[Newsbot]

Title: Biker with no medical insurance who begged paramedics not to take him to hospital left facing $40,000 bill
Category: Law & Order
Posted By: QBall
Date: 2011-09-15 14:56:56

[QBall]

Crazy situation. It's a Catch 22 for the paramedics as they can't leave the guy, but I'm not sure if you can really hold the guy liable for the $40,000 bill. Not sure why the article has to mention the brand of bike he was driving.

[Brenda]

He shouldn't be held liable. He did say he did not want the treatment, he did not have the money to pay for it, he did not have insurance. He did whatever he could to not get the treatment. He got it anyway. The moment he could, he walked away. It IS the US, so he has the freedom to choose to not have insurance.

Methinks you can prevent catches-22 (catch-22s?) like this by putting a mandatory "accident-insurance" on a vehicle, or person driving/riding that vehicle.

[Regina]

He had a head injury.......who'd listen to him anyway?

[Macguyver]

Naw, he has to be liable. It is his own fault, the medics have a duty to care for him.

I wonder why his vehicle insurance does not cover medical expenses?

[Brenda]

Macguyver Macguyver:

Naw, he has to be liable. It is his own fault, the medics have a duty to care for him.

I wonder why his vehicle insurance does not cover medical expenses?

Isn't that only covering 3rd party expenses?

[Macguyver]

I'm not sure how your insurance system works, but when I rolled my Cherokee one icy night the insurance paid for the ambulance rides (there were 5 of us in the car) and everyone's medical bills and rehab. I might be wrong, but even with medicare the insurance pays the costs of the medical bills.

Now if I could only get a perscription for pot.

[Brenda]

I have no clue how it works, I have paid for insurance for 22 years and never needed it

[uwish]

driving insurance is for liability and collision only. Health insurance in the US does not include your vehicles liability insurance until you get sued. It's strange down there.

[herbie]

They had to mention the brand of bike because Harleys are dangerous vehicles driven by dangerous people.
Have you learned nothing from the media?

[Brenda]

herbie herbie:

They had to mention the brand of bike because Harleys are dangerous vehicles driven by dangerous people.
Have you learned nothing from the media?

So true!!
Those Japanese street racers are WAY safer!

[Unsound]

herbie herbie:

They had to mention the brand of bike because Harleys are dangerous vehicles driven by dangerous people.

Elderly drivers are a problem.

[BeaverFever]

Take note: In the US refusing treatment and walking out still gets you at $40,000 bill. Imagine how much it would have been if they'd treated him. I don't know how anyone can suggest we'd be better off in that system.

[herbie]

He had the freedom of choice to walk away $40,000 in the hole.
In Canada the Death Panels would've ruled him an undesirable citizen for owning a Harley and euthanized him.

[QBall]

Macguyver Macguyver:

Naw, he has to be liable. It is his own fault, the medics have a duty to care for him.

I wonder why his vehicle insurance does not cover medical expenses?

First party injury protection (i.e. cover injuries suffered by driver aka PIP) is optional in most states. All states want you to have coverage to cover damage you cause to third parties, but to yourself it's still optional in some states. Plus it's quite possible he was riding uninsured as the article doesn't mention this.

It really is a deplorable situation since the law forced him to treatment, but at the same time no judge/jury on the planet is going to absolve the paramedics of liability for listening to the wishes of someone who just suffered a rather serious head injury. It must have been one hell of a crash considering the article shows him riding with a helmet (I assume it's his regular habit) yet he still suffered "...broken bones around his eye".