The article is inconclusive. There are a lot of other variables involved than just riders wearing helmets or not wearing helmets. The comparison they give is between Florida and Iowa. The riding conditions in these states are very different. For example, Florida roads are mostly very straight with little to no twisties and no snow or ice. The opposite is true of Iowa. If a study is done showing deaths in the same state, before and after a helmet law change, I would give it much more weight. For example, a study of motorcycle deaths in Florida immediately before and after the 2000 change in the law.
Those studies will be done, to be sure.
When helmet laws are enacted, motorcycle registrations go down. Ergo, motorcycle accidents go down. When helmet laws are repealed, motorcycle registrations go up. Ergo, motorcycle accidents go up.
Florida recently repealed its helmet law, as you noted. Mark my words, much hay will be made over the inevitable rise in motorcycle fatalities that will be found in Florida. I'll bet you dinner the increase in registrations and the 'newbie factor' will be discounted, if not overlooked entirely.
You missed the salient point in the Forbes article; namely, insurance companies want us off the road because the wrongful death and injury lawsuit payouts tend to be huge.
My motorcycle insurance is cheaper than my car insurance despite my motorcycle being worth three times as much as my car, all other factors being equal. If I am supposedly such an increased risk on a motorcycle, why do you think that is the case?