"Things You Wouldn't Know If We Didn't Blog Intermittently."
Yup, injuries due to extreme recklessness should still be covered. They're covered by private insurance right now, and I don't want to see 'dangerous' sports become the exclusive domain of the wealthy (who can afford private insurance). Besides, isn't the entire point of single-payer insurance to make sure that everyone is covered, no matter what?That said, I'm in favor of helmet and seat belt laws. If you're going to be an idiot on the public dime, at least do it sensibly.(It does look like the guys in that video are thoroughly armored up. I've always wanted to hike up dirt spines like that, but biking? Not any time soon, thanks.)
I think I'd rather see injuries from extreme sports covered by government-sponsored health care than injuries resulting from crossing streets while texting...
I ride freestyle bmx, and all the injuries I've incurred over the past ten years have amounted to less money than treatment of the mildest heart attack. To discourage participation in certain sports would be limiting an increasingly girthy population to more socially acceptable sports - ones many people I know would feel uncomfortable playing. While the threshold for injury seriousness may be higher in "extreme" sports, the incidences of injury would certainly be lower when the participants are choosing sports more familiar to them.
Actually, the way that Car insurance SHOULD work would be the best way to go if we ever get single-payer medical insurance, which is; those who practice safer sports would pay less then those who practice extreme sports. BUT, regardless of how much money you PAY for the insurance, treatment should be equal in all cases.
What happens if someone's walking up the other way?
One thing I'd like to point out is that sports injuries heal fairly quickly.What REALLY costs health care is the long term treatment of heart disease, diabetes, and other ailments that are brought on by inactivity and obesity.People who enjoy the outdoors are generally fit and active well into their later years and have much fewer chronic health issues than people who sit around all day in front of the TV or computer doing nothing, day after day. In turn, because of having fewer health issues, medical support costs them much less.Even the cost of a rescue when an outdoor enthusiast is caught in an unusual location and is immobilized still costs less than the treatment of chronic disease for one year of someone suffering from heart disease. Consider some treatments which cost nearly $100 per pill, and those pills must be taken four times a day…
They should be covered. They also should be required to have insurance. Most people who are so vocal against an insurance requirement have no problem requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets, or boaters to have life vests aboard, citing the "costs to society" of potential injuries or deaths.There is also the complaint that the "taxpayer" will be paying for all the health care for those currently uninsured. Here is a news flash for you. They/we are paying for them now, every time you and your insurance pays a hospital $100 for an aspirin, or $75 for a bandaid, it goes to pay for indigent care plus a profit.
I'm sure the fish-bowl lens significantly contributed to the trail looking scarier (which, I imagine, is pretty scary already). I could tell it was elevating my heart rate and having just read this article: http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/07/07/misattribution-of-arousal/, which I think you would find interesting if you have not read it already, I found myself wondering how I could use the heightened state of arousal of watching youtube videos to my advantage...
"Most people who are so vocal against an insurance requirement have no problem requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets, or boaters to have life vests aboard, citing the "costs to society" of potential injuries or deaths."I'd like to see where that 'statistic' comes from.If you're going to require people to be on a single-payer plan, it's a slippery slope to start charging differently for more risky activities. One could argue that sitting in front of the TV eating ice cream is less risky than jogging on a sidewalk but I don't know that anyone would argue it is better for you.I thought the reason for the single-payer plan was that everyone pays through taxes and everyone is covered? I would hate to think I would have to start getting approval from some higher authority every time I decided to do something someone thought was risky.
I am more interested in what possible reason you could have for not covering "injuries from a sport like this".
Careful - if you say "yes, don't cover those injuries," you open the door for someone to say "we won't cover injuries sustained on a bike commute in a city, because that's obviously reckless." ...you start to take the evaluation of risk out of the individual's hands.
The desert is a very fragile place. It's sad to see it damaged like this. It would be one thing if you kept to bare rocks or a trail, but these guys are cutting through new soil. It takes, literally, decades for the soil to heal after even one pass with a bike.