The Welfare State Mentality....

But besides the ranting of a "friend of a friend," do you really believe that the army is going to gun you down on a city street for delinquent tax money?
Click to expand...

That's not the question. It's progressive. Do you believe they will send you a letter with a large fine for delinquent tax money? If you ignore the letter, do you think they will send an agent to audit you and serve you the fine in person? If you ignore the fine, do you think they will issues a warrant for your arrest? If you resist arrest do you believe they will use for to capture you? If you resist the force do you believe they will use greater force? If you resist that, do you believe they will use deadly force?

You really think they'll just let you slide? "This guy is too committed to not paying his taxes, and since it's just taxes we better not go to bat with him". No. You refuse what they want, they keep trying harsher ways of persuading you.
 
mountainclmbr said:
Government could do this without "establishing" a religion.
Click to expand...

I hope that you're espousing this as a debating point, and not a desire for future government.

The plots of the Cruxifiction and the Inquisition are acts where religion teamed with a government to carry out acts it could perform legally.

In fact, most of the truly toxic and deadly periods in history come from the melding of faith added to rule.

For example, in Iran a woman can be whipped for not wearing the right head-scarf. Can you imagine if that happened here?

I'd be calmly polishing at work and my cell phone would ring. "Chico, you have to come down to the CCB to bail out your wife. She just tased and beat up a mall guard..."


G-Cym said:
You refuse what they want, they keep trying harsher ways of persuading you.
Click to expand...

I think that happens in all areas of enforcement. For example, in Wisconsin they would not stop a driver just for not wearing a seat belt.

Now we have "Click It or Ticket." If you get stopped, it's an automatic fine.

However, you'll remember that we have repealed several Amendments to The Constitution. In Wisconsin we overturned our motorcycle helmet law.

I simply do not believe that there is a secret Trilateral Commission out there in the bowels of a sewer waiting to jack-boot us into camps.
 
" In Wisconsin we overturned our motorcycle helmet law. " The Tourist.

Never understood why we need laws for helmets while riding a motorcycle or seat belts for driving an automobile.

It would be far simpler if the insurance companies just made it a part of their policy.

If you don't use the safety equipment that is available for operating a motor vehicle we will not cover your injuries. That should be the policy.

If a person got hearing damage from shooting a firearm and didn't wear hearing protection or improperly used the hearing protection. Wouldn't that be the fault of the shooter and not the gun?

The less bureaucracy the better.
 
Never understood why we need laws for helmets while riding a motorcycle or seat belts for driving an automobile.

It would be far simpler if the insurance companies just made it a part of their policy.

If you don't use the safety equipment that is available for operating a motor vehicle we will not cover your injuries. That should be the policy.
Click to expand...

There are problems with this arrangement as well, though. First, if somebody's hospital bills aren't covered by insurance, somebody will eventually have to pay them anyway. Either other patients, the governments, or the insurance companies (through their coverage of other patients).

At which point you may ask, why not simply deny treatment? Mainly, because we've decided at some point that the idea of denying emergency medical treatment (which a no-seatbelt/no-helmet accident will probably entail) is a "bad" thing. Probably because the last thing we want EMTs on the scene or doctors in the ER to be spending time on is trying to figure out whether or not the accident victim was wearing a helmet or seat-belt, or what kind of insurance coverage they have. Better to say "hey, this person will die if we don't treat them, how about we go ahead and, you know, start."

At which point no matter how you slice it those that fail to wear seatbelts or motorcycle helmets are costing everybody money indirectly.

EDIT: Note that despite all this I don't support mandatory seatbelt/helmet laws. I've just not been convinced that the overall cost to society is worth the reduction in freedom. Then again, I've never looked too hard into the numbers.
 
JuanCarlos said:
At which point no matter how you slice it those that fail to wear seatbelts or motorcycle helmets are costing everybody money indirectly.
Click to expand...

Don't fall for the liberal hype. If these brain-injured non-insured bikers were truly a problem some news crew would show you the hospital ward where they are all kept.

The fact is that bikers are insured. Either by choice or by the laws of that state, trust me, we have as much insurance as your suburban SUV.

One of the things I hope to do here is to aggressively challenge errors and urban legends about knives and bikers. While there is a certain romanticism about lone wolves cruising the highways on some Easy Rider search for inner peace, trust me, enjoy the fantasy. But don't assume that I live like your vision of a 1960's biker in double wide, bouncing around in a drunken polka from fight to fight.

I had one guy in a another forum actually state that it was impossible for me to be a biker. For one thing, he opined, my spellling and syntax were good, and I had stated I had a white collar job for 30 years. He just couldn't get it through his gourd that he had been misled by fiction.

Every one of the two dozen Harleys I have owned were insured. Both Gold Wings were insured. Even the custom bikes. And I don't live in a double-wide, I live in suburbia.

I have been thinking about getting a new CVO Dyna Glide. Nice bike, bigger engine. Lots of chrome. What the heck, perhaps I can sell some moonshine.

Gee, I hope I don't smack it up and end up in that dead-brain hospital ward I keep hearing about...
 
Don't fall for the liberal hype. If these brain-injured non-insured bikers were truly a problem some news crew would show you the hospital ward where they are all kept.

The fact is that bikers are insured. Either by choice or by the laws of that state, trust me, we have as much insurance as your suburban SUV.
Click to expand...

Oh, I have no misconceptions about gangs of rogue bikers running around scoffing at insurance. However, I also suspect that insurance companies (often the same ones that insure "regular" motorists) don't always pass on 100% of the increased costs to cyclists; also, my own insurance can end up paying through the nose if I'm involved in an accident with a motorcyclist, even if I'm not necessarily at fault.

My comments about "uninsured" bikers was referring more to the proposed idea that insurance companies simply require helmets in order to pay out, as another poster suggested...pointing out that this still doesn't address the root problem, that the cost increased injuries of those who ride/drive without seatbelts/helmets are likely to be passed on to the rest of us in some form eventually (or at least some part of them).

And don't worry, I don't have a lot of misconceptions about bikers in general, either. While I know the stereotypical leather-clad meth-dealing outlaw does exist, like most other stereotypes it doesn't even come close to describing all bikers (or in this case even a majority). I've know quite a few "bikers," and quite a few guys who just happened to own motorcycles (I'll not try to define the difference, since it's pretty subtle and likely only exists in my head ;)), and all of them were just normal joes with normal jobs and generally normal lives.

EDIT: And note again that I'm pretty sure the increased cost from motorcyclists without helmets is pretty small, since obviously you do eat most of it through the mandatory (in most states) insurance you carry. Which, again, is why I don't necessarily think it's something that needs to be legislated. Whatever small cost is incurred on society as a whole is probably worth it not to have the government thinking they can tell me how I should live.

Because next up is telling me I can't eat a damn Big Mac when I feel like it (since I'm indirectly increasing the costs of medical care by doing so and blah blah blah).
 
JuanCarlos said:
While I know the stereotypical leather-clad meth-dealing outlaw does exist
Click to expand...

There are white-collar Enron executives that have done more jail time and more damage to society than I ever did, or ever could.

BTW, my bike insurance is pro-rated like my car insurance, I do not pay a "helmet penalty" or a tattoo stipend.

One of these days I going to write a treatise here on why bikers look like they do and why you probably don't know what you think you know. And if I can find a scanner, I have some old black and white photos we can all laugh at. But let me be clear.

No. Biker. Brain. Hospitals.
 
There are white-collar Enron executives that have done more jail time and more damage to society than I ever did, or ever could.
Click to expand...

I didn't think many of those guys ended up doing much time. Oh well.

Regardless, in case it wasn't clear, I was absolutely agreeing with you. I know darn well that the "average" biker is also pretty much just an average dude. Seriously. I don't know if this is just something you're either defensive or argumentative about, but I want you to know in no uncertain terms that I have zero misconceptions about bikers in general.

Like I said, the "stereotypical bikers" do exist (really, they do...every now and then you'll read a story in the paper about one being arrested for doing "stereotypical biker" stuff). But, like most stereotypes, this does not mean it in any way describers the "average" biker.

BTW, my bike insurance is pro-rated like my car insurance, I do not pay a "helmet penalty" or a tattoo stipend.
Click to expand...

If you're not paying a penalty for not wearing a helmet, this might suggest that the insurance company is not fully charging you for the increased risk this brings, and thus this extra cost (averaged over all insured, since some people will get in accidents) is likely being passed on to somebody else...either other motorcyclists or your company's customers in general.

Though I'm pretty sure tattoos wouldn't affect much of anything. ;)

No. Biker. Brain. Hospitals.
Click to expand...

Didn't say there were. But that doesn't mean that the cost of treatment for an accident without a helmet (or seatbelt...remember, we're not trying to pick on bikers here) isn't higher on average. Just because you don't end up in a coma doesn't mean your bill wasn't higher than it might otherwise have been.

If I were really bored I might go try to find stats on the cost of treatment for non-seatbelt/helmet accidents compared to those where the victim was wearing a seatbelt/helmet to prove this point.

But, I'll reiterate: I still support your right to make that choice for yourself.
 
My wife was a psychiatrist, she treated lots of people with closed head injuries caused by not wearing seatbelts. These people do cost society a ton of money because their brains don't work normally anymore, sometimes it's just personality changes other times it's more than that.

Although I have known what seemed like tons of the no seatbelt types I only knew of two bikers with brain damage from running into something hard without a helmet on. Most of them die in the ER. There is a reason the medical profession calls them donorcycles.

I suspect that the reason helmet laws have been repealed is because the SS payments to surviving kids or wife are less than the medical bills. Call me cynical if you want.
 
JuanCarlos said:
Like I said, the "stereotypical bikers" do exist
Click to expand...

That's a wide brush.

On paper, I am a stereotypical biker. On paper.

Consider the facts. I am/was a club member. I have/had customized Harleys. I was arrested for a minor weapons charge. During the early 1970's I wore nothing but blue jeans, black leather and boots.

Sounds pretty bad, doesn't it. And that's my issue with debates in this vein. I have always admonished debaters that people evolve over time. You must remember that this was the "protest era." Most of the executives I worked with over the 30 years I was a professional were "long haired hippie scum."

When I retired, I went back to wearing comfortable clothing 24/7. Sold my suits and gave away my shirts and ties.

One friend laughed and commented, "Who was the pretender? Was it the biker pretending to be civil, or the suburbanite pretending to be the biker?"

I gave the honest answer, "We are both still in here someplace."

Now back to our debate. This facet of discourse assumes that any unwanted or misconstrued slice of society is contributing to a welfare state.

"Those bikers don't wear helmets--my taxes pay for their insurance."
"That old guy is retired--and sucking up my FICA contributions."

These concepts are simply dumping grounds for your (the editorial 'you') outbursts on believing you're a victim.

In truth, I consume more of Bill Gates money and none of yours. And another truth you might not believe, most bikers can buy a new $20K Harley at will, from their credit cards. The "real bikers" you fear are now retiring execs.

Perhaps what we need is a current tax professional to post here about how finances truly break down.
 
The problem with public health care is that it is so expensive. A private hospital will do the same job at a lower cost. As an example, if politicians ran Burger King, imagine how expensive the burgers would be all in all, and how poor the service would be.

Public aid should be for the poorest, not a thing everybody should be forced into because the taxes were so high they can not affort to buy an efficient private health insurance. Politicians say whatever it takes to get people to vote on them. To hear that you will be given someting for free attracts many voters. If people were intelligent things would look very different in the US.
 
Not to mention the lack of quality doctors. THe proof of this is already seen in the UK and Canada. Good doctors don't want to go to school for a decade just to be government workers. They want to get a return on their investment. They want to make a profit. Being a good doctor is a tough job but with a great payoff. Take away a big chunk of that payoff by making it socialized, and you remove a big incentive for people to become doctors. And don't pull the "they would do it because they have a desire to help the common good" nonsense. You're kidding yourself if you think a lot of med student's wouldn't quit after finding out they are going to school for 12 years, working 80+ hour shifts and dealing with death every day just to make the same amount of $$ as a DMV clerk.
 
Canada does not have a national healthcare plan but a national healtcare insurance plan. If you notice the opposition to any national healthcare insurance plan that is being proposed in the US the opponents are insurance companies and HMOs, not doctors. In fact many specialties make more money in Canada than in the US.

Using England's bad system in the same sentence as Canada's good system is just wrong.
 
Justme, I agree.

I just saw a snippet on TV a few weeks ago where if you need a hip replacement, you get on a waiting list.

If your dog needs a hip replacement, you can walk right in the door.

If I start limping, I'm going to start barking.
 
I was in Canada a few years ago on business with the Mistery of Defense in Ottawa. I asked some of them about national health care. They confirmed that the national insurance pays health providers a flat rate. No incentive to move patients. After 5:00 they convert to vet practice with profit motive. Usually no waiting (for your pet, but not you). Your pet will get much better health care on the exact same equipment by the statements of the Canadian citizens (government workers) I spoke to.

Any Canadians want to weigh in????

Human health care in Canada is goobermint run, no options unless you cross over to the USA. Not so for pets. The comparison is what I would expect.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top