Michigan Lawmaker who opposed helmet laws dies in motorcycle crash

[HappyJoy]

It's like mandatory insurance you're paying for something that might happen, that's legalized extortion...
Just like with the helmet you might wreck, so you're forced with a helmet law to wear one of them fucking things.

You're paying for insurance in case your dumbass injures someone else you don't have the money to pay their medical bills. Are we arguing against this now too? Jesus.

Yeah it's a fucked up law, any type of mandatory insurance is legalized extortion.

No, driving is a privilege and there are costs associated with it. You don't have to have insurance, you can also post a bond and get your money back when you stop driving, choice is yours.

 

[JoeMoma]

First of all there's no guarantee a helmet will save your life, and if Wreck at high-speed's helmet may save your head but your neck will break so you will want to die. Wearing a helmet in town sucks ass, you can't hear shit, your vision is impaired, and you feel like a fucking bobble head.

Plus it's not about wearing the helmet or seatbelt, it's a government telling you what to do with your own fucking life. Someone famous once said "there are worse things than dying"…

I agree with everything. However, if you are riding and you aren't wearing a helmet don't ask the taxpayers to pay for your medical care. Deal?

Wearing a helmet may increase the need for medical care because dead people need very little medical care.

That's an argument?

It's an observation.

It's an invalid observation. Helmet laws reduce medical care, not increase.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/motorcycle/safebike/costs.html

Helmet laws significantly reduce the strain on public resources. Unhelmeted riders cost more to treat at the hospital, spend a longer time in rehabilitation, and are more likely to require some form of public assistance to for pay medical bills and rehabilitation. In 1991, prior to enacting its helmet law, California's state medical insurance program paid $40 million for the treatment of motorcycle-related head injuries. That figure dropped to $24 million after enactment of a universal helmet law.

The obsevation is still valid. Dead people don't need medical care. While you may still be correct that helmets do reduce medical costs, there are other medical costs other than head injuries. So the stats you give paint an incomplete picture of the situation.
That being said, my previous statement was meant tongue and cheek.

 

[Rustic]

Having your personhood controlled = slavery

Then every law is slavery. It's a ridiculous point. Having a drivers license is slavery, not selling cigarettes to minors is slavery, forcing doctors to have a degree in medicine in order to practice is slavery. Paying ANY taxes is slavery. Sad part is, you probably believe all of this.

Whether we are picking cotton for aristocrats, or paying taxes to the state so it can punish those that do not wear bicycle helmets.

Yeah, still not the definition of slavery. It's not even close, alarmingly uninformed.

Not all states have helmet laws, and they see no problem with it

And? What is your point? The state can do what it wants.

Bingo!
Live in the state that better suits you, oh wait the federal government pretty much disregards the 10th amendment.

Yeah, you're free to move to any state that doesn't have helmet laws.

Well I live in one, why do you progressives insist on federal laws covering everybody?
The federal government has no business in the personal, financial and recreational lives of its citizens.

 

[Onyx]

Yeah, you're free to move to any state that doesn't have helmet laws.

Sham argument.

You are justifying tyranny by telling people they are at liberty to pack up and leave their beloved homeland.

Conservatives use that exact same argument if you criticize the US.

 

[HappyJoy]

Go more in depth because all I've seen form you is this naive argument.

Just pettiness in this reply.

A discussion is a two way street. Need more information, then ask a specific question.

I've already provided links that helmet laws save lives and money. The only thing I've gotten form you is comparing helmet laws to slavery.

 

[Rustic]

It's like mandatory insurance you're paying for something that might happen, that's legalized extortion...
Just like with the helmet you might wreck, so you're forced with a helmet law to wear one of them fucking things.

You're paying for insurance in case your dumbass injures someone else you don't have the money to pay their medical bills. Are we arguing against this now too? Jesus.

Yeah it's a fucked up law, any type of mandatory insurance is legalized extortion.

No, driving is a privilege and there are costs associated with it. You don't have to have insurance, you can also post a bond and get your money back when you stop driving, choice is yours.

Just because of the law does not mean it's right, that's how fucked up things have become. The federal government is not the be-all end-all of all things.

 

[HappyJoy]

Yeah, you're free to move to any state that doesn't have helmet laws.

Sham argument.

You are justifying tyranny by telling people they are at liberty to pack up and leave their beloved homeland.

Conservatives use that exact same argument if you criticize the US.

Oh, helmet laws are not tyranny either.

Helmet laws are up to the state though. If you don't like them then you are welcome to petition the state, most likely you will lose because these laws aren't exactly unpopular and you're all about freedom, right?

 

[HappyJoy]

It's like mandatory insurance you're paying for something that might happen, that's legalized extortion...
Just like with the helmet you might wreck, so you're forced with a helmet law to wear one of them fucking things.

You're paying for insurance in case your dumbass injures someone else you don't have the money to pay their medical bills. Are we arguing against this now too? Jesus.

Yeah it's a fucked up law, any type of mandatory insurance is legalized extortion.

No, driving is a privilege and there are costs associated with it. You don't have to have insurance, you can also post a bond and get your money back when you stop driving, choice is yours.

Just because of the law does not mean it's right, that's how fucked up things have become. The federal government is not the be-all end-all of all things.

Correct, just because something is a law doesn't mean it's correct. But you've done a piss poor job of demonstrating the laws are incorrect and I'm sure there is a perfectly rational argument to make, it's just that you two clowns aren't getting it done. Your rhetoric sounds like the John Birch society.

 

[Onyx]

Helmet laws are up to the state though. If you don't like them then you are welcome to petition the state, most likely you will lose because these laws aren't exactly unpopular and you're all about freedom, right?

First off, we are clearly not discussing the same state.

Civil political input is irrelevant, and the topic expanded beyond just helmet laws. Principally you are a slave, and helmet laws are just a minor representation of that.

Like you were inquiring about earlier, the contention applies to all aspects of established law.

 

[Rustic]

Go more in depth because all I've seen form you is this naive argument.

Just pettiness in this reply.

A discussion is a two way street. Need more information, then ask a specific question.

I've already provided links that helmet laws save lives and money. The only thing I've gotten form you is comparing helmet laws to slavery.

Who gives a shit if some douche bag says that they save lives and save money, wearing a helmet because you might wreck is and should be a personal choice. Like I said before, wearing a helmet is especially in town sucks ass. You can't see shit, you can't hear shit and you feel like a fucking bobble head. It's as comfortable as wrapping your head in a blanket and putting on a 5 gallon pail on your head....

Pro-choice is the right thing

 

[HappyJoy]

I agree with everything. However, if you are riding and you aren't wearing a helmet don't ask the taxpayers to pay for your medical care. Deal?

Wearing a helmet may increase the need for medical care because dead people need very little medical care.

That's an argument?

It's an observation.

It's an invalid observation. Helmet laws reduce medical care, not increase.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/motorcycle/safebike/costs.html

Helmet laws significantly reduce the strain on public resources. Unhelmeted riders cost more to treat at the hospital, spend a longer time in rehabilitation, and are more likely to require some form of public assistance to for pay medical bills and rehabilitation. In 1991, prior to enacting its helmet law, California's state medical insurance program paid $40 million for the treatment of motorcycle-related head injuries. That figure dropped to $24 million after enactment of a universal helmet law.

The obsevation is still valid. Dead people don't need medical care. While you may still be correct that helmets do reduce medical costs, there are other medical costs other than head injuries. So the stats you give paint an incomplete picture of the situation.
That being said, my previous statement was meant tongue and cheek.

The stats I provided paint a picture in regards to head injuries which is what helmets prevent. They reduce the cost of medical care, not increase it. What you are doing (with no data at all) is saying those that die don't have medical bills. Ok, so? As a whole helmets reduce medical bills, why do you focus on just the dead?

 

[Rustic]

It's like mandatory insurance you're paying for something that might happen, that's legalized extortion...
Just like with the helmet you might wreck, so you're forced with a helmet law to wear one of them fucking things.

You're paying for insurance in case your dumbass injures someone else you don't have the money to pay their medical bills. Are we arguing against this now too? Jesus.

Yeah it's a fucked up law, any type of mandatory insurance is legalized extortion.

No, driving is a privilege and there are costs associated with it. You don't have to have insurance, you can also post a bond and get your money back when you stop driving, choice is yours.

Just because of the law does not mean it's right, that's how fucked up things have become. The federal government is not the be-all end-all of all things.

Correct, just because something is a law doesn't mean it's correct. But you've done a piss poor job of demonstrating the laws are incorrect and I'm sure there is a perfectly rational argument to make, it's just that you two clowns aren't getting it done. Your rhetoric sounds like the John Birch society.

Lol
Admit it, you just want to control other people. It seems to give you a hard on

 

[HappyJoy]

Helmet laws are up to the state though. If you don't like them then you are welcome to petition the state, most likely you will lose because these laws aren't exactly unpopular and you're all about freedom, right?

First off, we are clearly not discussing the same state.

Civil political input is irrelevant, and the topic expanded beyond just helmet laws. Principally you are a slave, and helmet laws are just a minor representation of that.

Like you were inquiring about earlier, the contention applies to all aspects of established law.

Do you believe that you are a corporation?

 

[Onyx]

Do you believe that you are a corporation?

Not under my definition.

 

[HappyJoy]

You're paying for insurance in case your dumbass injures someone else you don't have the money to pay their medical bills. Are we arguing against this now too? Jesus.

Yeah it's a fucked up law, any type of mandatory insurance is legalized extortion.

No, driving is a privilege and there are costs associated with it. You don't have to have insurance, you can also post a bond and get your money back when you stop driving, choice is yours.

Just because of the law does not mean it's right, that's how fucked up things have become. The federal government is not the be-all end-all of all things.

Correct, just because something is a law doesn't mean it's correct. But you've done a piss poor job of demonstrating the laws are incorrect and I'm sure there is a perfectly rational argument to make, it's just that you two clowns aren't getting it done. Your rhetoric sounds like the John Birch society.

Lol
Admit it, you just want to control other people. It seems to give you a hard on

Nope, have no desire to control anyone. Helmet laws are not up to me and to be honest before this thread started I probably would have described myself as in the middle, probably leaning towards these types of laws. Now, since looking into this more, finding some real data and then listening to you guys fall all over yourselves ranting about slavery and tyranny I think I've moved a little further into the pro-helmet law camp. Doesn't appear to be a valid argument against them. Who knows, maybe someone else will chime in that is a more grounded.

 

[Rustic]

Helmet laws are up to the state though. If you don't like them then you are welcome to petition the state, most likely you will lose because these laws aren't exactly unpopular and you're all about freedom, right?

First off, we are clearly not discussing the same state.

Civil political input is irrelevant, and the topic expanded beyond just helmet laws. Principally you are a slave, and helmet laws are just a minor representation of that.

Like you were inquiring about earlier, the contention applies to all aspects of established law.

Do you believe that you are a corporation?

I own 3 "s" corporations, so yes I am the corporation…

 

[HappyJoy]

Do you believe that you are a corporation?

Not under my definition.

What is your definition?

 

[HappyJoy]

Helmet laws are up to the state though. If you don't like them then you are welcome to petition the state, most likely you will lose because these laws aren't exactly unpopular and you're all about freedom, right?

First off, we are clearly not discussing the same state.

Civil political input is irrelevant, and the topic expanded beyond just helmet laws. Principally you are a slave, and helmet laws are just a minor representation of that.

Like you were inquiring about earlier, the contention applies to all aspects of established law.

Do you believe that you are a corporation?

I own 3 "s" corporations, so yes I am the corporation…

Not what I'm referring to.

 

[Rustic]

Yeah it's a fucked up law, any type of mandatory insurance is legalized extortion.

No, driving is a privilege and there are costs associated with it. You don't have to have insurance, you can also post a bond and get your money back when you stop driving, choice is yours.

Just because of the law does not mean it's right, that's how fucked up things have become. The federal government is not the be-all end-all of all things.

Correct, just because something is a law doesn't mean it's correct. But you've done a piss poor job of demonstrating the laws are incorrect and I'm sure there is a perfectly rational argument to make, it's just that you two clowns aren't getting it done. Your rhetoric sounds like the John Birch society.

Lol
Admit it, you just want to control other people. It seems to give you a hard on

Nope, have no desire to control anyone. Helmet laws are not up to me and to be honest before this thread started I probably would have described myself as in the middle, probably leaning towards these types of laws. Now, since looking into this more, finding some real data and then listening to you guys fall all over yourselves ranting about slavery and tyranny I think I've moved a little further into the pro-helmet law camp. Doesn't appear to be a valid argument against them. Who knows, maybe someone else will chime in that is a more grounded.

Why don't you leave things as they should be, pro choice. Or you get your rocks off telling other people what to do?

 

[Onyx]

What is your definition?

This seems very off topic and deflectionary from the relevant post.

A large commercial entity which operates as an industry leader.