I got an email from “a reader”, which was someone I don’t know, that had some conflicting views about illegal immigration. He sent me a link to a Fox News story about percentages of serious crimes done by illegal immigrate.
I responded giving a couple links to, what I view as more credible sources, that were pretty much the opposite of the Sean Hannity story. But, it is a quandary.
All these sources and it is up to us to figure out what is correct. I don’t think that used to be the situation. The problem is that most of us don’t have the time, energy, or maybe even the interest, to do our own research to try to decipher the information.
That is the current state of our political system. Different news outlets presenting conflicting stories. “Our president”, tweeting incessantly. Plus all the extraneous stuff. It is crazy.
I was forwarded a link to a story about helmet use. It was from The Guardian, a British outlet. The title was
The big bike helmet debate: ‘You don’t make it safe by forcing cyclists to dress for urban warfare’
Subtitle –
The question of whether cyclists should wear helmets provokes fury – often from those on four wheels. But which has the bigger benefit: increased physical safety, or creating a better environment for people to cycle helmet-free?
Here is a link to the article.
The article is pretty in-depth, trying to addresses many issues involving helmet usage, other than people whacking their heads on the pavement.
I am interested in this, since I just had a TBI from the very thing. I wrote in a post that I was in a indefensible position. I still feel that way. But, it is way more complicated than what we all think.
According to The Guardian article, so many more things are involved in our safety than just the fact we put a helmet on our heads. They cite studies that show that automobiles go closer to riders that wear helmets. Another study that showed when mandatory helmet laws have been passed in different countries, cycling dramatically takes a hit. And on and on. You should just click the link and read the article.
Anyway, this kind of fits into the fake news deal. It is very hard to change someones beliefs in subjects that seem straight forward. Such as wearing a helmet riding a bike. Seems pretty straight forward.
But as Chris Boardman states – “I understand why people wish to use them. But these actions seek to deal with an effect. I want to focus the debate on the cause, and campaign for things that will really make cycling safe. That is why I won’t promote high-vis and helmets – I won’t let the debate be drawn on to a topic that isn’t even in the top 10 things that will really keep people who want to cycle safe.”
He thinks he knows what makes cycling safe and says helmet usage isn’t in the top 10 of issues to address. I have to agree with him somewhat. Our overall safety has so many obstacles, it does seem that the helmet issue is so overblown and divisive. I wonder what that is?
From a bicycling article about counterfeit gear.
The problem, as I see it, is that “news” isn’t meant to inform us the way I think it should.
Instead it is being used to entertain us because our options to get “real news” (whatever that is) are few in number.
On a national scale, i don’t think we can get news without a slant or opinion added to it.
Everyone has to be the first to report even if the report is off on a few details.
Oh well!
Both hi-vis and helmets significantly mitigate risk of injury on bikes. If you doubt this, then test it yourself. Try and see 2 bikers up the road as you approach in a car: one in hi-vis and one not. You will see the hi-vis one first – especially if it’s a flashing light. Then take a brick and hit your head with and without a helmet. Without a helmet will hurt much worse.
Thank god you big VO2max guys don’t design safety sensitive things like planes, cars, civil works, etc. You lack basic safety and risk mitigation logic if you are saying helmets and hi-vis don’t help and shouldn’t be done.
Having broken a few helmets in crashes while skating and cycling, I’m a believer in their efficacy. I don’t necessarily believe they will save my life if I’m struck by vehicle, but I don’t believe they hurt my odds either.
I don’t understand why a competitive road cyclist wouldn’t want to wear a helmet in this modern era. Modern helmets are light, comfortable, they keep your head cool (as much or more than having nothing on your head at all), they absorb sweat to keep it from running down your face, they can make you faster (some aero road helmets test faster in the wind tunnel than no helmet at all), and they provide a certain level of protection in a crash.
Is it the looks? We’re already pretty funny looking to the average person whether we wear a helmet or not. Is it the expense? I hope not, since even a top level helmet is pretty cheap compared to the other gadgets, gizmos, and gear that serious cyclists buy. Is it just that people don’t like being told what they HAVE to do? That’s a fair point; however, given all the benefits and the very few disadvantages I’m again at a loss to why as cyclists we don’t want to wear one for our own sake anyway.
In 25 years of riding I have broken 4 helmets in some nasty crashes on and off road and have paid top dollar for a new helmet without a thought. Things I have not paid for because of a helmet. Brain scans, MRI’s or any xrays. Also no stitches stapler or any type of sutures on my head. These study always create some arbitrary percent of safe or not safe. There is no percentage of pleasure taken or not taken when smashing your skull on something because you were not wearing a helmet.
Using smart phones while driving or walking in bike lanes, not paying attention to what’s going on on the road, not giving a fuck about other road user’s safety, using cars to intimidate cyclists off the roads and sometimes injuring or even killing them in the process, not putting a leash on your dog… etc and so on.
All THAT can be cured by forcing cyclists to wear a fucking helmet. Now, please tell me there’s nothing wrong with the modern world.
Guys, the debate isn’t whether helmets are protective or not. It’s whether forcing use as a matter of course is just a diversionary tactic to ignore some of the more pressing issues of ROAD SAFETY. Helmets are a polarizing topic and bureaucratic advocacy is an excuse.
Here’s where I draw the line. I wear a helmet almost always. I’m not great with hi-vis clothing but always have lights for transitional periods and riding alone. That’s all well and fine, I understand their benefits as do most.
However when it comes to “public policy” on road safety, (and let’s take helmets specifically), I do not want public officials designing any part of their public safety policies around me wearing a helmet. I want them totally focused on everything they can do to keep my helmet from factoring into my life expectancy. I’ll handle that (wearing helmet) for myself. Let them deal with things like road markings, bike lanes, four foot passing laws, and whatever other things they can do to make it safer for us out there.
We as individuals can take care of the helmet.
I remember reading two accounts of Trump’s 2005 tax return. One reporter said the White House was “caught off guard” by the news, implying they had nothing to do with the surfacing of the tax return. Another said the White House was “prepared” to address the tax return, implying it was staged by the White House.
One event with two different interpretations because of the reporters’ biased perceptions of the event. It’s not always easy to see. By the way, that tax return stuff was just last week.
People believe what they want to believe. In Politics, they’ll believe the National Inquirer over the head of the FBI. With bike helmets, they’ll believe something they read on the internet that agrees with their own ideas. Face it. Everyone crashes. If you crash enough you’ll eventually land on your head. Having a helmet on, may or may not save your biscuit, so think of it as insurance. Some people over insure and some people under insure.
Rob – I agree with most what you wrote. But the point is that there are lots of other things that we all wouldn’t normally take into affect when deciding whether something is beneficial for us.
I obviously wished I would have had a helmet on 5 months ago when I fractured my skull. But I’ve also broken my hip and had shoulder issues in the past.
Let me tell you, a broken collarbone is way more likely than a TBI from crashing on a bicycle. Does that mean we all need to be wearing shoulder pads with our helmets.
I wish I would have been wearing hip protection when I fell in the rain and broke my hip. But I still ride around in lycra shorts. No protection at all.
Trying to figure out the risks involved in anything is complicated. It is very interesting. At least to me.
Deciphering conflicting information seems to be more of an issue nowadays than ever before.
Fake News:
I’m not sure what is the greatest killer of people: cancer, heart disease or ignorance. On the topic of news credibility, I don’t believe pretty much anything unless I am familiar with the source and trust the source. If I don’t know a source and it’s important enough, I’ll do some research to assess the aforementioned. If Trump says it, I just assume by now that it’s wrong.
Helmets: highly overrated for many cycling applications but, like insurance, money well spent on those rare occasions when they’re truly needed. (if you’re doing anything in a group at speed, probably not a bad accessory) So far, they do nothing more for me than a pretty mediocre job of blocking the sun on my follicly-challenged scalp.
Does that mean we all need to be wearing shoulder pads with our helmets.
This is a public health issue. Don’t combine the public health issue with other issues. It’s a favorite tactic among the people arguing against helmets for whatever reason.
How much has the TBI cost in health care? If you had a real job, how long would you have been out of work? IF (it’s an if) the helmet absorbs enough impact to prevent a TBI, how much money was just saved? The social costs reflected in medical care, insurance rates, lost productivity, lost wages, are much higher when one isn’t worn.
For sure, there are numerous issues with roadways and the policies that support zero liability for a driver. For sure, mandatory helmet laws miss a whole other basket of policy/laws required to make motorcyclists/bicyclists safer. The social benefits of wearing a helmet are clear.
Steve – you are confusing occurance rate and severity of risks by speaking of broken collarbone and TBI in the same sentence. To compare them as you did (with only partial information for each) is irrelevant in a risk mitigation analysis.
If you are genuinely curious about how risk is quantified, google “FMEA” and read up on it. It’s a tool that works very well as evidenced by the incredible safety record of modern commercial jets.
Using FMEA thinking might prevent your next TBI…
Common sense dictates 2 things:
Wear a helmet.
Don’t watch Fox news.
C’mon Tilford. You do realize that if you damage another part of your brain, the available neuroplasticity will be less than 5 months ago ?
http://ecowallpapers.net/wp-content/uploads/4002_gary_busey.jpg
A message to you Rudy…. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbqiCxEIeEo
This is a poor analogy. A helmet is designed to protect a much more critical organ than the shoulder/clavicle. As much as fractured clavicles hurt and impact our daily activities, they are in no way comparable to a TBI.
Also we have the attention span of a mouse. We want to read or watch a YouTube about many things up to a few minutes then make a decision and move on like we are experts. Many topics are way more complicated. People today in my oppinion have a wide breadth of knowledge and no depth. Partly since that is how we a fed news.
Great link for this tool …
http://www.isixsigma.com/tools-templates/fmea/quick-guide-failure-mode-and-effects-analysis/
Breaking a collar bone happens a lot. But we heal much quicker from that and without possible lifelong issues or worse death. The long lasting effect of a tbi can be so long term
Also if there is a product available that makes something safer why not use it. On the other hand that attitude can be taken to far as well
Thank you, Jeff. You actually took the time to read the entire article and understand exactly the point being made.
I liken it to automobile safety. Cars are designed to protect the people inside in the event of a collision, whether or not the passengers are wearing a seat belt. Obviously, anyone with a shred of common sense realizes that your chances of escaping more serious injury, including death, are greatly increased by wearing a seat belt. But the effectiveness of the crumble zone, or head restraints, or headlights, or crash avoidance technology, is in no way dependent upon the driver and passengers wearing a seat belt.
Laws mandating helmet and hi-vis clothing use are as senseless as cars whose airbags only deploy if someone is wearing their seat belt. Safety measures should be implemented assuming that many people will likely make poor choices. Smart people making the personal decision to wear a helmet (or a seat belt) will therefore find their risk of serious injury/death decrease. As for everyone else, I wish you luck when the unpredictability of life rears its’ ugly head.
I believe recreational and competitive cycling (with a helmet) has a higher risk of injury/death than not cycling at all. So, using the same logic as “helmet advocates”, shouldn’t we cyclists (who needlessly risk death/injury) be judged judged by non cyclists? I know many folks who would love to cycle but don’t want to accept the risk. I’m not making a statement or wishing to argue. Just curious how a helmet advocate, cyclist might process view . Thanks.
Steve – Yes, there a higher probability of a broken hip or collarbone. But those injuries don’t have near the same level of devastating consequences as a TBI. And the cost:benefit ratio is so overwhelming in favor of helmets. Broken collar bone = Low level of risk associated with lasting permanent disability. Wearing shoulder protection pads = high cost in form of loss of mobility/ease/performance while riding a bicycle. TBI = extraordinarily high risk of lasting permanent disability. Wearing a helmet = low cost (and possibly even a benefit) in the form of impact to performance while riding a bicycle.
All this nonsense about hi-viz and the reactions of motorists to riders wearing helmets really doesn’t apply to most of the people reading this blog. (Sidebar: my concern is not the motorist who sees my helmet, but the distracted one who doesn’t.) We are beyond “casual cyclists”, so it is a safe assumption that we take greater risks than most on our bikes – we go faster, we ride in groups, we spend more time on our bikes on the roads (and therefore have significantly more opportunity for accidents.) Motorists are a huge concern, but our “above standard” riding habits magnify the risks of general accidents and equipment failures that have nothing to do with cars. For example: a person casually riding a hybrid to the corner coffee shop probably would have been able to stop for the dog that you weren’t able to. A person riding to the coffee shop probably isn’t going to have a carbon wheel failure on a mountain descent. And on and on. Didn’t you share a story before your accident about your crank arm falling off? That probably doesn’t happen to the average cyclist riding with their kids to the playground. You survived that one, but you could have very easily not.
Our risks are greater than the average cyclist. So wear a helmet. It’s not a hard to argue with.
Dont believe in Elvis, dont believe in Jesus, dont believe in Krishna, dont believe in Zimmerman, dont believe in Beatles, dont believe in Boardman, dont believe in Media, just believe in me, Yoko n me!
” You know that metal plate in my head? I had to have it replaced, cause every time Catherine revved up the microwave I’d piss my pants and forget who I was for a half hour or so. So over at the VA they had to replace it with plastic. It ain’t as strong so I don’t know if I should go sailin down no hill with nothing between the ground and my brains but a piece of government plastic.” C.E.
“our President”? Why the quotation marks? HE IS YOUR PRESIDENT, LIKE IT OR NOT. DEAL WITH IT.
Steve
I would like to take issue with the statement you made saying “a broken collarbone is way more likely than a TBI from crashing on a bicycle”. While I believe you are statistically correct, understanding why broken collarbones are so prevalent leads to a reasonably different perspective.
The vast majority of broken collarbones are a result of extending ones arm in a forward fall to protect one’s head. I personally have had nearly 100 forward falls on alpine skis and well over 300 Endo’s on a mountain bike. Through my experience I quickly developed a tuck and roll system of serious injury avoidance. No broken collarbone yet although nearly all my cycling friends have suffered at least one.
Does not seem like a good comparison a broken collarbone to a possibly fatal head injury. Like comparing apples to oranges.
In 2015 Carol Liu, D-La Cañada Flintridge, proposed a bill that would require all cyclists … to wear a helmet when riding their bikes, or face a $25 fine. Some of you may remember this bill. It was defeated because more in-depth examination f the cause of cycling accidents in Los Angeles County was revealed as due to poor cycling infrastructure. As in, streets with no bike lanes and no shoulders in much of LA County. Also, the predominant cycling injury is a broken collarbone, not a head injury. And statistically speaking, more people sustain head injuries in automobile accidents than the relative proportion of cyclists, which means if they were going to force cyclists to wear helmets, it should also be a requirement for motorists. The point is, if you choose to ride in dangerous conditions, or on roads with no shoulder forcing motorists to go around or trigger their spontaneous combustion/road rage, then wear a helmet, because you are assuming a greater risk. If you choose safer routes, from my perspective, the necessity of wearing a helmet as an absolute is not as much of an absolute as many people think. The bottom line is we must assume *most* people don’t need us to parent them or nag them about wearing a helmet. It really is up to the individual. Personally, I can’t afford to lose any of my pea brain capacity, and my bike skills are not on par with Peter Sagan’s so I wear one pretty much all the time.
euro – I am dealing with it. That is a partial reason I put quotation marks.
Guys – I think it is strange that the majority of the comments have to do with the wearing a helmet issue. Even though The Guardian article was an example of a lot of different information of a subject that seems simple, like wearing a helmet. That was an example that lots of simple information can make you think differently about a subject that seems pretty easy to understand.
The point of the post was that it is up to each of us to make our own decisions about things, by gathering our own information, from multiple sources, then try to come to the correct decision.
I understand that a broken collarbone and TBI are different animals. I was using the example as trying to make a decision about all the risks we take. I don’t think that TBI’s are that common for cycling. Especially for recreational cycling or commuting.
I do think that broken bones are fairly common, so should we be more concerned about the common injuries and put the more serious ones, that are much less prevalent, on the back burner or mainly concentrate only on the serious ones? I don’t have that answer.
I do know that we all need to be more open concerning lots of “issues” that are controversial, but seem so clear cut to each of us. The way it is working, currently, is not really working that great for a cohesive society.
I always wear a helmet, wear hi viz clothing, use a mirror, and have an extremely bright bontrager flare R flashing taillight on during daytime riding. I still might get hit and killed, but why not help my odds all I can. Even if you are in the right, crippled or dead you still lose.
^^ THIS! ^^
Helmets and HiVis are fine, but too much emphasis is placed on these to protect cyclists instead of actually designing safer roads and cycleways, and creating and enforcing vulnerable user laws that have severe penalties for drivers when ‘defenseless’ road users or pedestrians are injured.
In most places, a driver can be drunk and texting on their cellphone and plow through a bunch of cyclists. Regardless of the deaths or injuries caused, they are likely to only get the standard citations for these offenses.
I was hit by a car, on a MUT (wearing a helmet and HiVis jersey). The driver was at fault, but was not even cited by the police officer – I sustained serious injuries to my legs, neck and shoulder that will affect me for the rest of my life because she didn’t look before pulling out of a driveway. Her poor decision cost here NOTHING – her car wasn’t even damaged.
The lawyers determined she was 100% responsible – she had insurance that paid to replace my bike and I received a settlement that amounted to her minimum insurance coverage – she had no assets to merit a lawsuit (deeply in debt and unemployed – I was lucky she was even insured). She paid nothing out of pocket and did not even receive a citation despite the fact that she was making an illegal turn and failed to yield at a crosswalk.
I did not hit my head – no damage to my helmet at all. It was a non-factor in my situation. Many other factors contributed to my injuries, all of them related to inattentive driving, poor road/trail design, poor site lines, and lack of incentive for the driver to exercise caution in the presence of ‘vulnerable users’. These are the things that cycling advocates should be focusing on.
Many of you remember that last summer Boardman’s mother was killed, at age 75, while out bike riding. She was hit by a pickup truck. Having a name as big as Boardman now advocating as he is has to help, and it’s obviously a very personal mission for him.
Dan,
First it’s called a ‘crumple zone’.
A ‘crumble zone’ is the area where a toddler eats crackers or cookies and leaves crumbs everywhere.
# 2 – cars are designed to protect people that are WEARING seat belts. The effectiveness of every other safety system is DEPENDENT on the occupants wearing seat belts.
# 3 – while not mentioned by you, at some point air bags and other ‘safety’ devices become worthless in modern cars. Look at a 1980s-90s Volvo or S-class Mercedes. Ultimately, it’s metal and good design that protect you. The 500SL was designed to have the engine break and roll under the car instead of smashing your legs in a front impact. The same car had a substantial side impact protection that prevents crushing in a t-bone.
Even when the car flips over at high speed, a roll bar deploys in less than a 1/3 of a second and automatic seat belt tensioners pull you firmly against the seat.
Modern cars have 12 or more airbags but in reality without seat belts and more metal they’re just balloons against far greater forces.
No Steve, you’re wrong again. When you have your next helmet-less crash, it will be your brother, your girlfriend and society that has to take care of you, spoon feeding you applesauce and wiping your chin and ass for the next 30 years.
Every time you flaunt a preventable risk, you’re in fact saying ‘Fuck you’ to the people that will be left carrying the weight all so you could feel the wind in your hair.
This makes you, or anyone like you, a selfish and detestable cunt.
Just quietly say it to yourself every time before you ride without a helmet “Catherine, Kris, state of Kansas, all my friends, I don’t care about you, I don’t care about my brain. Never did me too much good anyway so why should I look out for it. I like the wind in my hair which is a feeling I can only get here in Kansas by riding without a helmet. It’s hardly ever windy here so this is the only way.”
I don’t give a fuck who it is. You don’t wear a helmet, I don’t ride with you and if you stick around too long, I’ll curb your fucking ass.
I have no idea how someone can get to your age and be so stupid at the same time.
I’ve been riding/racing 20-25 years. Only used a helmet 6-8 times.
I wear one all the time, I only use it when I hit pavement, a tree, a rock.
Don’t have a political opinion about it, it’s just cheaper and quicker to get a new helmet rather than go through 3-6 months of recovery and rehabilitation.
And by the way, automobile drivers that have hit me didn’t incorporate my helmet wearing into their decision making. Mostly they were driving distracted (texting, drinking coffee etc.).
Gary, please stop typing and go take your medication. Your psychosis is coming through in your post. Everyone of us takes “risks”. To call someone else out so strongly based on taking a “risk” you are not comfortable with is laughable. Everyone has their own threshold.
Do you yell at overweight or out of shape person that you see? How about smokers? They must blow you feeble mind?
P.S. I do think you are a real class act for threatening to take someone out for not wearing a helmet. It seems like you must ride your bike without a saddle, ’cause something is stuck far up your arse
I think Steve is getting at the issue of personal choice. I am highly pro choice, probably way more than most people. You should be able to decide what to do with your body. Period. Yes, I realize there are societal impacts of your choices. Eat a lot of sugar, get diabetes, face blindness, amputation, and kidney failure. The cost of diabetes care in the US is $12K/person affected and it is estimated that in less than 20 years, 1/3 of the population will be diabetic. That is a huge cost to society, but I don’t believe we should be dictating to people what they can eat. I favor educating people about the risks but letting them have the final choice. Who are we to decide how someone else lives their life? Where do you draw the line?
I hope Steve will wear a helmet as I think the benefits outweigh the downside. But it’s his life and his choice.
Steve,
“The point of the post was that it is up to each of us to make our own decisions about things, by gathering our own information, from multiple sources, then try to come to the correct decision.”
Amen to that.
I’m sure I agree with your basic precept, that is, we need serious and major changes to our infrastructure to allow bicycles and automobiles to coexist safely and peacefully. Helmets, lights, high visibility clothing and other protective gear for cyclists won’t do near as much as bike lanes.
Coward who express’ opinions anonymously. Coward who curbs someone they don’t agree with. Coward who hides stands for nothing.
You gotta love the movement to make cyclists look like a bunch of retards on the roads with flashing lights, mirrors, and day-glo clothing. I guess anything worth doing is worth overdoing to the point of letting it consume you. The simplicity and beauty of cycling is getting lost on the safety warriors. We all choose our acceptable risk level. At some point you need to ask yourself why you’re even bothering to ride outside if you’re that afraid though. Just ride the trainer and do Zwift races.
While all of the safety gear is probably somewhat effective, I think Boardman is right to believe that its a band-aid for a larger problem. Trying to fix the actual problems he identifies is a gigantic uphill battle.
I used to not wear a helmet, now I do. My choice to change based on what I was willing to risk. I don’t judge or preach. I’m not going to “kick you to the curb” if you don’t wear one like the one moron commenter says. I use a light in appropriate situations. In my area with the traffic volume it just makes sense. Just do what you do and I’ll do what I do.
The difference Steve is that the rest of the body can mend better than the brain. The brain is the control central for EVERYTHING thus needs more protection.
Agree 100%, but in Steve’s case while sprinting for a win, or merely riding in a paceline alone it’s not a case of what driver’s are or are not doing. It is the inherent danger of pushing your limits. These are definitely 2 distinct issues.
Bravo! Someone that cares about Steve and is willing to get the point across.
Crashed hard in December (went flying over the bars on the road going 30). Never got a chance to break the fall with my arms/hands and my upper left side and head tool all the impact. Shattered collarbone and shattered helmet. Collarbone is still mending (doctor finally cleared me to ride this weekend), but I don’t even think I even had a minor concussion. Pretty sure it would have been a totally different outcome without a helmet. Would have been a much bigger pain in the ass for my family for sure. There’s no helmet law for motorcyclists in AZ, and I would never vote for one, but anyone who thinks they don’t make a huge difference (as in life or death or fine and vegetable) is just plain stupid.
I have never had a broken collarbone from a cycling accident, but have had two concussions in racing and training accidents, one when I was 15 and one 30 years later. The second one was really quite severe and the back of my helmet exploded all over the road. It took me over a year to recover from it and I would have most certainly died or been in a long-term care facility without it.
I’m fine now, but the point is that in my experience head injuries are very real in competitive bike racing and have been my only significant injuries from the sport, aside from road rash and broken finger. TBIs are horrible and I am now even riding and racing (just cyclocross) with a MIPs helmet. Helmets save lives.
Typical liberal thinking. He’s your president as long as he’s a lib and follows lib thinking. Otherwise, he’s an idiot, racist, uneducated fool. And not your president. Fool.
Euro-Wrong on the first observation, correct on the otherwise statement.
Steve, we get it!!! You hate pTrump. The guy could cure cancer and you would find a way to be critical of him and his administration.
I am so glad the healthcare bill failed, let ObamaCare implode. Then maybe we can go to a free market.
Irony, liberals like you (Steve) want to make a your own choice about whether or not you should wear a helmet (I don’t give a shit whether anyone wears one, but if not no tax payer money should be used to treat your injuries) and at the same time you support liberal policies that want to force government shitty healthcare and insurance on me?! Classic, liberalism is a disease.
Why can’t liberal guys be men and learn to take care of themselves? Why do they insist on so much of a government nanny state? I know there are real men all over the USA, but I am glad I grew up in the south (seems to be more prevalent here) where we were taught how to take care of ourselves and our families.
William-Angry guy? And getting a little personal, but that is fine.
You’re right, sort of. I don’t like Mr. Trump. I don’t think the guy is qualified to be president. Plus, he is arrogant and a bully. Plus he isn’t smart enough to decipher the difference between what is real and make believe.
On the healthcare issue. I’ve paid for health insurance since I was 18 years old. Every year. I would venture to say I’ve spend quite a bit more than you have on healthcare.
I believe this country is “rich” enough to guarantee healthcare for our citizens.
Since you are such an expert on the ACA, feel free to respond here about the problems with the legislation. And he advantages of the newly floundering Republican alternative.
I don’t give a shit what your political views are. But you must be able understand what is going on currently in Washington DC isn’t good for the United States.
You are in the minority BTW. PTrump, as you refer to him, has a 37% job approval rating. That means nearly 2 out of 3 Americans disapprove.