←back to thread

611 points sohkamyung | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.214s | source
Show context
ehnto ◴[] No.43102277[source]
The pathology for broken collar bones was changing right as I took up mountain biking, and subsequently shattered my collarbone.

It was hotly debated at the hospital, if my specific case should be operated on or not. Each time I had a checkup, one doctor would say "wait and see" while the other was saying "I can't believe we didn't operate on this".

At any rate, the outcome was as good as if they had operated on it, according to the doc anyway. Nice of them to test it out on me!

More related to this though, I have broken both my collarbones, the first time I had little direction and just held my arm still for 2-3 months. It took forever to heal, and my arm atrophied significantly. The second time, similar severity. I was guided through rehab and I was back using my arm within the first month, very little atrophy.

replies(12): >>43102620 #>>43102787 #>>43103353 #>>43103595 #>>43104336 #>>43104668 #>>43104764 #>>43105603 #>>43107976 #>>43108047 #>>43108510 #>>43109812 #
edwcross ◴[] No.43102787[source]
Given the amount of injuries related to mountain biking, is there some specific insurance needed for it? It seems one of those "net-negative for the society activities", like trampolines.
replies(13): >>43102883 #>>43102963 #>>43102966 #>>43103105 #>>43103130 #>>43103177 #>>43103227 #>>43103336 #>>43103827 #>>43104259 #>>43104338 #>>43106116 #>>43106419 #
ghaff ◴[] No.43102883[source]
In general, "society" deciding what activities are too dangerous to routinely allow is a really nasty slope. Yes, there's some special insurance offered through private organizations for things like higher altitude mountaineering. But it's not that big a step to rule that any contact sport, for example, should require special insurance. I'm sure the insurance companies wouldn't mind.
replies(2): >>43102980 #>>43103280 #
4ggr0 ◴[] No.43102980[source]
One thing which comes to mind is - why should we stop at sports, then? we'll immediately be at the point where smokers, alcoholics, obese people etc. should pay more, after all, their way of life statistically causes higher costs.

(i don't think either of those things should result in higher insurance prices, just continuing the thought.)

replies(6): >>43103056 #>>43103122 #>>43103316 #>>43108915 #>>43113052 #>>43115756 #
doix ◴[] No.43103056[source]
> we'll immediately be at the point where smokers, alcoholics, obese people etc. should pay more, after all, their way of life statistically causes higher costs.

Wait, do they not? I genuinely assumed they did. I remember when I got private insurance through my work I had to fill in some questionnaire. It was "free", but it was a taxable benefit so you knew how much you were costing the company and me and my friends had different rates.

I wonder what the actual statistics are when it comes to costs with active people that are more likely to be injured vs obese people that are less likely to be injured but more likely to suffer obesity related illnesses.

replies(3): >>43103211 #>>43103219 #>>43106474 #
philwelch ◴[] No.43103219[source]
Health insurance premiums used to be different based on whether or not you smoked; maybe they still are. It would still be nice if you could lower your health insurance premiums by losing weight or buying a policy that didn’t cover mountain bike injuries or whatnot.
replies(1): >>43103346 #
1. ghaff ◴[] No.43103346[source]
At a former company, there was some trivial discount for an annual health care screening which I stopped doing because it was trivial and something that wasn't between me and my doctor. I would absolutely not sign onto a screening that invasively wanted to know about specific athletic or other activities of that sort. (Which would probably also give the insurance company untold levers to deny your claim.) "Oh, you said you don't rock climb, well that 'hike' looks like a rock climb to us."