Very few people will be paying those bills themselves.

If insured, then they will just pay a fraction as insurance costs, the true costs spread across other insured.

If not insured, then other insured will be paying, the hospital will treat and charge later, not many people will be able to cover these costs if no insurance. Thus hospital costs reflect none paid bills and this is passed on to insurers.

Yes, I know something of health insurance, having worked for Aetna US Healthcare and Tenet healthcare. If the hospital is organized the uninsured person will be refused treatment at the point of service and shipped to county. If not, they will gain service until the mistake is discovered and then turfed. The insurer will come after them for the costs incurred. By and large the individual will pay, by premium or by bill.

The county medical bills are a cost to society at large but, again, most people indulge in some form of risky behaviour potentially landing the taxpayer with a bill. Breeding is a glaring example. All such behaviours cannot be stamped out without unreasonably constraining personal freedom.

In the case of head trauma wouldn't refusing treatment be illegal.

Given the likely demographic and costs involved I doubt most will be able to pay; after bankruptcy I assume only a fraction of the costs will have been paid.

The form of words is, I think, "immediate treatment", drug 'em and ship 'em. You assume though that the person has been delivered to the hospital by a friend, unlikely in the case of a motorcycle crash.

Head trauma is an example of minimal cost to society, whether in the US or Canada. The person writhes for a while while the woman from organ havesting jumps up and down panting. Shortly thereafter, when the next of kin has been adequately browbeaten, the plug is pulled and the bits grabbed. It's nothing like the potential cost to we taxpayers as someone producing a child.

I have insurance, and wear a helmet (not that it will do much good if I hit a tree).

WRT to whole helmet debate, I prefer freedom of choice. ATV'ing I rarely bother unless out with a friend's son who's too young to make an informed choice, so we set a good example.

For skiing, a helmet's as much a convenient warm hat as anything, and a mount for a camera, but I'm traveling twice as fast on skis than on an ATV trail, so it makes sense. A helmet just gives me bigger balls and an excuse to go faster generally.

Never mind the financial cost, how about the impact on the rest of the life of the driver who crashes into a helmetless biker?

Its bad enough after a relatively inconsequential accident, but to kill or seriously hurt someone else must be pretty hard to live with even if there was nothing you could do to avoid it.

Helmets for skiing have not actually reduced death rates much, if at all. The kind of G forces in the accidents that kill skiers a helmet wont help with, but they do prevent a lot of concussions and other less fatal head injuries, especially those from slow speed tumbles on hard icy surfaces.

The kind of deaths avoided by skiers remaining concious and in control after a clash of heads are negated by those of people being reckless cos of the perceived sense of safety I guess.

I'm libertarian enough to say knock yourself out. Still, the way I see it is that not wearing a seat belt or crash helmet is a self centred affectation of rebelliousness that just makes the person who does it look like an idiot.

I always thought helmets for parachute jumpers were also a little silly.

Plus a $167 poorer in BC.

Perhaps we could cut out the accident bit by just harvesting the organs of people we consider to be a danger to themselves. Taking it a step further harvest the organs of people who have had kids. That should reduce insurance and medical costs.

I don't think it's had any impact on the rest of my life though I can't honestly tell you if either he or the passenger were wearing helmets. I don't think their attire would have made any difference to me.

Not really, if it stops you losing conciousness after a clash of heads with another parachuter then you will be awake to pull the ripcord... Thats kind of the theory with ski helmets too I believe...there to protect you from the 6 foot fall to the ground, not the 60mph crash into a tree.

I was refering to the general majority of the population, the ones with a conscience