The $$$ always comes from somewhere. . .
As a final point to those who proposed not to allow public funds for care of individuals who crash a motorcycle without a helmet:
1. First, it's interesting, but would never, ever fly. Bleeding heart sentiment would win everytime. There would be pictures of disabled bikers in the paper every day saying, "Aren't I human, TOO? Now I've got all these bills. . ." And people would cry.
2. Removing public funding wouldn't stop them from receiving care anyway, if it's some eugenic argument you're shooting for. My hospital doesn't see an enormous amount of Medicaid patients as a result of our location (compared to inner-city), but we, like all other hospitals, tend to collect about 65-70% of our charges in a good day. The average motorcyclist is probably not eligible for Medicaid. He might not be able to afford insurance, but that doesn't mean Medicaid eligibility by a long shot. So, he comes in uninsured, guess who eats it every time? That's right, you do, Mister Consumer! That's why you pay $2 for a 4x4 gauze pad and $6 for a dose of Extra-Strength Tylenol. It's because we never get money from a third of folks who receive care. And legally, we cannot deny emergency care to anyone, under any circumstances, as things stand currently. Nor would I. Just some financial food for thought. . .
3. Personally, I like the helmet law with an insurance requirement. Call me crazy! I'll bet it would reduce (not eliminate) the number of helmetless uninsureds out there!