Re: helmets

[Sue Brown <sbrown@wamedes.com>]

I don't know who is trying to make what point here.  From how I see it,
this is how it goes in the "taking care of..." department.

Head injuries very often end up needing supportive care for the rest of
their lives...as do serious spinal injuries.  Everything else is more or
less short term care.  In the insurance end of things, short term care is
the least expensive and it's the "long termers" (plus some other categories
ie preemies with problems, and such...but I digress)...are responsible for
our outrageous insurance costs today.  One such patient can suck a lot of
funds out of an insurance company in a hurry...and then continue to require
supplemental funds forever.  Once the insurance policy is used up, the
funds then come from the family's assets, and then the government.  

Granted a helmet isn't going to stop a spinal injury but it *will* give the
one who hits their *head* a fighting chance of NOT needing supportive
medical care and financial supplementation forever.  I don't think I could
live with the fact (if I was even able to comprehend anything) that I was
singularly responsible for the ruin of my family by not doing what I could
to prevent it...simply wearing a helmet.  In the end, it's everyone around
you that will end up eating the costs of the "personal" choice.  It's a lot
more bother and pain (not to mention what you'd miss out on for the rest of
your life) to be permanently brain damaged than it is to endure a little
sweat, weight, hat hair, or what ever other reason I've heard.

Damn soap box is getting a lot of use lately. ;-)

Sue


>Lousiest excuse I ever heard!!!!  What if I broke my leg in a fall?  The
>helmet sure does not protect that and I still would have to be rescued.  So
>lay off that argument.
>
>Teddy
>
>Randy Glanville wrote:
>
>> I just would like to point out something that has not yet been
>> addressed on the helmet discussion.
>> As Terri said: ""Pro-choicers" you do have a right to your choice and I
>> commend you for speaking out on your opinion." Terri (I am in agreement
>> with Terri.)  BUT...
>>  Now, the Pro-choice person has made the choice to not wear a helmet.
>> Pro-choice person is involved in an accident that has
>> left said person unable to take care of themselves because said
>> person was not wearing a helmet. Someone else now has to care
>> for this person. Because pro-choice person choose not to wear
>> a helmet- someone else is left with no choice but to take care
>> of this person. Is that fair?
>>                         Just a thought,
>>                                         Jackie in ca.
>>

sbrown@wamedes.com
Tyee Farm
Marysville, Wa.