by the way a bicycle is a lot more than a toy.

Rose I appreciate the response, but simply because you never experienced something doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It may be relatively rare, but if only one in 100 bike injuries could've been averted by wearing a helmet, then given the devastating impact of some of the injuries it could be well worth requiring a 1000 people to wear them. In Stamford every year a foundation started by a family who's child died due to a traumatic brain injury after falling from his bike gives out 100s of bike helmets. It's possible that their son would've died anyway but apparently they don't believe so. Perhaps sledders should also wear helmets but the failure to require them to wear helmets is not a reason to not require children to riding bicycles to wear helmets. If sledding was extraordinarily risky maybe it should be simply banned, after all if George Bailey's brother wasn't sledding that day, George wouldn't have jumped in the water to save him and he'd have had his hearing, would've gone off to WWII and perhaps the whole ending of Its a Wonderful Life would've been different.

Rose, I guess I'm confused on what you are arguing. If you are asserting that the government should place more restrictions on people's activities, eg. tobogganing, or that they are inconsistent and that someone makes their message at best muddled and at worst schizophrenic. Bicycle helmet (and motorcycle) save lives I don't think any person who's been involved in traumatic care will argue that. Perhaps sledders should wear helmets too. I should note 40 years ago when I started snow skiing no one wore a helmet, today most do. I'm sure if Sonny Bono, Natasha Richardson or the Kennedy who likewise died after a skiing had survived their injuries they would've been proponents for helmets. 40 years ago no one wore seatbelts except front seat passengers and often they didn't as well. 60 years ago seat belts weren't even offered in most cars. Times change and people's perceptions of danger do as well. Some are unwarranted (likelihood of a child kidnapping are incredibly slim) however some are real and only demand minimal change in habits. Because the govt has a policy for A but not for B which is also as bad (or worse) doesn't make the first policy wrong. Moreover lots of bicycle accidents don't happen because the child/adult is hit by a car, yet helmets still save. Few airplane's crash and even fewer survive airplane crashes yet people buckle their seatbelts, not because they're going to land in a mountain, but because o turbulence and other risky factors.

As a cyclist, I never ride without a helmet. bicycling is an incredibly dangerous sport and I've known loads of cyclers that have been saved by their helmet. Yes, they may have had a broken jaw, some teeth lost, maybe a broken collarbone, but they weren't on life support, in a coma, suffering brain damage or maybe dead. Unless you went to a funeral or a rehab center you probably didn't meet the middle age (LOL) cyclist who wasn't wearing a helmet who also had an accident. Living cautiously and carefully is probably not the best way to lead a full life, but driving without seat belts and riding a bicycle or for that matter a motorcycle is just plain stupid. It's minimal effort and second nature for those of us that do. As for that Iphone in the article, I'll be quite content if that app is created in a Paris cafe smoking a clove cigarette, but more than a little worried, it'll be used while someone is driving.

Perhaps physicians started ordering the tests because they were concerned about lawsuits, but then they saw they can actually make money by investing in the medical apparatus. This is less about defensive medicine (based on fact not simply opinion, the best way a dr. can insure not having a lawsuit is a good bedside manner) than about Dr.s feeling no compunction financial or otherwise to NOT order a test.
Interestingly a while ago I asked (in good faith) if the US has such a great system why do we pay 2 to 3 times more (per capita) than people living in other countries and on average have shorter lives and higher rates of infant mortality. No one ever responded to it. America is great but that doesn't mean we do everything better than everyone else and can't learn anything

Those are interesting anecdotes but still don't resolve the central question, why do their systems get better results at a fraction of the cost? The Lutece/McDonalds argument is interesting, taken to its logical conclusion, very few people had the opportunity to eat at Lutece because it had limited room and exorbitant prices. Lots of people enjoy McDonalds (including the late Julia Child) and its affordable to everyone. More importantly, Lutece no longer exists (probably lack of business) while McDonalds are everywhere.
As for specialists-apparently in the other developed parts of the world they get to them on time-moreover, more than once I've had to wait months for a specialist because they are just to darn busy! As for the government bureaucrat- we simply have health care bureaucrats who tell us largely the same things- and would be far worse if it wasn't for the laws passed to protect us from health care bureaucrats. A system should be weighed by its total results.

Right now Americans on average pay 2 to 3 times the annual health care costs that people in countries with socialized medicine pay, and for that extra money Americans, on average, have shorter life expectancies and higher rates of infant mortality. Big government can be inefficient and bureaucratized, but in my experience large impersonal corporations are just as inefficient (with waste that dwarves the $800 Pentagon hammer stories, just think of Tyko's $20,000 shower curtain and Merrill Lynch's $1Million office renovation- business cronyism is far more devastating than government corruption or inaction- w/government there's an elected official at the end of the line, with business the top brass at one company is on the board of the other and they all protect one another) and at least as impersonal and bureaucratized (compare going to DMV with trying to deal with ATT for a phone problem or dealing with your insurance company) at least at DMV you get somewhere and the cost is minimal, I've spent hours on the phone w/ATT technicians and at the end they tell me if I want a technician out (for a problem they created!) its $150 an hour.

I'd love to hear an explanation why our system is so much better than Canada, Britain or France, since in those countries care costs far less (a fraction) and they live longer.

lawyers do lead to some defensive medicine, but more often than one would like to believe, Dr.'s have a financial interest in requesting all those "extra" tests since they are often co-owners of the labs/clinics. I was sitting on the table at the clinic after a night of colonoscopy prepping when I was given the informed consent form that included info that my Dr. was half owner of the clinic. He did a fine job (as far as I could tell) and I don't doubt his skill, but he could've given me the form weeks earlier at his office with all the other forms describing the procedure.