Being a rescue worker is voluntary. No one makes anyone become one. They are paid to do a job, and unless they live in fantasyland, they know what comes with the territory. If they can't handle it, they're in the wrong line of work.
or forcing the insurance premiums of drivers to go up.
The market handles risk. Insurance premiums are based on risk. People who don't ride motorcycles will not incur the risk of injury due to riding helmetless, therefore they will not be in the same insurance pool as other riskier drivers. This is the reason very young drivers pay higher premiums than older more experienced drivers.
Motorcycle drivers who want to drive helmetless can volunteer to pay higher premiums to their insurance companies, therefore taking responsibility for their own actions. Motorcycle drivers who lie to their insurance companies and say they will wear helmets and then do not, should not be covered in the event of a head injury as they have violated their policy. No one's insurance will go up because of them.
Nowhere in this equation is government required.
Please demonstrate to me specifically where the brain-injury related death of one helmetless motorcycle rider has caused your insurance rate to go up. Strawman arguments based on conjecture do not hold water here . . .
Motorcyclists are at a much greater risk of injury in a crash due to our being "out there" with no cage around us. So I prefer to not be involved in an accident, rather than to try and lessen the potential harm. I lessen my chances of being in an accident by NOT wearing a helmet. I have much better vision without one and I have much better hearing without one.
I avoided what could have been a major crash on I-75 one year because I saw the idiot out of the corner of my eye. I have no doubt that had I been wearing a full face helmet I would have been seriously injured.
As far as forcing the rescue personnel to see my brains scattered about, what about the doctors who are forced to see lungs rotted by smoking?
Rescue workers, one presumes, receive a paycheck every month and possess the right to quit their job at any time. They are not "forced" to do anything, then.
or forcing the insurance premiums of drivers to go up.
The problem here is that government forces people to purchase insurance. If one were free to abstain from making a bet against oneself - OOPS, I mean, buying an "insurance policy" - then this would be a moot point. No one could be "forced" to have their insurance premiums to go up if no one were forced to engage in this form of gambling in the first place.