Talk-Polywell.org

March 11, 2010
Harry Reid's Wife, Daughter Injured In Auto Accident
—Dave In Texas

Just saw this on Twitter via SnB. His wife has a fractured back and a broken nose, and his daughter neck injuries and cuts.

Their vehicle was rear-ended by a semi-truck as they drove on a Washington highway, Summers said. Lana Reid’s injuries also are not life-threatening, the spokesman said.

Both were admitted to Inova Fairfax Hospital in Falls Church, Virginia, said hospital spokesman Tony Raker. Summers said both were conscious and “can feel their extremities.”

The injuries are described as non life-threatening, but certainly serious. Best wishes for their speedy recovery. I've got a wife and two adult girls, and I've gotten that phone call too. It sucks.

Posted by Dave In Texas at 07:00 PM New Comments Thingy

http://minx.cc/?post=299281

And?
What does that have to do with whether insurance is necessary, or not?
I sure hope the trucker or the trucking company was insured, or all the reconstructive surgery is going to cost him his life earnings, which means whe would end up being another social security receiver (why work for money that you will never see a dime of?).

"And?"

Agreed. I don't think you're saying much Diogenes, in your "Republicans are stupid thieves.", post either.

Being deceitful (or disingenuous and or obtuse) to the point of evident cerebral accident is not a good look for someone claiming your moniker.

Your lamp is out. I will reply to your, "thieves" post, I think by this weekend.

Skipjack wrote:And?
What does that have to do with whether insurance is necessary, or not?
I sure hope the trucker or the trucking company was insured, or all the reconstructive surgery is going to cost him his life earnings, which means whe would end up being another social security receiver (why work for money that you will never see a dime of?).

You really are color blind aren't you?

Let me spell it out. Broken back. Broken Neck.

Oh, and the pretty car is damaged too.

But obviously, the most SERIOUS aspect of this is the BROKEN BACK and BROKEN NECK.

Insurance won't fix this. Hopefully her body can heal it, but if it can't there is No way to make her as before. She will have suffered a grievous loss because she took the gamble (of driving on the roads) and lost.

To repeat my point. If people are willing to risk their BACK and their NECK, then they ought to be willing to risk their dollars, for the one is FAR more valuable than the other.

TDPerk wrote:"And?"

Agreed. I don't think you're saying much Diogenes, in your "Republicans are stupid thieves.", post either.

Being deceitful (or disingenuous and or obtuse) to the point of evident cerebral accident is not a good look for someone claiming your moniker.

Your lamp is out. I will reply to your, "thieves" post, I think by this weekend.

The lamp is a reflection of the viewer. It is telling that you see it as out.

(Why isn't this added in the other thread? Are you trying to saturate the forum with your own political titles?)

I agree that there are arguments that could be put forward for what you are saying, but just look at the reality: how are poor people gonna pay for the damage they cause? What fines or other penalites can be imposed? Sure, it may not fix a broken back, but if not then what dissuasive penalties are imposed?

Are you really saying that poor people should just drive around and not worry about whether they are going to crash into something? Sorry...do I hear you thinking that this isn't what you're saying? Really??

By this argument, a wealthy person should be even less obliged to take out car insurance because they would be more likely able to fund the damage caused out of their own pockets. If they make that choice, then that could be theirs to make. But a poor person? Why on earth would they bother paying attention to driving carefully if no-one will ever hold them to account for careless driving? Do you want to extend the argument to unroadworhty cars aswell? Maybe you want to argue that providing the brakes of a poor person's car work on at least one wheel then that should be considered good enough?

You started off with an amusing anecdotal thought with a hint of philosophical legitimacy, but you're putting out some odd-headed claptrap now.

If what you're saying forms part of a more erudite dissertation, then please get on with it, but if not then best you stop rattling off this stuff about how badly done by poor people are because it looks to me like its making you look a bit of a twit (just friendly advice).

Let the poor fight their own battles and press their own arguments, if they've got issues with the way the world is.

But obviously, the most SERIOUS aspect of this is the BROKEN BACK and BROKEN NECK.

Insurance won't fix this. Hopefully her body can heal it, but if it can't there is No way to make her as before. She will have suffered a grievous loss because she took the gamble (of driving on the roads) and lost.

1. A broken back and a broken neck is not a very clear description of the injuries.
2. If you have a fractured vertebra (neck or back) spinal- bone, then there is danger of spinal chord injuries in SOME CASES!
It depends on where the bone is fractured.
E.g. my mother had several broken vertebrae in her days, but never had any spinal chord injuries.
So you clearly are exaggerating.
3. Yes money can not fix everything, but it is better than nothing. It is is this better than nothing that can help people getting over the damages they have suffered in an accident that was not their fault.
Besides, medical treatments do advance and one day (IMHO very soon) stem cell and other treatments will be able to fix even the most severe spinal chord- and other injuries caused by accidents. Of course these treatments will be expensive ( at least in the US, they will most likely be covered by the public health insurance here) and someone will have to pay for that?
Now who is that going to be? The one who got injured, or the one who caused the injury?
To me the answer is very, very clear. There is no question about it. Now someone who does not have anything, cant pay. That is also clear. That is why people have to get insurance. So they can pay for the mistakes that they might make (because they, themselves wont be able to do that).
Of course it should be an alternative to have a deposit somewhere that is meant to provide coverage in case of an accident. Instead of an insurance. But the poor wont have the money for that either, will they?

Edit: Or let me ask the other way round. If the one who caused the accident should not pay for expensive treatments and the lack of income that the injured person will have, who will pay for it then? The government maybe? Use taxmoney for that? Yeah sure that would fare well with people.
The one who got injured wont be able to pay for it either, because he cant work. So you have created another person that will have to rely on the social network, sucking money out of it. And you will have someone who is (IMHO rightfully so) bitter about it.

chrismb wrote:(Why isn't this added in the other thread? Are you trying to saturate the forum with your own political titles?)

If I had placed it under the other discussion thread, the force of the point would have been lost. The immediacy of it was important to make my point about how unpredictable the risks of travel are. I was afraid people would ignore the point if I buried it in a long discussion thread.

chrismb wrote: I agree that there are arguments that could be put forward for what you are saying, but just look at the reality: how are poor people gonna pay for the damage they cause?

Poor people CAN'T pay for the damage they cause.
Rich people can't either if the damage is someone's life or health.

chrismb wrote: What fines or other penalites can be imposed?

For doing something wrong? Whatever is appropriate.
For the possibility that they might do something wrong? How in good conscious can we do that?

chrismb wrote: Sure, it may not fix a broken back, but if not then what dissuasive penalties are imposed?

Does it ever occur to you that no one WANTS an accident, and that the person who causes an accident has a very great chance of being injured themselves? Breaking someone's arm is a penalty that not even the law can impose. (well, maybe sharia law, but that's another subject. )

The point that the poor might become complacent about damaging other people's property is a good point. There MUST be a means of insuring that they take all precautions against behaving recklessly, or with callous disregard.

What should we do (in the absence of making them pay before the fact) to dissuade them from behaving recklessly?

How about Fines and or Jail time? The Municipal governments already trade jail time for fines owed to them, we could simply impose the same system for Civil damages.

What is wrong with that? Sure, the plaintiff might not get any money, but plaintiff's never do if the defendant is poor anyway. ANOTHER GOOD POINT!

[sidetrack]
Why do we expect poor defendants to be financially liable for damages incurred while driving when we NEVER expect them to be financially liable for any OTHER civil case?

Seriously, I don't know how much you know about Civil law, but if you sue someone who doesn't have any money, you can win a judgment, but you cannot make them pay! Why do we want a double standard for the special case of traffic damages?

This begs the question of how the current legal system relies on two different standards for what is essentially an issue of civil damages? (Laws are often made by Ordinary citizens, and as a result don't necessarily reflect legal consistency.)

chrismb wrote: Are you really saying that poor people should just drive around and not worry about whether they are going to crash into something? Sorry...do I hear you thinking that this isn't what you're saying? Really??

No. See long winded thinking above.

chrismb wrote: By this argument, a wealthy person should be even less obliged to take out car insurance because they would be more likely able to fund the damage caused out of their own pockets. If they make that choice, then that could be theirs to make. But a poor person? Why on earth would they bother paying attention to driving carefully if no-one will ever hold them to account for careless driving?

A valid point, and I addressed it above.

chrismb wrote: Do you want to extend the argument to unroadworhty cars aswell? Maybe you want to argue that providing the brakes of a poor person's car work on at least one wheel then that should be considered good enough?

Not at all. The state has an obligation to insure (as much as is reasonably possible) the safety of others by preventing reckless disregard.

chrismb wrote: You started off with an amusing anecdotal thought with a hint of philosophical legitimacy, but you're putting out some odd-headed claptrap now.

It is good to know that it has some legitimacy. Tell me what part you regard as legitimate so that I may capitalize on that !

chrismb wrote: If what you're saying forms part of a more erudite dissertation, then please get on with it, but if not then best you stop rattling off this stuff about how badly done by poor people are because it looks to me like its making you look a bit of a twit (just friendly advice).

The erudite version is evolving. It is currently a work in progress, but as I demonstrated above, sometimes other points come to me in the discussing of it.

And I don't mind looking like a twit, as long as it's for a good cause.

chrismb wrote: Let the poor fight their own battles and press their own arguments, if they've got issues with the way the world is.

That's what they said about the slaves, but other than Toussaint l'Ouverture, I don't know of any slaves which were successful in throwing off the yoke. The rest of them needed help, and so do I think, the poor. But this issue is not exclusively about the poor. It is also about right and wrong and the concept of consistency in Law.

chrismb wrote:(Why isn't this added in the other thread? Are you trying to saturate the forum with your own political titles?)

The trouble around here is that there are no danged rules. I think I'll have a chat with a moderator about it and see if I can't get this sort of thing quashed before it becomes epidemic.

Why do we expect poor defendants to be financially liable for damages incurred while driving when we NEVER expect them to be financially liable for any OTHER civil case?

Uhm, if you are to clumsy to walk and you fall over in a fancy store, breaking several plates of Meissner porcellain, who do you think will pay for that? Well you of course! The store owner will make sure that you will pay and he will happily charge your credit card with it for the entire value of the broken items.
You dont believe me? Go and try it out!

How about Fines and or Jail time? The Municipal governments already trade jail time for fines owed to them, we could simply impose the same system for Civil damages.

And we could do something like have the local government pay the injured party $100 for ever day the miscreant spends in jail. That would be fair. Then the local government could get insurance against such charges.

Which would give them an incentive to drive such folks out of their jurisdictions.

There is no limit to the good you can do with the right laws.

Or we could do the sensible thing and suggest that those with risk of losses insure against such risks.

Moral of the story? Don't start a 100 car pile up. You will never get out of jail. Another moral of the story? Current mandatory insurance limits are way too low. They still allow way to many marginal folks on the road.

The store owner will make sure that you will pay and he will happily charge your credit card with it for the entire value of the broken items.
You don't believe me? Go and try it out!

I think the money paid should be up to the limit of what ever cash the credit card company has on hand. That way the store owner will be protected against those who are only pretending to be able to buy such items.

And of course no one will be allowed in the store without proof that (s)he has a credit card company behind them.

No one in business should have to take the risk of uncollectable losses.

Diogenes wrote: The point that the poor might become complacent about damaging other people's property is a good point. There MUST be a means of insuring that they take all precautions against behaving recklessly, or with callous disregard.

What should we do (in the absence of making them pay before the fact) to dissuade them from behaving recklessly?

How about Fines and or Jail time? The Municipal governments already trade jail time for fines owed to them, we could simply impose the same system for Civil damages.

What is wrong with that? Sure, the plaintiff might not get any money, but plaintiff's never do if the defendant is poor anyway. ANOTHER GOOD POINT!

And who pays for the s*dding comfy, well-heated/air-conditioned jail!?! That's just a bl**dy holiday if you're that poor. In UK we now have jailed crooks who can't be bothered to leave their cells for a court hearing, it is so comfortable for them.

I have a good solution that is simultaneously a solution for developing countries and for developed countries - we sub-contract out jail time to some central african republic and sent these miscreants there. (They can make their own way home afterwards.)

I'm not going to participate in this one any more, sorry, I think it is ridiculous.

If the poor cannot afford to get insurance then they park up their car and walk. There are plenty of poor in the world who do not dream of cars, they just walk. And if it is a bit far, they get a push bike. Sell the car, buy a bike. That's what you do if you are poor. Job done. End. Finito.

It's what I did when I was 16 trying to earn money for my first car and insurance, it's what my daddy did (once he got back from WW2), and it's what my granddad did, and it's all worked out fine so far.... My great great grandfather walked to his first job... which was to sit all day opening a rail-car door down a pit... from when he was 10 years old. From August to March he never saw sunlight, except on Sundays, until he was 20.

Poor people driving cars???!!! How do they pay for the freaking fuel!?!? Don't make me laugh!!!!!

End. Done. QRT.

I have a good solution that is simultaneously a solution for developing countries and for developed countries - we sub-contract out jail time to some central african republic and sent these miscreants there.

With all the rights and privileges of the originating country. That would be fair.

Or people at risk from losses could just insure against such losses.

Skipjack wrote:

But obviously, the most SERIOUS aspect of this is the BROKEN BACK and BROKEN NECK.

Insurance won't fix this. Hopefully her body can heal it, but if it can't there is No way to make her as before. She will have suffered a grievous loss because she took the gamble (of driving on the roads) and lost.

1. A broken back and a broken neck is not a very clear description of the injuries.
2. If you have a fractured vertebra (neck or back) spinal- bone, then there is danger of spinal chord injuries in SOME CASES!
It depends on where the bone is fractured.
E.g. my mother had several broken vertebrae in her days, but never had any spinal chord injuries.
So you clearly are exaggerating.

I am not exaggerating. The extent of the injuries are not fully known, but for the sake of argument it doesn't really matter. There are plenty of cases where Necks and Backs were broken in the severest way.

Skipjack wrote: 3. Yes money can not fix everything, but it is better than nothing. It is is this better than nothing that can help people getting over the damages they have suffered in an accident that was not their fault.
Besides, medical treatments do advance and one day (IMHO very soon) stem cell and other treatments will be able to fix even the most severe spinal chord- and other injuries caused by accidents.

This is a good point. I've read of researchers in Israel that have been having some success regenerating severed spines in rats. Eventually humankind will solve the problem of repairing major spinal cord damage. When we reach that point, we will then be able to trade money for necks and backs.

Skipjack wrote: Of course these treatments will be expensive ( at least in the US, they will most likely be covered by the public health insurance here) and someone will have to pay for that?
Now who is that going to be? The one who got injured, or the one who caused the injury?

Doubtlessly neither will be able to afford it. (in most cases.)

Skipjack wrote: To me the answer is very, very clear. There is no question about it. Now someone who does not have anything, cant pay. That is also clear.

Here is where the disconnect is.

Skipjack wrote: That is why people have to get insurance. So they can pay for the mistakes that they might make (because they, themselves wont be able to do that).

Do people have to get insurance to pay for mistakes they make which aren't related to using the public roads? For example, accidentally dropping a flowerpot on someone's head?

If they HAVE to get insurance for traffic, then by the same logic, they HAVE to get insurance to pay for any other type of mistake as well.

After all, people HAVE to pay for their mistakes when they're not driving too. Right ?

Skipjack wrote: Of course it should be an alternative to have a deposit somewhere that is meant to provide coverage in case of an accident. Instead of an insurance. But the poor wont have the money for that either, will they?

Probably not.

Skipjack wrote: Edit: Or let me ask the other way round. If the one who caused the accident should not pay for expensive treatments and the lack of income that the injured person will have, who will pay for it then? The government maybe? Use taxmoney for that? Yeah sure that would fare well with people.

Actually, this is not necessarily as bad of an idea as it initially sounds. In many ways, we currently do that now anyway. I'd like to explore this idea further, but it is ranging farther afield on an interesting tangent, but a tangent none the less.

Skipjack wrote: The one who got injured wont be able to pay for it either, because he cant work. So you have created another person that will have to rely on the social network, sucking money out of it. And you will have someone who is (IMHO rightfully so) bitter about it.

As I mentioned before, this happens already. Have you never heard of the term "Ward of the state" ?