Quote:
Originally Posted by Sultana
At least in California, the legislation was put into effect soely because of the state footing the healthcare bills for those who are dependant on state care for the many expensive-to-treat and preventable head injuries. Ideally, if the state takes care of your butt (or your head, or any combination of the two), then I'd say they have a right to tell you you have to wear a helmet.
Obviously though, that'd be impossible to enforce.
I guess the next best thing would be for the insurance companies to do the ruthless enforcement--that's their specialty, after all.
It's hard, because I do believe that helmet laws save and improve lives in general, but it's easy to see how this line of thought could be abused by the government. It's also easy to see how the general public could also take this arguement to rediculous extremes.
Edited to add: I do like the idea of the mandatory organ donorship if nothing else but to make a point, but I'm sure that would inflame people who don't want the gov't to impose *that* either.
For the record, I'm highly in favor of organ donorship. By force, if needed! 
|
I find it funny that a state the foots the bill for thousands of illegals, has a problem with paying for people who don't wear a helmet even if they pay health insurance and/or pay into socialized healthcare system. To me it seems they did it more to enhance the police-state than to save on healthcare costs.
You see how helmet laws could be abused by the government, but fail to see how organ donation could be abused by them too? Sorry, but mandatory organ donorship is a hellish practice. Just look to China where you can get a match for a pristine 20 year old's kidney in two weeks. You don't have to have that great of an imagination to figure out that scenario is impossible unless you're killing people only for their organs.