After describing the controversy, namely that some say motorcycle injuries only hurt the rider and others say we all end up paying for the care of these injured guys, the author mentions a few fascinating benefits to the no-helmet-law idea.
At the risk of sounding macabre, let me note that a 50-year-old biker who dies in a wreck saves us money, since he won't be around to collect Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid in his old age. A 20-year-old fatality may yield a harvest of excellent organs for patients awaiting transplants.What's your opinion? Is this a case of the government being too invasive? Should motorcycle riders make up their own minds and we'll let the pros and cons balance themselves out?
Please leave a comment.