Republicans are stupid thieves.

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Is mandatory insurance reasonable?

Poll ended at Thu Apr 08, 2010 7:58 pm

Yes. I shouldn't have to take any risks in life.
5
33%
I don't know. I haven't really considered the issue.
0
No votes
No. Use of public ways is a basic (and old) human right.
10
67%
 
Total votes: 15

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

KitemanSA wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
KitemanSA wrote: Non-sequitur.
What do you mean "it does not follow" ?
The fact that you value your life more than money has no bearing on the fact that insurance can assure that people have the where-with-all to compensate the finanical results of their bad actions.
But not the results which are even more important. Life, and bodily integrity.

Thanks to Chrismb I just thought of another consideration. Why are we only concerned with driving related damages? If the logic is sound, the same rule should apply to all other damages caused by negligence.

The Legal profession regards consistency in law as one of it's core principles.

How can we have one standard for Tort claims regarding driving, but not require the same standard for all other tort claims?

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

If the logic is sound, the same rule should apply to all other damages caused by negligence.
Because a lot more people get severely injured in car accidents every year than by other means (other than household accidents like falling down stairs or slipping in a bathtub where usually the injured person only has himself to blame).

These accidents are insurable too though. A lot of people (at least here) have what is called a "household insurance". This makes sure they are covered in case, e.g. a childs friend gets injured in your house. In the US of course people prefer to have their asses sued by some lawyers until kingdom come which results in noone daring to have a childs friends over for a party out of fear some kid could get injured...

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

vankirkc wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
vankirkc wrote: The world of no limits that you yearn for exists. Might I suggest you move to Somalia?

You obviously have mistaken me for a Libertarian. I am most assuredly not. (I am a Hyper Conservative Right Winged Extremist! :) ) I believe in the rule of Law, but I also believe that the law should be reasonable and just.

Depriving Poor people the means to get too and from work, and indeed, the protection of an automobile (as well as ownership of same) is simply wrong. The better off among us can either tolerate the poor, or stay off the roads themselves.
So you're saying that poor people can't avail themselves of public transportation? Seems odd, since public transport is normally much cheaper than car ownership, even after you factor out the cost of insurance.
Things may be different where you live. Where *I* live, we have only recently acquired a bus service. It has 30 minutes between buses, and does not operate at night. Taxicabs can cost half the income a poor person can make working minimum wage. (especially if it's part time work.)

And these two examples only apply Within the city. If you live in one of the outlying communities, you simply have to have a ride to get to work. I know people who commute 30 miles one way to get to work. If they couldn't drive a car, they wouldn't be able to work.

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

Again, anyone ever heard of car sharing? I thought that was invented in the US even.
Just another idea. Yeah the public transportation in the US is ridiculous in many places. But still, there are other means of getting arround. And if you really cant go anywhere without a car, then get yourself a job nearer by. Seriously, there are plenty of minimum wage jobs around. Those are not that hard to find. And if all that does not help, then get a small side job for 40 dollars a month. That would be what? 5.5 hours extra. To pay the fracking car insurance. Or simply try to save up on gas and electricity. I know both is ridiculously cheap in the US, but you guys are wasting so much of it, that it should be easy to save at least 20 USD there by being a little less wasteful. And then you would only have to work 3 hours extra each month. Then get a car that needs less gas and save maybe another 10 USD each month instead of that ridiculous monstertruck. That brings it down to 1.5 hours or 9 USD And then I am sure you will find a way to save those last 9 USD somewhere. Maybe that means that you will have one supersize Mcmeal less a month that you can shove into your way to fat body.
Last edited by Skipjack on Fri Mar 12, 2010 8:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

Skipjack wrote:
Then why don't they pay that tiny bit of money each month to protect themselves from the danger that they might get hit by someone with no money if that worries them so much?
Because you would be requrired to keep track of all the weird stuff people can come up with that might injure you. So you can update your coverage. And when you are insured against everything (which would cost a lot of money), then someone comes up with another new way to kill you and YOU have to pay more insurance because HE thinks he has to fly arround with a jetpack. Nowadays, the jetpack owner is required to get an insurance (I am pretty sure the FAA requires insurance for operators of flying machines).
Practically forcing everyone else to pay so YOU dont have to walk, is arrogant!
You aren't understanding the free will thing. People are free to buy or not buy as they see fit. No one is forcing them to buy insurance. (at least on MY side of the argument.) If they CHOOSE to buy insurance because they are worried about being injured by someone exercising their right to use the public roads, then that is their choice.

Skipjack wrote: You can still use the road for free, just not with a car. Walk or ride a bike! Period!
And if you are put at greater risk of death for doing so? Now Who is forcing Whom to take a dangerous risk?
Skipjack wrote: Further, there are some insurances that you can have against incapacitation from work and all that. I do have one, it paid off when I had a heart attack. I also have an accident insurance. I have never used it, but it can pay off to have one.
Again the problem with insuring my car against somebody else damaging it, would be that my insurance rates go up, every time some idiot hits my car. I dont think that this is very practical.
That is an affair between you and your insurance company. It is not an issue of law. In other words, an agreement between two private parties, making it none of the Government's affair.

Skipjack wrote: As I said, the hight of coverage in the US seems very low to me. I guess that this is why it is so much cheaper. Insurance companies in the US must be doing really well.

Haven't the foggiest. Likewise cannot think of a single good reason why basic questions of law have anything to do with some company's bottom line.

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

Skipjack wrote:
Seems odd, since public transport is normally much cheaper than car ownership, even after you factor out the cost of insurance.
That really depends on where you live and where you want to go. Here in Graz, it is usually much cheaper to use the public transport. There may be some rare circumstances when using a car is cheaper though.
Not rare where I live. Very common. Cars are often cheap and public transportation is often non-existent.

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

Diogenes, you are fishing for arguments. The thing is, even if you were right, noone is agreeing with you (other than the Msimons of the US). The majority of people seem to be perfectly fine with the law and therefore they will vote for that. That is how it is in a democracy. You dont like that? Get yourself some island somewhere and found your personal dictatorship! I doubt you will find many willing to join you (other than Msimon maybe).

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

Cars are often cheap and public transportation is often non-existent.
Well with cars being so cheap, it should be possible to afford the insurance too then, right?
Otherwise, maybe the US is about to get poorer, since people can not afford transportation anymore? Maybe you are not as rich as you keep claiming in the discussions here all the time? I get the feeling I am talking about a 3rd world country with people starving and living in favelas.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Skipjack wrote:Diogenes, you are fishing for arguments. The thing is, even if you were right, noone is agreeing with you (other than the Msimons of the US). The majority of people seem to be perfectly fine with the law and therefore they will vote for that. That is how it is in a democracy. You dont like that? Get yourself some island somewhere and found your personal dictatorship! I doubt you will find many willing to join you (other than Msimon maybe).
Only if I can be dictator. And there had better be plenty of salable natural resources on the island so I can afford minions.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

seedload wrote:
Diogenes wrote: Just so is the theory that you do not have a right to travel the public roads. It is only recently that people have asserted that "Only the financially well off may have the state's permission to travel the public roads."
You can use a horse and buggy on most public roads. You can go whereever you want. Travel away. There are roads that will get you there. My kid can get anywhere he wants on his moped. The insurance for it is 70 bucks a year. Not only is he poor, but he is only 15. He rides his moped to work.

Not to put the jinx on anyone, but how cheap will it be if someone runs into him while he's riding that moped? I have pondered letting my kids ride one of my motorcycles, but I have since decided that they will be in a car, or walking.

seedload wrote: You said "only recently". I will concede that the horse and buggy laws were updated a smidge to cover the act of hurling yourself about at many times the speed of a falloping horse while dragging a few tons of deadly shinny metal inertia with you.


Yes, being killed by a large automobile is a LOT worse than being killed by a horse and wagon. You do recall that I mentioned my mother was nearly killed by a horse and wagon?

seedload wrote:
Diogenes wrote:I'll have none of it, and neither should any one else.
LOL, "you'll have none of it". That's a good one.
The quote is referring to the Argument, not the proposed law. Yes, that will get rammed down my throat whether I like it or not. It will also engender copy cat laws purported to be for some noble purpose or other, that will continue to erode the basic foundation of individual rights until finally something is passed into law which YOU might object to.

Be careful sowing the wind, for you may find yourself reaping the whirlwind.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

BTW there are lots of things the general public favors that are incorrect or a violation of common law rights.

First we educate then we fix.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

Helius wrote:My safety, convenience, preferences, and actualizations are important, yours, not so much. We need new rules to stop the overindulgence of the masses. Society just can't afford it anymore.
One good thing about reality is that it has it's own negative feedback system. If people go down a stupid road long enough, eventually a corrective action occurs. Unfortunately, I think a lot of innocents can get caught in the correction.

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

Skipjack wrote:
Back to reality. What will you do if you are injured by some one (who despite laws) who has no insurance?

Happens all the time.
Yes it does happen a lot. Then the person at fault has to pay out of their own pocket. If they cant do that, then there might be other consequences. He will most likely go to prison for not having insurance and causing and accident. Not sure whether that was worth saving the few bucks.
Nope. They don't go to prison. Nothing happens to them at all. (Unless they are Criminally negligent. Then they can be imprisoned for that.)

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

Skipjack wrote:
If the logic is sound, the same rule should apply to all other damages caused by negligence.
Because a lot more people get severely injured in car accidents every year than by other means (other than household accidents like falling down stairs or slipping in a bathtub where usually the injured person only has himself to blame).

Are we to establish our legal principles by statistical analysis? If that is the case, then we can simply tell all of those annoying outlier cases to just go away!

Unfortunately, legal principles are supposed to hold, even in the case of a single instance.
Skipjack wrote: These accidents are insurable too though. A lot of people (at least here) have what is called a "household insurance". This makes sure they are covered in case, e.g. a childs friend gets injured in your house. In the US of course people prefer to have their asses sued by some lawyers until kingdom come which results in noone daring to have a childs friends over for a party out of fear some kid could get injured...
There is much done differently for fear of being sued. That is true. It is perhaps not as worrisome as you might believe, but it is indeed a factor. I have friends in all sorts of professions that worry about their legal liability when undertaking a project.

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

Skipjack wrote:Again, anyone ever heard of car sharing? I thought that was invented in the US even.
Just another idea. Yeah the public transportation in the US is ridiculous in many places. But still, there are other means of getting arround. And if you really cant go anywhere without a car, then get yourself a job nearer by.
Many poor people live with their relatives because they have a place to stay at little or no cost. Moving somewhere and accruing rental costs may make them financially worse off than they were before.

It is not reasonable to believe that you can figure every angle of everyone's financial possibilities by theorizing about this or that nameless individual. Apart from anything else, perhaps some people who could afford it are trying to SAVE that $40.00 per month to use as a down payment on a house?

It is unseemly to criticize the foolishness of people without taking into account their individual situations. We are not all equally lucky in life.
Skipjack wrote: Seriously, there are plenty of minimum wage jobs around. Those are not that hard to find. And if all that does not help, then get a small side job for 40 dollars a month. That would be what? 5.5 hours extra. To pay the fracking car insurance. Or simply try to save up on gas and electricity. I know both is ridiculously cheap in the US, but you guys are wasting so much of it, that it should be easy to save at least 20 USD there by being a little less wasteful. And then you would only have to work 3 hours extra each month. Then get a car that needs less gas and save maybe another 10 USD each month instead of that ridiculous monstertruck. That brings it down to 1.5 hours or 9 USD And then I am sure you will find a way to save those last 9 USD somewhere. Maybe that means that you will have one supersize Mcmeal less a month that you can shove into your way to fat body.

See above.

Post Reply