Motorcycles and other Dangerous Pastimes.

[Tyler Durden]

Poll question: Motorcycles and other Dangerous Pastimes.

Not that I don't care deeply whether you live or die because I REALLY, REALLY DO(UNLESS you are a rePuke, of course).

AND it's not that I want to restrict your right to participate in what I PERSONALLY consider to be dangerous and possibly crazy and fatal pastimes; like BASE jumping or sky diving, riding motorcycles (ESPECIALLY unhelmeted), ATV or Motocrossing, or a whole plethora of "adrenalin Junkie" hobbies. Hell, I used to ride a Motorcycle too, about 30 YEARS AGO.

The deal is that I really don't like PAYING for your hazardous hobby. The Insurance Actuarial Tables lump us all in the same group and don't allow for non-participants in what I call life threating fun.

SMOKING is now an exception to this rule, the same as driving what the Insurance folks would call a more sensible car: As long as we're never likely to get single payer Health Care, I think it's time to do the same for Health Insurance.

So how about it? Do us "Nervous Nellies" who stay on the safe side (for whatever reason) deserve to be on a different pay schedule than the "daredevils?"

P.S.: call me a chicken if you like, but us HEALTHY chickens don't party with Colonel Sanders.

[Tyler Durden]

1. Had to post my own vote, of course.

Yes. BUCK BUCK BUCK, COCK A DOODLE DOOOOOOOOOOO!

[av8rdave]

2. I think, to use the words of the fundies, that it's a slippery slope...

All things in life involve varying degrees of risk. When we start playing the game of "those who take greater risks pay more," where do we draw the line? Should we penalize those whose diets are higher fat than others? How about businessmen who travel a lot vs. those who don't? According to the actuaries, single people don't live as long and are more prone to certain health issues than married people. Should they have separate insurance or higher premiums? Do you drive an older car without airbags? Come to think of it, where do you live? Do you have a greater risk of environmental health issues? Live in a tornado/earthquake/tsunami prone area? While we're at it, how's your sex life? More than one partner? These are all things where I shouldn't have to subsidize the additional risk, right?

You can also see the potential of this spilling over into employment. What some beancounter deems as risky activity could affect your insurance costs or even your prospects of employment.

That being said, I certainly advocate taking the personal responsibility to reduce risk when possible. I would never even swing a leg over my bike without a full face helmet. When I fly, I use all checklists, pay attention to weather and aircraft condition and make sure everything/everyone is current and qualified.

However, part of living in a free society needs to be freedom to make individual choices. I hate to see that be encroached upon.

Just my $.02

[Tyler Durden]

3. See SOME of your points, but...

Life Insurance costs are already ameliorated by non-smoking waivers. I actually got a break on mine (when I could afford the premiums) for agreeing NOT to participate in certain dangerous hobbies. Included on the list was Flying a small plane by the way.

People driving a supercharged V-12 XKE will pay more for the privelige than someone who drives, say, a tricked out Minivan of equal price.

I think my point is, your CHOICE ends where my WALLET begins. This appears to have nothing to do with anything other than Insurance: an item which I think we can call "optional," no matter how necessary one considers it. Am I wrong here?

[av8rdave]

4. I completely understand the sentiment...

However, I can't get away from the question of "where do you draw the line?"

Confined to insurance, I can kind of see the point, until it turns into ever narrower definitions of "risk." As it is, I already have and pay handsomely for a separate policy for riding a motorcycle. I don't see the need to be penalized elsewhere, as I have already assumed additional responsibility (financially) for taking that supposed risk. I also take steps to ameliorate the risk (helmet, periodic MSF course, protective clothing, group riding, etc).

As a society, we will always have those who participate in riskier activity than others. We will also have some who will suffer misfortune even though they avoid all possible risk. It is the nature of insurance to spread the impact of risk over a population. Insurers already "adjust" for what they see as greater risks (you don't even want to know what happened to my homeowner rates because of hail damage in this area).

[Tyler Durden]

7. Been there with the "hail damage."

We can't ameliorate the weather. However, should my homeowner insurance be based on the risks incurred in NOLA or Miami?

Similarly, if I have an accident in my Saturn at 30 MPH, I might walk away with bruises and a headache. You on the other hand are likely to spend about $50,000 worth of time in the hospital. In my way of thinking, this should not be my problem IF I HAVE TO PAY FOR HEALTH INSURANCE. Under single payer though, this point is moot.

The nature of Actuary is that if I do A, B, and C but not D which has a higher chance of causing extra cost to the pool, and I agree NEVER to do D, then I am basically paying for anyone who wants to do D.

I have no problem with someone who wants to risk their neck. I just think there should be a "Neck Risking Activity" rider on their motor vehicle, Health, or homeowners insurance (whichever is applicable) to offset the cost a little.

Again, I understand and respect your freedom of choice to do something dangerous and potentially very expensive; I just don't want to be held liable for it.

[av8rdave]

20. In at least a partial way, yes

<<However, should my homeowner insurance be based on the risks incurred in NOLA or Miami? >>

What would happen to us economically if nobody lived in Miami or NO? As a nation, we all enjoy the economic benefit of the industry, ports and service businesses (and the residents that run/staff them). So while those may be higher risk areas for certain kinds of damage, the damage ultimately affects us all, and it is in our collective best interest to have rapid recovery.

Extending the argument, we could say that none of our tax or insurance dollars should be spent on AIDS treatment, cardiac care, etc. Again, where do we draw the line? I am genetically at high risk for cancer. Should I pay more in health premiums or be entitled to less coverage? Not in my opinion. That's why we have insurance.

I already pay higher premiums and carry addtional policies for the "risky" activities I undertake. There's the financial equalizer.

[Tyler Durden]

23. That's a toughie for you to prove right about now...

"As a nation, we all enjoy the economic benefit of the industry, ports and service businesses..."

Actually, the Automotive assembly jobs where I am (near FLINT, Michigan...see "MICHAEL MOORE") are down South now.

If we could have those jobs back, I'll eat the Healthcare insurance issue.

[huskerlaw]

74. Your choice ends...

where my wallet begins?

Wow. That's one hell of a dangerous statement.

[Deep13]

5. Insurance beaucrats should not tell us what to do.

If it was up to them, we would never leave our bedrooms. If I want to go shooting or hiking in the desert I should not be penalized for using my life for actual living.

[Tyler Durden]

8. In other words:

Since my most dangerous activity is Gardening, I should pay the same as you do when you choose risky behavior?

Exercise your freedom, just not on my dime.

[Deep13]

17. Bullshit, healthcare is everyone's 'dime.'

My risky behavior will probably never result in a claim.

[Tyler Durden]

18. You've obviously never worked in a hospital...I have.

We saw so many motorcycle accidents in Houston. We started calling them "organ donors" as in "Another organ donor will hit the E.R. in 2 minutes!"

THAT will cure you of some dangerous proclivities. And 4 weeks on the ICU costs more than a new school does. Spread that over the rest of the health care insurance pool and see what you've got.

Is it too much to ask that Dangerous Hobbyists pay say a 10% surcharge for the rest of our pains? I don't think so.

[av8rdave]

21. I already pay well more than a 10% "surcharge"

[Tyler Durden]

22. We're talking HEALTH and LIFE insurance.

Things we both must buy. This is rather specific.

[av8rdave]

25. Well, the whole point of insurance is to pool risk over a population

When the insurance companies get their way and penalize one lifestyle over another, it starts losing the whole point.

My life insurance is part of a group plan, named so for a reason. Being penalized for personal tastes and preferences is a mistake, imo. There will always be somebody who leads a riskier life than you do. Again...where do we draw the line? Hang gliding? Using power tools? Driving a car with a poorer crash test rating than another? Snake handling? How about scientologists and other cultists who don't want modern medical treatment? If we want to extend the argument far enough, I suppose all the fundies who don't beleive in stem cell research shouldn't be covered if they get alzheimers, diabetes or parkinsons.

A very slippery slope...

[Tyler Durden]

33. When we all pool together, Insurance Co's MAX PROFIT.

That's the point.

As to your examples, most of them actually work for me, if the Capitalists want to keep things the way they are...

Sort of like "Pay Per View" or Shopping List Cable.

I don't want to sound like too much of curmudgeon here, but YEP, hang gliding is ON THE LIST. So should be snake handling. And as to driving a worse car...the car insurance people already have that one dicked.

No offense to anyone, but INSURANCE is NOT EGALITARIAN. If we want it that way, Canada and Sweden have the models...go ye and do likewise. But as long as I'm forced to buy Blue Cross, I think daredevils belong in a different "group."

[Deep13]

24. I actually don't ride much less race motorcycles.

Too dangerous. What concerns me is being told I can't hike in the wilderness or run a chainsaw or shoot at the rifle range because some insurance dude thinks it would be safer if I just stayed in bed.

[politicat]

58. But gardening is risky. You just don't see it.

You're exposed to brucellosis, anthrax, toxoplasmosis, plague ( if you live in the West), and literally a hundred other bacterial, parasitic, amoebic and viral illnesses that live in the soil, are carried by insects or transmitted via animal feces. You work with sharp implements that often have rust upon them, putting your risk of tetanus higher than the average. You lift heavy loads which put you at risk for joint and spine injuries. You're outdoors, usually in the summer, in the heat, putting you at higher than average risk for heat injury.

Being a gardener does not release one from the risks of being human. There is no safe human activity. I've seen people survive massive chest wounds and others bleed out from a toe wound. Thus, actuarial predictions are built upon huge numbers, statistical probability. I'm studying for my first level actuarial exams now, and believe me, the maths involved are not high school algebra.

[One_Life_To_Give]

6. My Health Insurance doesn't cover certain activities

My understanding is that most health insurance today has an exemption for motorsport racing. You need to get a seperate policy to cover you while engaged in such activities.

[Tyler Durden]

9. But you can ride a motorcycle, or motocross, or ATV

and there isn't a rider for that. How many millions do that and us "chickens" get penalized in higher insurance rates?

I say do what you want: I just don't want to pay for what Acutarial Tables call Risk taking activity.

[democracyindanger]

10. Aren't there some kids on your lawn

you should be yelling at?

:evilgrin:

[Tyler Durden]

11. Neener Neener Neener.

I pay over $4000/year before my kids even see a doctor. My deductable costs are now capped at $2000/year. I don't make enough money to support someone else's hobby.

Sorry if that sounds like a killjoy: it's not.

[democracyindanger]

16. For many, motorcycling isn't a 'hobby.'

It's transportation. And us motorcyclists essentially subsidize you cage drivers. Gas would be cheaper if more people rode motorcycles or scooters--not to mention reducing air pollution, better traffic flow and lower maintenance costs for paved roads.

Regardless, I feel your pain, but motorcyclists and BASE jumpers aren't driving up your premiums.

[Tyler Durden]

19. I get 40 MPG in my Saturn. Unless you're driving a VESPA....

...Then your argument is moot. Besides, I'm talking about Harold Harleydriver, muscling a $20,000 HAWG and not wearing a helmet, or Marty Motocross, getting "air" 99.9% of the time, and breaking both legs on the 00.1%.

The guy across the street is luck if his Gold Wing gets 30 MPG.

[FILAM23]

26. Actually having both a GoldWing and a Saturn

beleve me when I say, the bike gets much better milage.
Approx 35mpg for the Saturn and 48mpg for the bike

[Tyler Durden]

35. you need a tune up.

My 1997 SL1 gets 39-41 MPG on the freeway.

Also, I usually carry 2-3 passengers, and like I said, I'm chicken.

[FILAM23]

72. My ION also gets 39-41 on the highway

but most of my driving is city and the 35mpg is what I average.

[Robb]

31. I averaged 78 mpg commuting on my moto this summer

Call me Marty if you want. :)

Nowhere on my health insurance did I find a box that said "check here if you eat bacon cooked in butter," either.

Something else to consider: society has apparently decided there is a benefit to people living in different areas, with different levels of home risk, spread out amongst one another. Apparently we have also decided there is some inherent value in people eating different things and living different lifestyles.

Your argument reminds me a bit of the codger at city council who doesn't want to pay for a new school, since he doesn't even like kids. :shrug:

[Tyler Durden]

34. Non Sequiter.

Actually, I'm like someone who doesn't want to join a club if it requires I take a stroll across a ravine on a rope as a form of initiation.

Schools are public. Not a valid comparison. Health Insurance is NOT TAX SUPPORTED, and NOT MANDITORY. If it WERE tax supported, it would be Single Payer, and then the point is moot.

I hate once again to sound callous, but if someone wants to risk their neck, I SHOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY PART OF THEIR ICU BILL. That is, as it has been said here many times, A CHOICE and I should not be compelled to be part of it.

[Robb]

42. What about bacon?

Or childbirth? Or living in a polluted city? Or having a job working around carcinogens? Are these all choices as well? Should I bear the brunt of those who choose to engage in these foolish pursuits?

[democracyindanger]

44. Robb brings up a good point

Compare the number of people that die or become sick because of diabetes, heart disease and arthereosclerosis to the number that die or injure themselves leaping off of radio towers or doing a wheelie on a Honda.

Somebody stuffing their fat face with a Bloomin' Onion at TGIFridays and washing it down with a half-gallon of Mountain Dew is far more likely to impact your health insurance premiums than some idiot thrillseeker--and for a longer time period.

[Tyler Durden]

49. Hey, I'll accept putting that in the "dumb hobby" category.

Self destructive behavior is ALSO a choice, unless one is claiming some sort of mental illness.

CHOOSING to participate in hazardous behavior IS the line and SHOULD BE the criteria.

[politicat]

69. My husband's bike gets 63-70 MPG (depending on conditions.)

His friend's Goldwing gets 45-50, depending on conditions. Another acquaintance's Victory gets close to 80, and it has a HUGE engine.

Thanks for playing.

And you really do want to read NTSB stats on motorcycle accidents versus car accidents. Cars are far more dangerous.

And you really should go whine about this over at Freeperville. It's just your style and they'll free-market love you to bits.

[kwassa]

27. Why would gas be cheaper?

What is your reasoning behind that?

[taterguy]

29. Supply / demand

[politicat]

61. That's not motorcyclists' fault; that's the insurance industry.

AKA : All that the Market Will Bear.

DH builds very complex computer modelling programs for an insurance underwriter who insures gulf coast buildings against hurricane damage. (Yeah, it's been a rather unpleasant year around the Politicat House.) I'm studying for my exams so I can go to work there as an underwriter. We both know the industry from the inside out, and the fact is, in health care (the company also does some health work),the most expensive people to insure are the natural risk takers: Children and teenagers. (Convince them they are immortal. Go on. Try. I'll wait here.) But the nasty thing we have both had to deal with is that, as long as the insurance companies can charge you, they will, and as much as they can get, they'll try. Our idea is to work from within to build better modelling systems that will give better data and to assess risk as fairly and fully as possible because insurance is a necessity.

[William Bloode]

12. LOL!

:rofl:

[Tyler Durden]

14. Actually, the kids are on YOUR lawn....

One of them just set up a "jump ramp" and they're playing "Evil Kinevil" on your driveway.

Got "liability?"

[William Bloode]

13. I don't know.....

Maybe you could get a special rate if you ran around padded in foam rubber, incased in a bullet proof glass elcousure!


Just joking, no offense. I can see a bit of your point, and frustration. But i think the solution lies more in the area of reforming healthcare in this country instead of curtailing the actions of others.

[Tyler Durden]

15. Damned right about reforming healthcare!

Think it'll happen?

Maybe when the Porcine Mammals grow feathers and take wing?

[ScreamingMeemie]

28. But then what about sushi eaters? Children who ride bikes without helmets?

Swimmers? Divers? golfers? walkers? All of these activities can be potentially hazardous. Life, in and of itself, is fraught with danger. The line is too blurry.

[Tyler Durden]

37. some dangerous activities are no-brainers.

Plus, I'd vote for laws on the books making not requiring your kid to wear a bike helmet a misdemeanor child abuse violation.

My kids wear one or they don't ride. I wear one too, no matter HOW stupid it looks.

No, Motorcycles, Hang Gliders, Sky diving, Swimming ALONE, and a plethora of others are obvious in their hazard. I'm a SOCIALIST, not a LIBERTARIAN. SOCIALISTS don't believe it's a God Given Right to behave in a foolish manner unless YOU bear the consequences, unless like I said, it's no longer a "Market" issue, but Government supported, like single payer Healthcare.

[ScreamingMeemie]

41. Life is a hazard. I don't like it that people take showers during

electrical storms...but they do.

[Tyler Durden]

43. Oh MrsGrumpy!

STUPIDITY is always a captial crime. But making a CONSCIOUS DESCISON to participate in a dangerous hobby is, as I stated and believe, a no brainer as to willingly hazarding your health and life.

DUMMIES will always be with us. But High Powered or High Flying hobbyists are not something that should be in the general actuarial group.

UNLESS your aim is to maximized the profit for insurance companies.

No offense is intended here: personal opinion.

[ScreamingMeemie]

47. Again, it's too fuzzy of a line, Tyler. I'm not willing to give

the government or insurance companies any more power in my decision making than they already have.

[Tyler Durden]

51. THAT is how they exercise power NOW.

There wouldn't be as many carriers as there are if it wasn't MASSIVELY PROFITABLE.

Back to my Socialist Argument. NOBODY rides for free.

[ScreamingMeemie]

52. We're going to keep knocking heads over this one I think.

Let me say...I respect your opinion, but I'm not changing mine.

I'm off to risk getting hit by a bus. :hi:

[kwassa]

38. Not all risk is equal.; this is what insurance rates are based on.

I'd say that probably 95% of the riders I know have spent serious time in the hospital recovering from injuries. I can only think of one guy who hasn't .... but he doesn't ride much anymore.

[ScreamingMeemie]

40. Life is a risk.

I worked for State Farm. The only thing that factored into risk for health insurance was the results of your physical, blood test and whether or not you smoked. the line is too blurry.

[Tyler Durden]

45. THAT is the point.

And I think you'll agree, THAT is how they make money on us "chickens."

[kwassa]

48. There are low risks, and high risks.

I worked for Farmers. Auto property damage and basic liability claims.

Insurance is designed to cover a particular risk, which is why auto policies are divided up into so many categories.

There is no commercial flood insurance. Why? The risk is too great. The government has to cover and offer it, and it is still expensive. Hence, total loss in Katrina.

[ScreamingMeemie]

50. Sorry.... but I'm not willing to let anyone else make that decision for me

Life. Is. A. Risk.


Airplane travel is safer than car travel...therefore all should be forced to fly instead of drive.

[kwassa]

53. but .... but ... why should I pay for your choice to take a high risk?

like I said, not all risks are equal, be they gambling, the stock market, or personal.

Like unprotected sex with someone who is HIV positive. You might not get the aids virus ....

[kwassa]

30. here is what the government says on who pays the injury bills

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/PEOPLE/INJURY/pedbimot/motorcycle/Motorcycle_HTML/overview.html#7

A number of the reviewed studies examined the question of who pays for medical costs. Only slightly more than half of motorcycle crash victims have private health insurance coverage. For patients without private insurance, a majority of medical costs are paid by the government. Some crash patients are covered directly through Medicaid or another government program. Others, who are listed by the hospital as “self-pay” status, might eventually become indigent and qualify for Medicaid when their costs reach a certain level.

[Robb]

32. Yes, but 60% of ALL drivers

...are either covered solely by public insurance or have none whatsoever. Per the same website. :shrug:

[kwassa]

39. Link?

[Courtesy Flush]

36. Those crazies don't just kill themselves.

They sometimes take other people down with them. They should pay super-high premiums. Problem is, some won't care, as long as they have the money, they'll do what they damn well please.

http://www.lakepirateforums.com/Forums/viewtopic/t=6602.html

[politicat]

70. If you really check the stats, motorcycles are actually safer.

And motorcycle drivers are better insured. But you have to wade through a bunch of statistics and know math and statistical analysis to really see it.

Kwassa wrote:
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/PEOPLE/INJURY/pedbimot/motorcy...

A number of the reviewed studies examined the question of who pays for medical costs. Only slightly more than half of motorcycle crash victims have private health insurance coverage. For patients without private insurance, a majority of medical costs are paid by the government. Some crash patients are covered directly through Medicaid or another government program. Others, who are listed by the hospital as “self-pay” status, might eventually become indigent and qualify for Medicaid when their costs reach a certain level.

That slightly more than half was actually 57.3%, per the same document.

Then Robb said this:  Yes, but 60% of ALL drivers ...are either covered solely by public insurance or have none whatsoever. Per the same website.

I found the citation from the Bureau of Labor statistics after some digging: only 45% of all adults in the US are covered by private health insurance of any sort, and as we all know, those insurances vary greatly in quality of care. (reprint here: http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2004/0504woolman.html) Since 90% of all adults drive, we can assume that only 40% of (a subtraction of the 10% of adults who don't drive) drivers have private health insurance. The rest are either self-insured or covered by government assistance programs (15% have no health insurance at all, according to Census figures ( http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2004/0504woolman.html ) Thus, drivers are less likely to be covered by private health care than motorcyclists, putting a greater strain on the public purse.

Now, the second question: Are motorcyclists more likely to extract higher payout rates as a result of traffic accidents than non-motorcyclists?

The 2005 statistics state that about 10% of the fatalities in traffic incidents involved motorcycles. Since 10% of the vehicles on the road are motorcycles, this is right in line with probability.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/template.MAXIMIZE/menuitem.a8131659c3c0a2381601031046108a0c/?javax.portlet.tpst=4670b93a0b088a006bc1d6b760008a0c_ws_MX&javax.portlet.prp_4670b93a0b088a006bc1d6b760008a0c_viewID=detail_view&javax.portlet.begCacheTok=token&javax.portlet.endCacheTok=token&itemID=90492116fd7ba010VgnVCM1000002c567798RCRD&overrideViewName=PressRelease

in 2005, there were 1,573,000 passenger cars, 872,000 light trucks, 27,000 large trucks, 10,000 other vehicles and 11,000 buses involved in vehicular injuries, verus 87,000 motorcycle injuries.

2,494,000 injuries in, for ease of use, caged vehicles, versus 87,000 uncaged injuries. So 3.48% of all injuries are motorcycle-related. Since 10% of all vehicles are motorcycles, the numbers state that riding a motorcycle is safer than being in a car by at least an order of magnitude, and about as dangerous as being a pedestrian (who accounted for 64,000 of the injuries.)

From the table on http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSF2005/OverviewTSF05.pdf

The other interesting thing I found was that a third of motorcycle fatalities are the result of unlicensed, underage and intoxicated riders being on a bike -- persons who have no place anywhere near a bike. Should we punish the law-abiding riders because of young idiots who have done us all a favor by removing themselves from the gene pool?

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/buses/GTSS/factmotorcycle.html
Nearly one out of three motorcycle operators, age 15 through 18, involved in fatal crashes in 1999 were operating the vehicle with an invalid license.

Eleven percent of motorcycle operators, age 15 through 18, who died in single-vehicle crashes in 1999 were intoxicated.

[kwassa]

73. um, some problems with this analysis

You are measuring everything by number of vehicles owned, not number of miles driven by vehicle type. This will not give you a usable result.

policat:
"Now, the second question: Are motorcyclists more likely to extract higher payout rates as a result of traffic accidents than non-motorcyclists?

The 2005 statistics state that about 10% of the fatalities in traffic incidents involved motorcycles. Since 10% of the vehicles on the road are motorcycles, this is right in line with probability."

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/PEOPLE/INJURY/pedbimot/motorcycle/Motorcycle_HTML/overview.html

"Motorcycles are by far the most fuel-efficient class of highway vehicle, at 50 miles per gallon (FHWA 1999). Because they are capable of high speeds but offer minimal occupant protection, they also are the most hazardous highway vehicles: they have the highest crash costs per person-mile(Miller et al. 1999). Helmets are the best-evaluated way to reduce motorcycle deaths and injuries. They are 29-35 percent effective at preventing motorcycling deaths and substantially more effective against deaths from brain injury. They also significantly reduce nonfatal brain injury (NHTSA 1989; GAO 1990; CODES Report to Congress). Annually, more than 2,500 motorcyclists die in traffic crashes. The number of motorcyclists dying on the highway fell to a historic low in 1997, and the number of motorcyclists injured in crashes has fallen by 40 percent from the 1990 level. However, since 1997, motorcyclist fatalities have increased over more than 40 percent and data indicate that motorcycle crash-related injuries are also increasing."

[AirmensMom]

46. Let's see here ...

Do you eat fast food? Non-organic foods? Eat ANYTHING? (You could choke, you know.) Drink city/county water? Use chemicals in your daily life, including artificial fragrances? Live in an area with any chance of hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, hail, ice storms, lightening strikes, earthquakes or crime? Drive at all? Have a family history of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, or anything else that's life-threatening and/or expensive to treat? Surf, swim in the ocean ... swim at all? Take showers? (The bathroom is a very dangerous place, after all.) Where do you want to draw the line? :shrug:

Insurance companies will find every way possible to increase your premiums, even if you are a low risk. Look at how the auto insurance rates are now connected to your credit rating. If you're over 50, you will automatically pay more for insurance because of "no record of credit before the age of 25" (they don't keep records that long), even if you have never had an accident or ticket and have always paid your bills on time. If you rent your home instead of owning, you will pay more. In this case, it has absolutely nothing to do with dangerous pastimes. How much of our car insurance goes to pay for uninsured drivers? "Life threatening fun" is not the only things driving up the cost of health care and insurance rates.

FWIW, last time I bought life insurance, it asked about sky diving as well as smoking and a few more activities I can't remember since I don't do. And I pay more every year, just because I had the nerve to live another year longer. When my daughter bought group health insurance, she had to pay a hefty premium for prenatal coverage. It used to be included in the plan back when I was having babies. So, it looks like you'll get your wish sooner or later. If you ask me, it's a slippery slope and we're already headed down it.

[In_The_Wind]

54. I feel safer on my Trike than I do in my car on most days.

I used to drive a huge school bus but sometimes I swear the bus was wearing a cloak of invisibility. :shrug: I've never been a daredevil on two wheels or three. My lifestyle is a healthy one. I avoid unhealthy foods, activities and people like the plague. Am I a bigger risk than someone who barely passed drivers ed? I don't think so.

[Hand]

55. "If you have a ten-dollar head, wear a ten-dollar helmet." nt

[Madrone]

56. Well ...

I guess that means when I get my motorcycle - probably one of these to start:


I won't be offering you a ride. :P

[politicat]

57. Depends on a lot of factors, but generally no. Life isn't safe.

When we finally get national health, you're going to have to deal and STFU about it.

My husband rides a motorcycle to commute, with leathers and helmet (in winter) or an armored jacket and helmet (in warmer weather.) He took the safety training classes, has far more reflectivity on his bike and jacket than Liberace, and he's highly defensive. He's a better driver than most of ya'll in cars, and it's not his skill nor his reaction time nor his actions that make me afraid when he's on the road -- it's you dumbshits in your metal cages who don't give a shit and can't share a road. 80% of motorcycle accidents are not caused by the motorcyclist; they're caused by the people in the cars who can't be bothered to take their phones out of their ears, their hands off their Starschmucks, and their eyes off their in-car DVD players. (The 80% number is 2003 NTSB.) And even so, we still have to pay outrageous insurance premiums for him and his bike, and his life insurance premium went way up. We ARE paying for being environmentally responsible, so don't go giving me the oh pity me for having to pay higher premiums.

The fact is: Life is hazardous. People die every day from choking on their food, slipping in the tub, walking under the wrong tree on the wron street... My great-grandfather nearly lost a foot due to a farming accident. Do you want to make farmers pay even more outrageous insurance premiums because their jobs are hazardous? If so, get used to starving. Farmers are in economic straits as it is, and they don't get workman's comp. Life is dangerous. A cousin is in a wheelchair because she slipped in the shower and fell just wrong.

And yet... I've been an avid kayaker and rafter since I was 13. I've never been hurt in a river... but I blew both knees (ACL), once while getting off the bus after my daily commute (stepped just wrong) and once while riding my bicycle and being forced to dodge an idiot in... a big steel cage with a motor. I've taken more out of my insurance company by being a responsible citizen and not driving myself and by exercising than I ever have by doing something risky. So you tell me... what makes more sense for my insurance company to raise my rates for: being healthy and responsible, or sitting on my bum every day and doing nothing (and thus, risking nothing.)

[Tyler Durden]

68. You're missing my point.

TAX supported institutions like Single Payer systems are non-actuarial because they do not require volutary support through premiums designed to create PROFIT for the offering entity.

As long as the system is MARKET based (and I would surely rather it wasn't) then I OBJECT to subsidizing ANYONE's Dangerous Hobby.

[qnr]

59. Depends upon the tables you're looking at. For example, the insurance

on my 50cc scooter is higher because multi-ton vehicles like to crash into things and destroy them, whereas my tires generally bounce off.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

60. Getting out of bed in the morning is dangerous.

Insuring "dangerous" things is nothing more than a person wagering he can do something extremely stupid and get away with it. If he wins, he walks away. If he loses, he or his estate wins a lot of money.

Motorcycling is only as dangerous as the person on the bike- I personally know people who should not be in control of ANY vehicle.

Smoking (tobacco) is a bizarre kind of personal gamble- you bet you can inhale poisonous fumes repeatedly over a period of years and nothing bad will happen to you. Unfortunately, that's a bet you're almost certain to lose in the long run. I've seen what smoke-induced lung cancer can do to a person- it's a horrid, painful, prolonged way to lose that particular bet.

If you really want to stay safe, stay in bed. Better yet, crawl UNDER the bed and never open your eyes. The only problem is, if you win the bet with that strategy, there's not much you can spend your money on while living on the floorboards of your bedroom.

[ForrestGump]

62. I ride a motorcycle

(very well -- learned how 31 years ago), I drive better than most people (probably in part because riding a bike tends to make for a better driver), I've climbed, sailed, kayaked (including surf and whitewater), studied martial arts for 20 years (wanna talk about potential for injury?), and for many years dived as part of my career (would've dived, anyway, but my professional diving took me to remote areas and caused me to dive under conditions recreational divers would have skipped). In other words, I could be seen as an irresponsible thrillseeker given that most of my life's activities have revolved around things that many or most would consider inherently marked by elevated risk of physical harm.

The key is that I was always good at what I chose to do (I ensured I was good at it, through being well prepared...I never just jumped into anything) and I knew my limitations and respected the risks and the environments in which I took them. When I didn't feel like I was especially suited to an activity -- climbing and whitewater kayaking -- I faded away from it over time. The risk of 'high-risk' activities normalizes when the person participating in them is good at what they do, cautious in their execution of it, and aware of their capabilities and limitations. I don't see how you can make blanket statements about high-risk activities, given that the real risk is so variable in response to several factors and very dynamic even within an individual. I'd wager I'm in lower likelihood of serious mishap while engaged in some of these 'risky' activities than I would be doing more innocuous things, like crossing a road or starting a restaurant thread on DU.

I am not a thrillseeker or daredevil -- quite the contrary, actually. I can be too cautious, at times. I'm a pretty prudent dude, usually. Some risk is necessary -- by definition, it's unavoidable in life, the only sure thing (and the only statistic to trust) being that ten out of ten people die -- but I have never been a gung-ho thrillseeking adrenaline junkie, and I frown upon those who are (for one, they tend to be very dangerous people to be around). I grew up around outdoorsmen who were among and who associated with some of the élite of the climbing, kayaking, sailing, and adventure communities -- not one of those men was a foolhardy daredevil. Daredevils don't last long in the kinds of environments they visited.

Not fair to punish someone like me who engages in activities deemed 'dangerous,' not when the risks are controlled far beyond the level you encounter on the streets every day during your commute. And I wouldn't trade anything for the things I've seen and experienced while engaged in those activities.

[idgiehkt]

63. I knew

I'd get at least three or four good paragraphs out of this thread...

I've been watching it all day...

[ForrestGump]

64. You!

:D

Hi. :hi:

[idgiehkt]

65. well, I have.

so thanks.

:hi:

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

66. Exactly.

Someone who knows what their doing & knows their limits is probably less likely to hurt themselves doing something "dangerous," than some spaz is doing something "safe."

[benEzra]

67. Not unless we "bravehearts" can exclude the sedentary from OUR premiums

since those of you who don't ride motorcycles, but who don't get out and run or cycle or do anything more strenuous than walking, are going to cost the health care system a LOT more than motorcycle riders in the long run.

The problem I see with this scenario is that it opens the door to allowing insurance companies to legislate behavior. Unless you are a sexually monogamous, diet-conscious, in-shape, non-alcohol-drinking, non-risk-taking person who doesn't do ANYTHING the public health nannies disapprove of, you would be subjected to what amount to exhorbitant fines in order to get your ass into conformity with how The Man thinks you should live your life. Let's not go there.

[MissMillie]

71. I didn't think that motor vehicle injuries were covered under health

insurance. I thought those were covered under auto/motorcycle insurance. In which case, the rates probably are different, right?