. . . for people who ride motorcycles. Yes, this year at the old 'non-partisan' (cough) unicameral, our senators are addressing all sorts of VERY important issues. Like repealing a 20+ year motorcycle helmet law. We just don't like big brother mandating anything for us here in Nebraska (cough) er, like requiring motorcycle helmets. The irony inspired by the unicam is never disappointing, they're always everything they say they're not, and the joker laws they pass almost always result in embarrassment (see safe haven law). This year is no disappointment, now we have an amendment to this bill arguing for mandated long term health insurance in flippin Nebraska? Not only is our unicam full of clowns, but they have just validated every argument for health insurance there is.
Okay, so now, our extremely conservative unicam is considering mandated long term health care for motorcycle drivers. Let's think about the assumptions and logic involved in offering this amendment:
- An individuals choice to not wear a helmet hurts the rest of us
I used to make this argument, but not from a healthcare perspective, more from empathy for the parents, drivers, family, and the poor workers scraping brains off the ground perspective. But this argument is more about money and taxpayers, so they pretend to care. And in so doing, they admit that WE (taxpayers) PAY when someone gets hurt and are uninsured or more importantly, underinsured. Which brings me to my second assumption, and the more important one:
- All of us pay when someone has inadequate health insurance
These people are rescued by emergency workers and in emergency rooms, and they may need care for the rest of their lives due to severe brain injuries. If they don't have insurance, WE ALL PAY. And we pay more than we would if they did have insurance.
- Mandating coverage saves taxpayers money
I love, absolutely love how the legislator picks what they believe to be 'safe' issues, and manage to turn them into their worst nightmare.
Finally,
- regular old health insurance won't cut it!!!
Why? Because it sucks, that's why. It rarely covers for long term care needed when someone has severe brain damage. Why? Because of lifetime caps on coverage. How much does it cost to be in a nursing home for the rest of your life? exactly. And for long term care, WE ARE ALL underinsured. Because thats how for profit health insurance works.
So I'm just curious if any of our genius senators see the irony in this logic. And I guarantee all of them are against healthcare reform. sigh. I love watching them shoot themselves in the foot though. We couldn't ask for a better display of conservativism, clown shoes I tell ya. Repeal one relatively unintrusive but symbolic (and politically expedient) mandate, for one that defies every conservative talking point about healthcare and ADMITS there is REASON we made the first law in the first place.
**********
Another clown shoes example:
There is an amendment to end abortion after 20 weeks due to 'research' on pain (???? wtf????). I know, there is a reason no state has a law like this one, its frackin stupid and any one who has taken child development in college can see Sen. Flood has no idea what he is even talking about. Which he doesn't care, because it's politically expedient to be an idiot here.
This wouldn't be SO IRONIC, if Nebraska weren't also tasked with either coming up with a bill or cutting off medical care to immigrant pregnant women. Not so politically expedient, so no one touches it. Not even Flood. He is so pro-life, until he's not. Aren't they all though. They just display it here so effectively it leads me to believe all republicans in the state KNOW absolutely none of their arguments for anything are genuine or in good faith, and that is a-okay.