Yesterday on the show we discussed a new study that was peddled by the AP via the South Bend Tribune. The study was railing against the repeal of Michigan’s mandatory helmet law. Now, if over 21, the rider can decide to wear a helmet or not.
The average medical claim from a motorcycle crash rose by more than one-fifth last year in Michigan after the state stopped requiring all riders to wear helmets, according to an insurance industry study. Across the nation, motorcyclists opposed to mandatory helmet use have been chipping away at state helmet laws for years while crash deaths have been on the rise.
My first reaction to the crash death statement is … so what?
There isn’t anyone alive who doesn’t realize that if you get smacked by a car without a helmet, your chances of dying are way higher than if you had a helmet on. That’s not in dispute, never was. The issue is whether the rider should be FREE to decide for themselves.
This article wasn’t just another helmet law debate though. It brought math into the equation. When the press starts writing about math, you know you’re in for a good time.
The average insurance payment on a motorcycle injury claim was $5,410 in the two years before the law was changed, and $7,257 after it was changed — an increase of 34 percent, the study by the Highway Loss Data Institute found.
An increase of 34% eh?
Gee, what about the fact that ALL medical expenses have increased in the past couple of years since Obamacare was passed? Let’s not forget the natural increase in costs due to inflation too. How much has that gone up over the same period of time in this study?
Oh, they didn’t pay any attention to that. Shocker, I know, the cost of medicine has gone up across the board the past two years, and this study didn’t even factor that into their equation.
I did find this ditty on HuffPo though:
Insurance companies will have to pay out an average of 32 percent more for medical claims on individual health policies under President Barack Obama’s overhaul, the nation’s leading group of financial risk analysts has estimated.
Hmmm … 34% is mighty close to 32%. Don’t you think?
It’s bad enough that the study, which was obviously done for political reasons, ignored this fact, but the AP missed ignored it too.
But hey, at least Michigan isn’t California (seems odd being able to say that).
Last week, the state of California claimed that its version of Obamacare’s health insurance exchange would actually reduce premiums. “These rates are way below the worst-case gloom-and-doom scenarios we have heard,” boasted Peter Lee, executive director of the California exchange. But the data that Lee released tells a different story: Obamacare, in fact, will increase individual-market premiums in California by as much as 146 percent.