Nebraskans licensing their motorcycles would have to prove they have health insurance to cover $1 million in medical bills under an amendment attached to a helmet repeal bill Monday.

Cost of care is a major concern of senators opposed to repealing the law, said Sen. Kent Rogert of Tekamah, sponsor of a bill that would make helmets optional for those 21 and older.

“In my opinion, if you are riding without a helmet, then you are a burden to the state,” Rogert said.  Simply break a leg, he added, and hospital costs mount up.

The group of cyclists supporting the repeal of the helmet law is split on the insurance requirement, Rogert said.

But a bare-bones, accident-only policy would cost no more than $40 a month, he said.

The insurance requirement was the only major change made Monday on the bill (LB235) that would end Nebraska’s requirement all motorcyclists and passengers wear approved helmets.

Senators traded statistics and philosophy for more than three hours Monday afternoon, with more than 100 bikers and friends watching from the balcony overlooking the Legislative Chamber.

Debate will continue Tuesday, and senators are expected to take a vote on first-round approval.

The proposal would allow those 21 and over who have a license on Jan. 1, 2009, to ride without a helmet. New riders 21 and older could forgo the helmet if they pass a state-approved safety course.

All riders under 21 would still be required to wear a helmet.

Leaders on both sides of the issue seemed to agree on one thing Monday: Wearing a helmet saves lives.

“Helmets save lives. Helmets mitigate injuries,” said Sen. Joel Johnson, a retired Kearney doctor and leader of the group of senators against repealing the law.

Rogert agreed. But that isn’t the point, he said. Repealing the law is an economic-development move that would bring more riders through Nebraska.

And it’s an issue of personal freedom, he and others said.

“Let those who ride decide,” said Lincoln Sen. Danielle Nantkes. “There are a lot of places I don’t want to see government involved in private lives.”

Omaha Sen. Tom White pointed to a number of behaviors that are dangerous or increase health care costs. Eating beef can lead to cardiovascular disease; bad diets can lead to obesity. And there’s danger in riding bicycles, skateboards or horses. Danger in skiing or parachuting.

“The proper role of government is to protect people from other people, and from corporations and from unknown risks or risks we cannot control. When government steps in and tells individuals they cannot engage in activities that cause no harm to others — because we know better — I believe we are on exceptionally thin ice,” he said.

Dangerous activities, he said, can “cause us to savor the chance to wake up in the morning.”

But Omaha Sen. Steve Lathrop said the helmet law “is a public health issue.”

Without helmets, “you know you are going to have more injuries and more deaths,” he said.

Much of the cost will be borne by government and thus taxpayers, he noted.

That equals about $1 million in costs for a serious injury and $200,000 a year for nursing home care for someone incapacitated by a brain injury, senators said.

That’s the cost of “air in the hair,” said Omaha Sen. Lowen Kruse, a helmet supporter.

Personal freedom is never absolute, said Lincoln Sen. Bill Avery. It needs to be balanced against the public good, he said.

And in this case, he said, the public interest — holding down insurance and health care costs — are more important.

Reach Nancy Hicks at 473-7250 or nhicks@journalstar.com.