we don't have urgent care centers. We have walk-in clinics, but they don't have xrays or do stitches, and they're not open 24/7.

Karen

[Jolt]

I've used the ER three times since I've lived here. That's 3 times more than the last 10 years before that.

Because we don't have urgent care centers. We have walk-in clinics, but they don't have xrays or do stitches, and they're not open 24/7.

Karen

I guess I was referring to the walk-in clinics when I said "urgent care". Stitches and possible broken bones are perfectly reasonable things to go to the ER for (and some ERs now have a "fast track" section for those types of patients, separating them from the more acute ones); things like the norovirus (unless it's a young child and they're getting dehydrated) not so much. People with that type of issue (or other more minor things that sometimes show up in the ER) should go to the walk-in clinic--if they have to wait until the next morning it's not going to hurt anything.

[OakLeaf]

Oh, that's hard! I hear ya - but that's still hard.

I don't go to the ER for just anything, and I've got the kind of pain threshold where when I spilled hot oil and melted my carpet, it didn't really hurt my foot; when I cut my thumb so deeply I had a scar contracture for a year, it didn't much hurt my hand (and I kept on cooking after I got the bleeding stopped), and I never needed medical care for either one of those.

But when I had food poisoning a couple of weeks ago, another eleven hours of moaning in pain with a headache that ultimately Demerol and a liter of fluids helped but didn't eliminate (actually I think mostly it made me stop caring about the headache), and the most miserable nausea you can imagine - sorry, another eleven hours of that wasn't in the cards.

No, I wouldn't have died of it. But to say that was an abuse of the ER is just hard

Mostly what I've done that I would consider an abuse of the ER is when my PCP has refused to see me for a sprain because "I'd have to send you to the ER for X-rays anyhow." I wonder how in tune ER staff are with the state of primary care in this country.

[Jolt]

Oh, that's hard! I hear ya - but that's still hard.

I don't go to the ER for just anything, and I've got the kind of pain threshold where when I spilled hot oil and melted my carpet, it didn't really hurt my foot; when I cut my thumb so deeply I had a scar contracture for a year, it didn't much hurt my hand (and I kept on cooking after I got the bleeding stopped), and I never needed medical care for either one of those.

But when I had food poisoning a couple of weeks ago, another eleven hours of moaning in pain with a headache that ultimately Demerol and a liter of fluids helped but didn't eliminate (actually I think mostly it made me stop caring about the headache), and the most miserable nausea you can imagine - sorry, another eleven hours of that wasn't in the cards.

No, I wouldn't have died of it. But to say that was an abuse of the ER is just hard

Mostly what I've done that I would consider an abuse of the ER is when my PCP has refused to see me for a sprain because "I'd have to send you to the ER for X-rays anyhow." I wonder how in tune ER staff are with the state of primary care in this country.

Sorry if my previous post came across as a bit harsh--that's the problem with typing things rather than saying them sometimes. I agree with you that a lot of the problem is the state of primary care. As far as your food-poisoning incident, from what you describe it sounds like it was worse than the standard stomach bug (which is more what I was thinking of in the previous post) and I can't really blame you for going to the ER in that case. Again, apologies if my post was offensive.