OFF THE WIRE
In April, 1998, Ed Youngblood did a good job of summarizing the insurance compromise in an article, "The Wrong Side of Rights".
http://usff.us/hldl/articles/0398YngBld.html
Ed is correct in saying there is little likelihood of getting rid of an insurance compromise. Once insurance companies get a toehold to get more money, they are not going to let it go away easily, and they will use some of that money on "the best legislation money can buy".
In the hallways of the legislative building in Raleigh, minority house member Bonner tried saying we'd do well to put insurance into a repeal bill, because, politically, there are not enough votes for a clean helmet repeal bill, and we won't find anyone willing to introduce it. (NC is different from some states in that citizens are not allowed to file a legislative bill.)
I immediately said no, never! Mandating minimum health Insurance is something I'll never agree to as it's trading one discrimination for another. Then, as other motorcyclists gathered, he tried joking about the brutal nature of some recent motorcycle accidents and bikers crashing through windshields and reminding the dozen bikers from his district who had gathered, that he is a lawyer with an injury practice in their district. His smiles and laughter about motorcycle crashes really pissed me off. I went toe to toe with him, nose to nose, finger in his face, telling him that due to his co-sponsorship of the bill that put FMVSS 218 into the helmet law, I personally will do my damnedest to see to it that he is not re-elected. As the bikers all walked away, he ended up screaming down the hallway at me that he is a lawyer. I told him to stuff it. We didn't get the repeal that year, but that bastard is no longer there either. Some of the ABATE people who were there were probably cussing me over my hotheadedness, but for crying out loud, these are the people who are taking our rights away. There is absolutely no need to kiss their arses as they do it. That joking about the motorcycle accidents lit my fuse.
Of course "lawyer legislators" want large insurance policies to be mandated. Insurance companies give to their reelection campaigns, and that is all the more money lawyers can get in civil suits. It's all about money.
Mark Infield was there. He can verify it was not a pretty sight. It was uncomfortable for everyone. He can also tell you house member Earl Jones, Guilford County, from the majority party and the black caucus, (not to be confused with Senator Ed Jones, retired trooper, also black caucus, who we need to get rid of), with an office directly across the hall from Bonner, has been coming around to being supportive and is willing to speak on our behalf. I think his secretaries heard Bonner screaming down the hall like a mad man and told Jones! (Unfortunately, Earl Jones will be gone in 2010, so even though he was coming around it won't help us in the future.)
Some folks are so sick of having to wear helmets that they'll go along with mandated health insurance coverage. I understand, it is tempting. Being forced to wear a helmet really sucks. No doubt. Being forced to spend your money on a specified level of health insurance coverage whether you want to or not,... well, that really sucks too, especially when there is no similar requirement for cagers. If your only choices are one discrimination or the other, it's a bad situation in which you lose either way. Even if the legislators create a law in which people who buy the increased insurance can go lidless, it isn't good. It leaves it up to the individual what discrimination they will go along with, but there is something wrong when they have to agree to one or the other. Automobile drivers don't have to carry proof of health insurance with them. We have a fundamental right to travel using an acceptable mode of personal transportation, and this is countered by the government authority to regulate.
In terms of age discrimination, as a military veteran I have always been of the mindset that 18 year olders are old enough to die in the service of their country and should be subject to adult laws. They are not given extra leeway as kids when their bills are due, when they pay taxes, or when the country needs young men and women for the military. Those who grew up when the draft was in effect are more likely to respect young adults as adults.
You are in the precarious position of being legislative director for a group that is not yet wholly committed to no compromise principles. Although you are working to educate them all, they are not wholly committed yet. There will be those who will want you to agree with a compromise. You could even find yourself surprised that some of your supporters who love your no compromise approach will be sorely tempted by a compromise and turn against you. Although you have a no compromise track record, and understand your personal principles, when all is said and done, you're going to have to figure it out for yourself. Loyalty to supporting what you perceive to be the wishes of the constituents you speak for might "also" be part of your principles. From knowing you, my suggestion is that you promise yourself that, regardless of politics, you do not sell out your own principles, and don't try to second guess what your constituents will think about you if you stay true to your principles. Getting a position as a board member in an organization that is willing to compromise is an easy thing to do. Staying true to ones' own personal principles when there are are temptations to compromise - that is extremely difficult, and it is very likely that you are going to have to make some personal difficult decisions about politics or principles.
