This week's blog assignment:
Do you agree or disagree with President Obama signing extended unemployment bill? Why or why not?
I have mixed feelings on this one. There are those who are unable to find work who want to find work and there are those who look at this as more time to do nothing and get paid for it.
My understanding is that people receive a check and then they cash and spend their check the same as you would a paycheck. There is no control over how the money is spent such as on the necessities like the rent/house payment, food, etc. The money can be used for anything like unneeded clothes, expensive cell phone plans, even drugs. (no, I'm not saying everyone on unemployment benefits buys drugs!)
There are many who are going to college to get a degree through a program for those who have lost a job and this requires them to be in school full time so they are not able to seek a full time job right now. If they are to lose benefits they will have to give up college. I fully support these individuals receiving the benefits. I have met several here at JCC since I've been taking classes. They are looking forward to graduating and working in their new careers. They are also working very hard at school because they cannot fail a class or they will have to pay for it.
I don't know how to solve the problem of those who completely abuse the unemployment program. Maybe if people could report those who they feel are getting the benefits who should not be getting them and it could be investigated. Maybe they do this already, I don't know.
I also worry about where the money is supposed to come from. None of the articles I read in newspapers seemed to mention this.
See you all in class, look forward to hearing the oral presentations. Only a 2 more weeks!!!
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Argumentative Paper
Should Michigan’s Helmet Law Stay or Go?
In Michigan there is a law requiring all motorcycle riders to wear a helmet. Biker’s rights groups and many motorcyclists are pushing for the law to be repealed. It actually has been repealed twice but both times was vetoed by the Governor. There is once again a bill in the legislature to repeal the law. This law should not be repealed because helmets prevent head injuries and save lives.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) report, “Traffic Safety Facts, Motorcycle Helmet Use Laws” states that motorcycle helmets are 67 percent effective in preventing brain injury and unhelmeted motorcyclists involved in crashes are 40 percent more likely to suffer a fatal head injury. They estimate that between 1984 and 2002 helmets saved the lives of 13,774 motorcyclists and 9,508 lives could have been saved by wearing a helmet. They report a reduction of motorcycle fatalities in the first year following passage of helmet laws in several states. In Oregon, a 33% reduction; Nebraska, 32%; Texas, 23%; Washington state, 15%; California 37%; and Maryland a 20% reduction. In contrast, when states repeal helmet laws there is an increase in motorcycle fatalities. Examples they cite include Arkansas with a 21% increase in the first year following the repeal, Texas, 31%; Kentucky, 37%; and Louisiana with a 48% increase. When states only require certain riders to wear helmets, such as under 18 years old, helmet use is much lower. Helmet laws that govern only minors are harder to enforce. (“Traffic Safety Facts”)
The Governor of Michigan is against repealing the law. Governor Jennifer Granholm has vetoed bills in 2006 and 2008. (“Michigan Governor again”) On March 25, 2010 the House passed a bill that would change the law to allow riders over 21 to ride without a helmet. Governor Granholm says she will veto the bill if passed by the senate. “Governor Granholm supports Michigan’s current law, which requires motorcycle riders to wear helmets. The Governor has said she has concerns about safety and what would happen to insurance costs if the law were repealed.” (“Michigan House Backs”) The bill would require motorcyclists who wish to ride without a helmet to carry $20,000 insurance coverage for medical costs, complete a motorcycle safety course, buy a $100 annual permit and have been licensed for at least 2 years. The bill is currently in the Senate Committee on Economic Development and regulatory Reform. (“House Bill 4747”)
The Michigan Department of Community Health (MDCH) released a statement the day after the House voted to pass the helmet repeal bill. The statement reads, “The decision to repeal the Michigan Helmet Law is completely misguided and it is a disservice to the people of Michigan.” It goes on to say that the cost of health and auto insurance for all residents will increase. Medicaid expenditures would increase. Costs of neurosurgery, intensive care, rehabilitation and long term care would, in many cases, be uncompensated care or be billed to Medicaid leaving the general population having to pay. (McCurtis)
There are more than just government agencies that support the helmet law. Emergency physicians support wearing helmets for motorcyclists. Dr. Angela Gardner, President of the American College of Emergency Physicians says, “Helmet use is the single most important factor in people surviving motorcycle crashes. They reduce the risk of head, brain and facial injury among motorcyclists of all ages and crash severities.” (“Injury Prevention”)
The American College of Surgeons statement on motorcycle helmet laws states that the
American College of Surgeons recognizes that:
Helmeted motorcycle riders have up to an 85 percent reduced incidence of severe, serious, and critical brain injuries compared with unhelmeted riders. Unhelmeted motorcyclists are over three times as likely to suffer a brain injury when compared with helmeted motorcyclists.
The average inpatient care costs for motorcyclists who sustain a brain injury are more than twice the costs incurred by hospitalized motorcyclists without brain injury.
A large portion of the economic burden of motorcycle crashes is borne by the public.
In states with universal helmet use laws, helmet use is close to 100 percent.
When universal helmet use laws are enacted, helmet use increases and fatalities and serious injuries decrease.
When universal helmet use laws are repealed, helmet use decreases and injuries and associate costs increase.
Therefore, the American College of Surgeons supports efforts to enact and sustain universal helmet laws for motorcycle riders. (“ST-35”)
The push to repeal our helmet law is led by motorcyclists and biker rights groups. Many motorcyclists just don’t want the government telling them what to do. One organization very active in lobbying against the helmet law is ABATE of Michigan. ABATE (American Bikers Aiming Toward Education) believes that riders should choose the extent of safety gear worn.
ABATE promotes education and fights against legislation. They believe the best way to reduce crashes is educating motorcyclists on how to ride safely and automobile drivers on motorcycle awareness. (“Our Mission”)
“The argument that helmet use is a choice fails to account for the societal costs associated with the decision not to wear a helmet.” “There is overwhelming evidence that helmet laws lead to a reduction in head injuries as well as deaths due to head injury, and that non-helmeted riders suffer injuries in motorcycle accidents that generate enormous direct and indirect costs to society.” (Neiman)
A Michigan study of costs for non-helmeted riders admitted to University of Michigan Health Systems from July, 1996 to October, 2000 showed non-helmeted riders had significantly increased incidence of head injuries but not other injuries. Hospital costs were higher for patients not wearing helmets. (Neiman)
AAA Insurance Company opposes repealing the helmet law. AAA spokesman, Jack Peet called the fee a “get out of jail free card”. Peet also states that “we cannot afford to pass this bill which would add $140 million in economic costs to Michigan citizens. Motorcycle crashes account for a disproportionate share of money paid out of the Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association (MCCA), which is a fund supported by a surcharge on every auto insurance policy. Motorcycles represent 1.7% of the assessments paid into MCCA but account for 6.7% of all claims. The $20,000 medical coverage wouldn’t begin to cover these catastrophic expenses.”(“AAA”)
Another argument against helmets is that they restrict the riders vision and ability to hear traffic. The Department of Transportation (DOT) established the standards which motorcycles helmets must meet or exceed to be legal. One of the standards is the amount of peripheral vision
a helmet must allow. Federal standards require helmets to allow for at least 105 degrees of peripheral vision. Most helmets provide a peripheral field of view greater than 210 degrees which falls within the normal peripheral vision range of 180 – 210 degrees. Their findings also show an inconsequential reduction in the rider’s ability to hear while wearing a helmet. (Neiman)
I have strong beliefs in the necessity of motorcycle helmets because of my own experience in the field of EMS for 13 years. I have treated motorcycle crash victims including some not wearing a helmet. It’s in my nature to want people to be protected against injuries but I can also understand people wanting it to be their choice and not government forcing them to wear helmets. It’s one of those things where there is such a fine line. A devastating injury or death affects more than just the individual. There is no protection for a motorcycle rider; they are out in the open. The most they can do is wear protective leather clothing and a good helmet.
It should be their choice but the fact is that their serious injuries, especially the long term debilitating ones, require very expensive care which few can afford so their care ends up being paid for by the citizens of the state through our Medicaid programs and the Catastrophic Claims fund. We have the choice to ride a motorcycle instead of driving a car; the helmet law is not there to take away our freedom. Motorcycle crashes almost always involve injury, shouldn’t we give ourselves all the protection possible and reduce our risk of life changing injuries as much as possible? I think so.
In Michigan there is a law requiring all motorcycle riders to wear a helmet. Biker’s rights groups and many motorcyclists are pushing for the law to be repealed. It actually has been repealed twice but both times was vetoed by the Governor. There is once again a bill in the legislature to repeal the law. This law should not be repealed because helmets prevent head injuries and save lives.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) report, “Traffic Safety Facts, Motorcycle Helmet Use Laws” states that motorcycle helmets are 67 percent effective in preventing brain injury and unhelmeted motorcyclists involved in crashes are 40 percent more likely to suffer a fatal head injury. They estimate that between 1984 and 2002 helmets saved the lives of 13,774 motorcyclists and 9,508 lives could have been saved by wearing a helmet. They report a reduction of motorcycle fatalities in the first year following passage of helmet laws in several states. In Oregon, a 33% reduction; Nebraska, 32%; Texas, 23%; Washington state, 15%; California 37%; and Maryland a 20% reduction. In contrast, when states repeal helmet laws there is an increase in motorcycle fatalities. Examples they cite include Arkansas with a 21% increase in the first year following the repeal, Texas, 31%; Kentucky, 37%; and Louisiana with a 48% increase. When states only require certain riders to wear helmets, such as under 18 years old, helmet use is much lower. Helmet laws that govern only minors are harder to enforce. (“Traffic Safety Facts”)
The Governor of Michigan is against repealing the law. Governor Jennifer Granholm has vetoed bills in 2006 and 2008. (“Michigan Governor again”) On March 25, 2010 the House passed a bill that would change the law to allow riders over 21 to ride without a helmet. Governor Granholm says she will veto the bill if passed by the senate. “Governor Granholm supports Michigan’s current law, which requires motorcycle riders to wear helmets. The Governor has said she has concerns about safety and what would happen to insurance costs if the law were repealed.” (“Michigan House Backs”) The bill would require motorcyclists who wish to ride without a helmet to carry $20,000 insurance coverage for medical costs, complete a motorcycle safety course, buy a $100 annual permit and have been licensed for at least 2 years. The bill is currently in the Senate Committee on Economic Development and regulatory Reform. (“House Bill 4747”)
The Michigan Department of Community Health (MDCH) released a statement the day after the House voted to pass the helmet repeal bill. The statement reads, “The decision to repeal the Michigan Helmet Law is completely misguided and it is a disservice to the people of Michigan.” It goes on to say that the cost of health and auto insurance for all residents will increase. Medicaid expenditures would increase. Costs of neurosurgery, intensive care, rehabilitation and long term care would, in many cases, be uncompensated care or be billed to Medicaid leaving the general population having to pay. (McCurtis)
There are more than just government agencies that support the helmet law. Emergency physicians support wearing helmets for motorcyclists. Dr. Angela Gardner, President of the American College of Emergency Physicians says, “Helmet use is the single most important factor in people surviving motorcycle crashes. They reduce the risk of head, brain and facial injury among motorcyclists of all ages and crash severities.” (“Injury Prevention”)
The American College of Surgeons statement on motorcycle helmet laws states that the
American College of Surgeons recognizes that:
Helmeted motorcycle riders have up to an 85 percent reduced incidence of severe, serious, and critical brain injuries compared with unhelmeted riders. Unhelmeted motorcyclists are over three times as likely to suffer a brain injury when compared with helmeted motorcyclists.
The average inpatient care costs for motorcyclists who sustain a brain injury are more than twice the costs incurred by hospitalized motorcyclists without brain injury.
A large portion of the economic burden of motorcycle crashes is borne by the public.
In states with universal helmet use laws, helmet use is close to 100 percent.
When universal helmet use laws are enacted, helmet use increases and fatalities and serious injuries decrease.
When universal helmet use laws are repealed, helmet use decreases and injuries and associate costs increase.
Therefore, the American College of Surgeons supports efforts to enact and sustain universal helmet laws for motorcycle riders. (“ST-35”)
The push to repeal our helmet law is led by motorcyclists and biker rights groups. Many motorcyclists just don’t want the government telling them what to do. One organization very active in lobbying against the helmet law is ABATE of Michigan. ABATE (American Bikers Aiming Toward Education) believes that riders should choose the extent of safety gear worn.
ABATE promotes education and fights against legislation. They believe the best way to reduce crashes is educating motorcyclists on how to ride safely and automobile drivers on motorcycle awareness. (“Our Mission”)
“The argument that helmet use is a choice fails to account for the societal costs associated with the decision not to wear a helmet.” “There is overwhelming evidence that helmet laws lead to a reduction in head injuries as well as deaths due to head injury, and that non-helmeted riders suffer injuries in motorcycle accidents that generate enormous direct and indirect costs to society.” (Neiman)
A Michigan study of costs for non-helmeted riders admitted to University of Michigan Health Systems from July, 1996 to October, 2000 showed non-helmeted riders had significantly increased incidence of head injuries but not other injuries. Hospital costs were higher for patients not wearing helmets. (Neiman)
AAA Insurance Company opposes repealing the helmet law. AAA spokesman, Jack Peet called the fee a “get out of jail free card”. Peet also states that “we cannot afford to pass this bill which would add $140 million in economic costs to Michigan citizens. Motorcycle crashes account for a disproportionate share of money paid out of the Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association (MCCA), which is a fund supported by a surcharge on every auto insurance policy. Motorcycles represent 1.7% of the assessments paid into MCCA but account for 6.7% of all claims. The $20,000 medical coverage wouldn’t begin to cover these catastrophic expenses.”(“AAA”)
Another argument against helmets is that they restrict the riders vision and ability to hear traffic. The Department of Transportation (DOT) established the standards which motorcycles helmets must meet or exceed to be legal. One of the standards is the amount of peripheral vision
a helmet must allow. Federal standards require helmets to allow for at least 105 degrees of peripheral vision. Most helmets provide a peripheral field of view greater than 210 degrees which falls within the normal peripheral vision range of 180 – 210 degrees. Their findings also show an inconsequential reduction in the rider’s ability to hear while wearing a helmet. (Neiman)
I have strong beliefs in the necessity of motorcycle helmets because of my own experience in the field of EMS for 13 years. I have treated motorcycle crash victims including some not wearing a helmet. It’s in my nature to want people to be protected against injuries but I can also understand people wanting it to be their choice and not government forcing them to wear helmets. It’s one of those things where there is such a fine line. A devastating injury or death affects more than just the individual. There is no protection for a motorcycle rider; they are out in the open. The most they can do is wear protective leather clothing and a good helmet.
It should be their choice but the fact is that their serious injuries, especially the long term debilitating ones, require very expensive care which few can afford so their care ends up being paid for by the citizens of the state through our Medicaid programs and the Catastrophic Claims fund. We have the choice to ride a motorcycle instead of driving a car; the helmet law is not there to take away our freedom. Motorcycle crashes almost always involve injury, shouldn’t we give ourselves all the protection possible and reduce our risk of life changing injuries as much as possible? I think so.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Bucket List assignment
This weeks assignment was the bucket list. I still do not have all 100 lines filled in. (I don't even have the first 50 filled in.) I don't know what I am going to write. It's not that I don't plan to do anything fun in my lifetime or that I don't have any dreams. Right now my life is consumed with school and work and I struggle to fit running in there. I figure that I just don't know yet what all the cool things are that I am going to do during the rest of my life. My kids are grown and as soon as I am done with school in December, 2012 I will get started with the rest of my life right away!!!
The first thing I wrote was that I want to do an Ironman triathlon someday. I don't know why but I figure that if I have run marathons and I've done smaller triathlons I should be able to work up to and complete an Ironman someday!!
Some of the other things I've written on the list:
*Fly with my Dad a few more times while he still has a pilots license (he's 72 and still going strong and still passes all tests!)
*go on a cruise (never have, always wanted to)
*collect all the special state quarters
*Climb Half Dome
Places to visit: Mount Rushmore, Florida Keys, Australia
Running related: qualify for Boston Marathon, Chicago marathon, Disney Goofy Challenge, Disney Princess weekend
Those are a few of the things I've written.
There are many things I have on my mind to pursue after I graduate from college. I wish these next two years would be gone already so that I can get on with it!!!
Lorenda
The first thing I wrote was that I want to do an Ironman triathlon someday. I don't know why but I figure that if I have run marathons and I've done smaller triathlons I should be able to work up to and complete an Ironman someday!!
Some of the other things I've written on the list:
*Fly with my Dad a few more times while he still has a pilots license (he's 72 and still going strong and still passes all tests!)
*go on a cruise (never have, always wanted to)
*collect all the special state quarters
*Climb Half Dome
Places to visit: Mount Rushmore, Florida Keys, Australia
Running related: qualify for Boston Marathon, Chicago marathon, Disney Goofy Challenge, Disney Princess weekend
Those are a few of the things I've written.
There are many things I have on my mind to pursue after I graduate from college. I wish these next two years would be gone already so that I can get on with it!!!
Lorenda
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Congrats to a classmate
Congratulations to classmate, Rosario, who was accepted into the Nursing program for this fall!!! Way to go!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
