Sport Bikes banner

1 - 20 of 46 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,428 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
At the company I work for, there is talk about the health insurance requiring that if you participate in "high risk" activities, they are going to issue minimum safety equipment requirements to be covered. I asked specifically about motorcycles. Was told that motorcycle riders must attend an approved safety class every 2 years, and we will have a minimum gear requirement. They are taking about 3/4 or better helmet, over the ankle boots, motorcycle spec gloves, and motorcycle spec jacket. They are going to make people that ski and snowboard to wear a helmet. There is going to be a bunch of angry people if this goes through, it's not just motorcycles.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,613 Posts
I don't think its a big deal. If you play, you pay. I've accepted years ago that motorcycling is a luxury and not just another mode of transportation. Even for Harley douchebags.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
249 Posts
It should be required to wear protective gear. There are alot of fatalities/injuries that should not of happened or could have been prevented with proper gear. Why should I have to pay more for my insurance because of claims from a squid getting road rash because he was wearing flips, shorts, wife beater and a gay hat backwards?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,709 Posts
It is about time, people can go without gear but those of us that are smart enough to use it shouldn't have to pay for those that are dumb enough to go without.

Now they need to triple or quadruple the cost of medical insurance for smokers and morbidly obese people and discount insurance for those that are not addicts.
 

·
Are we not men?
Joined
·
9,013 Posts
What happened to personal responsibility in this country? How about liberty?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
495 Posts
I understand the motivation of the insurance companies and find it difficult to criticize.

I biannual motorcycle review is no more a problem than the biannual flight review that I must endure for my flying privilege.

Personal freedom is always the sacrificial lamb, and once we agree to these mandates it becomes a slippery slope to the loss of others.
 

·
A guy on a scruffy bike
Joined
·
15,367 Posts
As a private company, they have the right to decide the terms of their policies, and you have the right to accept that policy, or find a different one.

The complicating factor is (surprise!) the fact that insurance isn't a free market where that principle fully applies, due to government meddling in the market. Because it's your work policy, due to government fucking around with people and the labor market, you don't have much choice in whether to accept the policy or not (or at least if you don't and get a separate policy it's a huge additional expense), so I agree with protesting this move on that grounds.

But the core problem isn't really that the insurance company wants to cut costs; it's that you have little choice of insurance due to government regulations and tax policies and so on.

PhilB
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ghoti and max384

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,613 Posts
As a private company, they have the right to decide the terms of their policies, and you have the right to accept that policy, or find a different one.

The complicating factor is (surprise!) the fact that insurance isn't a free market where that principle fully applies, due to government meddling in the market. Because it's your work policy, due to government fucking around with people and the labor market, you don't have much choice in whether to accept the policy or not (or at least if you don't and get a separate policy it's a huge additional expense), so I agree with protesting this move on that grounds.

But the core problem isn't really that the insurance company wants to cut costs; it's that you have little choice of insurance due to government regulations and tax policies and so on.

PhilB
But lets not forget that insurance companies (oligopolies, monopolies, ect) USE the government (legislation) to control the market. a true free market would never tolerate monopolies as they wouldn't be able to adapt and compete on a long term. That would mean anti-trust enforcement.
 

·
Mediocre Strafer
Joined
·
9,137 Posts
As a private company, they have the right to decide the terms of their policies, and you have the right to accept that policy, or find a different one.

The complicating factor is (surprise!) the fact that insurance isn't a free market where that principle fully applies, due to government meddling in the market. Because it's your work policy, due to government fucking around with people and the labor market, you don't have much choice in whether to accept the policy or not (or at least if you don't and get a separate policy it's a huge additional expense), so I agree with protesting this move on that grounds.

But the core problem isn't really that the insurance company wants to cut costs; it's that you have little choice of insurance due to government regulations and tax policies and so on.

PhilB
I doubt you'd have much choice even in a totally free market - why would an employer be motivated to offer manifold policy options? It's not a decision point for most employees or candidates, and since they change frequently, you wouldn't be guaranteed an option year to year anyway.

KeS
 

·
You are here
Joined
·
3,535 Posts
Can't blame an insurance company for trying to reduce expenses. I was just biometrically assayed for my health insurance. If you have a healthy lifestyle you pay less. Makes sense to me.
 

·
A guy on a scruffy bike
Joined
·
15,367 Posts
I doubt you'd have much choice even in a totally free market - why would an employer be motivated to offer manifold policy options? It's not a decision point for most employees or candidates, and since they change frequently, you wouldn't be guaranteed an option year to year anyway.

KeS
In a free market, you'd have many choices, since your health insurance wouldn't be tied to your employment in the first place. There's no good reason for that to be the case, and plenty of good reasons why it shouldn't be the case (this sort of thing among them). The only reason it is the case for most people is previous government meddling and intervention in the labor market, which ought to be undone.

PhilB
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,613 Posts
In a free market, you'd have many choices, since your health insurance wouldn't be tied to your employment in the first place. There's no good reason for that to be the case, and plenty of good reasons why it shouldn't be the case (this sort of thing among them). The only reason it is the case for most people is previous government meddling and intervention in the labor market, which ought to be undone.

PhilB
You dont have a real free market without real antitrust enforcemwnt.

If you think the government "meddling" is a b***** problem than conglomerates throwing their weight around, you got it all backwards
.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,600 Posts
They need to make as much money as they can. Within 2 years of full implementation of ACA on Jan 1, 2014, all health insurance companies will be put out of business when single-payer gets passed and signed
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,263 Posts
They can do whatever they want. That's part of having the choice of health insurers. If you don't like it, pick a new one. You won't get your employer to subsidize it though, so it'll cost you more.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,613 Posts
They need to make as much money as they can. Within 2 years of full implementation of ACA on Jan 1, 2014, all health insurance companies will be put out of business when single-payer gets passed and signed
So you believe the government can run something so much more efficiently than the private sector that they will fail altogether? And you do not believe in competition (free market)? You have a strange respect/disrespect for the government it seems.
 
1 - 20 of 46 Posts
Top