Granholm's Veto of the Law to repeal the MI helmet law

[Nym90]

I choose no effect.  Most people are comfortable with the law.  My second choice would be a little bit of negative effect if she passed it.  It is a non partisian issue as we found on your other thread.  This would have been a major foot in the door for Mr. DeVos as he could say he wanted to keep Michiganders safe.  I think only a handfull of people want it repealed and they kick up a stink every year.  One thing for sure, the insurance industry is so in favor of the helmet law, that I doubt any legislator or governor could resist the lobbying.

The insurance industry's support of it is one of the best reasons to oppose it if you ask me.

[Nym90]

I tend to not get too excited about the insurance industry either.

Of course, since it did pass the house and senate, only a governor stands in the way of its repeal.

I have to disagree about saying that it is ones own business on several fronts.

For one, the cost to society in $$$$ is enormous.  While many tend to say that lawsuits are raising health insurance cost.  It is catastrophic claims that strain our healthcare costs more than anything else (or, so I learned from a healthcare administrator).  A rider involved in a severe closed head injury costs insurance companies huge sums of money which gets passed on to us.  And of course, they wouldn't want to dip into those outrageous prifits, so they raise the rates for you and I.  Those without insurance will raise the cost of hospital opperations because many, if not most, will not pay their bills.  Those on state assistance will, of course, effect our taxes in the long run.

Second, the human effect is is enormous.  Anybody who has ever cared for someone with a severe head injury can tell you this.  No matter what side of the Terry Scheivo case you are on, this is what you can end up with.

These cases are assuming that you live, of course.

My neighbors are big time bikers and very serious about their helmets.  They tell me that they do impair your orrientation a little, but like anything else, you get used to it.  It is a small price to pay, just to not have the wind in your hair.

I'd strongly support taking all of the money currently spent on enforcement of the seat belt and helmet laws and use it for education campaigns to persuade people about how stupid it is to not wear a seat belt or not use a helmet. And of course children should be required to use both.

Since removal of these laws would result in a loss of revenue for the police, I'd support a slightly higher income tax (especially for those on the higher end of the spectrum) to make up for the lost revenue.

But I just think that punishing people for not wearing a belt or a helmet is the exact wrong way to go about reducing these behaviors. Carrots are far more effective than sticks as a solution to this problem.