Fewer helmets, more rests 1796Well, in that case, though the issue is that there should not be 80 kids riding a bus designed to hold only 62 kids, right? I take it your sister is...
Me personally, I love helmets and dislike helmet laws. The biggest problem I see with your statement is that once we start accepting the "financial burden on society" justification, it can be used to deny insurance benefits for a LOT of claims. How about if I'm out kayaking and crack my head on a rock? Is kayaking a dangerous-enough activity that I should be denied medical coverage? How about other forms of recreational boating? Or rock climbing? Or skydiving?
I'd really hate to break my leg while rock-climbing and be denied medical coverage because some horn-rimmed f***stick that's never climbed further than "out of bed" decides that I had no right to expose myself to that level of risk and still expect coverage. What about slipping on an icy sidewalk? I guess it would depend on whether I was walking to work or walking for recreation. If I was walking for recreation, I guess I'd be f***ed, since staying home would have been safer, right? Can't take an unnecessary walk outside in the winter and expect my fellow insurees to foot the bill if I fall, can I?
Do you think a 400-pound man REALLY has the right to eat another Big Mac? Or if we're really concerned about financial burdens on society, do we deny medical coverage to smokers?
Once the "financial burden" justification becomes widely accepted, exactly WHAT kind of activities will be innocuous and non-threatening enough that someone wouldn't have to worry about having medical benefits denied if they injure themselves?
Scott Gardner
