Monday, April 16, 2012

Need a new liver? Your wait is over.


I would like to congratulate the voters of Michigan for repealing the helmet law and in the process relieving motorcycles riders of that oppressive burden in their civil rights, so that now they can ride their motorcycles with the true freedom that they deserve.

This bold first step in the elimination of the No-Fault law will become, I believe, a boon for critically ill patients in need of new organs.  Now that motorcycle riders are free from the violation of their civil rights that they have suffered for decades, the number of available organs from donors is certain to rise.

Sure, the manufacturers of helmets such as Simpson, Bell and Aria will suffer, but for those who have been on waiting lists for replacement organs, their wait will soon be over.

With that pesky obstacle out of the way for Michigan voters, what’s the hold up on the No-Fault law?  Insurance companies collect hundreds of millions of dollars each year in premiums from Michigan drivers.  Surely it’s enough of a burden for them to have to shell out a couple of thousand dollars to repair the damage to a bent fender.  Why should they be held responsible for the millions of dollars it would cost to support a person who has suffered a traumatic injury just because one of their customers got drunk and plowed into a minivan with a family of four?

Let the insurance companies keep the billions of dollars they have worked so hard to collect and make the tax payers support the victims through Medicare, at least until the coverage runs out after $250,000 and they are left to cover the remaining $5,000,000 over what’s left of their lives.

Seriously, it’s not the repeal of the helmet law that is questionable.  Personally, I wouldn’t get on a motorcycle without a helmet, and if someone chooses to ride a motorcycle without a helmet and take their lives in their own hands, who am I to tell them they can’t?

The troublesome issue is that the elimination of this law is the first step in the proposed elimination of the No-Fault law, which might be controversial, but not to those who have been seriously injured in an accident by someone who is not insured.  When I worked for a medical case manager, my eyes were opened to the effectiveness of this law in providing coverage for people who were critically injured in auto accidents and now required round-the-clock care, therapy and specialized equipment just to bring some semblance of normalcy back to their lives.  This is what we want to take away?

No comments: