Republicans are stupid thieves.

[Skipjack]

I think that being insured is a sign of professionalism. If you are not insured, how can I ever trust you to not frack up and then leave me with the damages because your improfessional business went out of the same?

[MSimon]

And insurance for things like that prevents

I have yet to hear (in America) any one going after the uninsured with a M1911 or equivalent for causing an uninsured accident.

Maybe it is different where you come from.

[MSimon]

I think that being insured is a sign of professionalism. If you are not insured, how can I ever trust you to not frack up and then leave me with the damages because your improfessional business went out of the same?

It is a risk you take. Depends on my value. Is it enough for you to assume the risk?

Do you trust me to analyze all the failure modes? And design against them? Lots of companies did.

BTW I was offered a job designing for a guy. He wanted to design the device in such a way that it had extremely high liability risks. After trying to talk the guy out of it I declined the job.

You see - with or without insurance I am a professional. Not everyone is so meticulous.

[Skipjack]

Depends on my value. Is it enough for you to assume the risk?

That depends on how much competition there is. You can buy stuff on the black market, or at garage sales. It might be cheaper, but you have a lot of risk with that. Most people prefer a professional service. That usually means a professional with insurance.

[MSimon]

You can't really have a job AS A DOCTOR without insurance, or as a lawyer, or as an engineer,

I never once in my career had insurance. I was very careful.

From what I've gathered from your descriptions of your life, you have never (or seldom) sold your services to the public, but worked instead for companies as employee or contractor. And said company almost certainly bore the burden of that risk. Did you EVER work as a "professional engineer" or the like?

I was asked once or twice. (see above). I declined due to the stupidity of my prospective clients. Now if I had gotten insurance.....

[Diogenes]

If "If you can't afford it, Stay off the road!" is good enough advice for one side, is it not good enough for the other as well?

As was mentioned by MSimon, in the olden days, if you damaged someone with your ox/cart/whatever, you were liable to become a slave to pay for it. This is similar to such long time common law only modern style.

Do you not see the irony of linking Slavery to this notion? We have cast Slavery into the pit. Why not this idea which is linked to it? After all, if they are complimentary contemporaries, don't they both deserve the same fate?

So if two uninsured drivers get in a car accident in Texas at night , and , have no way to remedy who is going to pay for the damages to each other, the police are not around, neither agree on a method to compensate or recover their losses, and if one leaves the scene, you can shoot him DEAD. Especially if the person fleeing threatens that they can do it and get away with it again, and do it to others as well.
Especially when the fleeing party will not identify themselves properly, have no credentials like a driver's license for civil recourse later. That makes them a marauder or a combatant in an act of war.[/quote]


How would this be different if neither person thought they were at fault, but instead believed the other guy caused the accident?

If one of the persons intentionally rammed the other with the intent to hurt or cause bodily injury, then yeah, shooting him is the right thing to do. If one of them isn't looking where he is going and bumps into the other causing damage, then shooting him is definitely an over reaction.

[Diogenes]

So it came to pass that you could go to your local clergy, pay him enough money, and he would grant you permission to commit Adultery or Kill someone. (I'm pretty sure the system wasn't misused because I expect permission to kill someone cost a great deal of money, and probably only Lords and Nobles could afford it. )

The point is, Paying for sins BEFORE you commit them is a logical and moral fallacy, yet that is the system we hold to with this insurance buisness.

You are in fact paying for sins you MIGHT commit, before the fact.

I reject this analogy. You keep bringing terms like sin and crime into the discussion in some attempt to emotionally charge your argument, but these not interchangeable terms with financial liability.

No, they are not. That's why it's an A-N-A-L-O-G-Y. It is an example of the same thinking applied to something else. I also used the analogy of prejudice. It is the same thinking applied to race. I.E. the thinking that someone is bad, (criminally inclined) "before the fact." The term "Prejudice" literally means to "Pre-Judge."

The Central point here is the "BEFORE the FACT" thing. I use the analogy of Indulgences and Prejudice because they are examples of this "Before the Fact" thinking.

What the mandatory insurance says is 'by driving on our roads, you are putting others at risk for large amounts of financial loss.

Yes, Infinite loss. Loss so great that no amount of money can cover it. THAT is the risk you present to others by driving on our roads.

You must pay this toll in order to participate in case you cause damage".

What cost to cover damage that no one can repay? Were we to demand such accounting before the fact, No one would be able to drive at all.

It has absolutely nothing to do with sins, crime, slavery or any other colorful term you might try to strawman up.

That you do not want to see that the thinking (and theory) is the same in these examples is plain, but since you disagree, what is the distinction then?

[Diogenes]

If insurance was a good idea for the average person, it wouldn't be profitable.

Open an account, place into that account what you spend on all forms of insurance...

$120-home
$100-car
$5-cell
$300-health
$40-life

...sound about average? Low on some, high on others depending upon where you live and what you have, of course.

But this is a modest number. $565 per month... $6780 per year...

How much do you use? I don't wreck cars, I've never had a fire or a flood, I've never lost my phone, I don't see the Dr. very often and when I do I still pay out of pocket until I hit my deductible...

It's a wonderful system for someone... but I would be better off with that money in an account to use if I needed it. Instead it pads a bottom line... and in most of these cases I have no choice in the matter.

It is wrong. It is corrupt. It is a bad bet you're forced to make.

I hate being the sucker...

You make a good point. I have always pointed out that the insurance buisness RELIES on the idea that you are going to pay them more than they ever pay you. Were it otherwise, there could be no insurance buisness.

This begs the question. If betting that you won't have an accident is a good bet for the Insurance company, (who's existence relies on this bet.) then why isn't it a good bet for you?

[Diogenes]

She was on Section 8 (DHS pays your rent for you.) living in a $650.00/month house at one time, but she didn't file her paperwork on time, and so she's been off of it for a year or so

So with all that support, she was not able to pay those 40 USD for car insurance? This is outright silly. Mine was more expensive and I paid that and everything else and I never asked for government money (to proud).
Not filing your paperwork in time is tough luck man. What can I say?

The problem with using real examples is that they don't necessarily fit very well. She probably could have paid the insurance, but simply wouldn't. She smoked cigarettes, and liked to party with her friends, so any extra money went to that i'm sure.

Apart from that, you ought not be able to count Government money into the equation. If you do that, you might as well say the state is paying for her insurance, so it is no different from the state exempting her from having it.

I don't know why people keep claiming that there is an Insurance problem, when the main problem is a lack of a feedback loop on costs.

You were the one who said that the coverage by the car insurance was bad, not me!

The quote (in context) is referring to Medical Insurance, where the lack of a Feedback loop is far more serious problem than any issue over car insurance.

It is ridiculous. Why would you suggest it? Are not the parents responsible for 3 year olds in Austria?

Ok, I meant being hit by a car whilst standing on the sidewalk, at the hand of her mother. Again, you can be hurt by cars and not even be that close to a road. It is silly to assume that everybody should have to cover their asses against everybody elses mistakes.

It is silly to assume it's even possible, yet that is the theory that Mandatory car insurance is based on.

This is completely absurd. Take a different example. Air traffic. If someones plane fails and hits my house, why would I have to take care of that? I think that would be completely unfair. Besides, what insurance even insures you against something like that?

I don't know, but if you are killed in the crash, no amount of money will help YOU.

Unless you live in a city that is not possible. Euros generally have little feel for the distances involved in America.

I am very well aware of the distances in the US, but there are other ways to deal with this. If you cant afford a car and the distance is to far for a bike, then use a motorbike. The insurance for that should be very cheap as well (it is almost nothing here) and my partner in my company used to ride one to work every day (it is about a 45 minute ride by motorbike). I know people that ride to work on bikes summer and winter every day for an hour. Again no excuse there, though I am sure, her job was in comparably close distance from home. There are other alternatives too like car sharing and other things. You can always ask a neighbour for help as well. Plenty of ways to deal with this.

The risks of getting killed or severely injured are astronomically higher on a motor bike than they are riding in a modern car. Mandatory insurance for motorcyles is $50.00 - $100.00 / year. (I have a couple of motorcyles.)

This poses an interesting Question. If someone can't afford the $40.00 -$80.00/ month, and is forced through necessity to ride a far more dangerous motorcycle instead, and ends up being severely hurt or killed as a result, Does the State have some responsibility for forcing them out of a car? (Literally!)

Thanks Skipjack! Another good point you have made! You and EricF are helping me out !

[Diogenes]

What other aspect of law assumes you are probably going to commit a tort or crime before you do it?

Almost every aspect of life where you interact with risk to another. Every professional carries insurance to cover professional mistakes unless their company covers it for them. This is no different.

The difference is that the professional chooses to do this. The state doesn't force him to do this. I'm sure a professional is free to insure himself if he wants to.

You can't really have a job AS A DOCTOR without insurance, or as a lawyer, or as an engineer, or even a delivery-man. Each have insurance to cover their mistakes. So should you. Ater all, why should I subsidize your pursuit of profit?

You are mistaking good buisness practice for something which the state compels you to do. The difference is the compulsion, or lack of freedom.

If the state can compel a man to insure himself for driving, it can compel a man to insure himself for anything else. Among other things that are wrong with it is the fact that it grants states power over individuals that they should not have.

I DO however belive that compensatory damages should be limited to actual and demonstrable, and that PUNITIVE damages should not be insurable.

I agree. I have ALWAYS said that punitive damages should go to the punitive authority. This reduces the positive feedback loop of lawyers pushing for excessive punitive damages. (because they collect a percentage.)

[Diogenes]

2. Sure it will. It'll cover the hospital costs and the recuperation costs and physical therapy costs and the costs to live while you can't get a job and all sorts of other costs.

Funny, I don't see any of this stuff balancing the scales. I certainly wouldn't regard all this hospital stuff as a fair trade. I'd rather not have my neck broken.

Well duhh! This is a non-sequitor if there ever was one. And no-one ever said it was supposed to be a "fair trade"! In fairytale land, nobody needs insurance because nothing bad will ever happen. But this is realityville. Some folks suck at driving. If they can't afford to drive because they have had so many accidents they can't afford their insurence, they SHOULDN'T BE ON THE ROAD! And if I've had my neck broken by some jerk who can't drive, why should I be settled with financial injury upon physical injury because he can't compensate me for the hospiltal stay etc.?

The reality *I'M* trying to acquaint everyone with is the reality that Driving represents a risk of loss that CANNOT be covered by insurance. Yet we willingly submit to risks which subject us to horrific uncompensateable losses, but BALK at the idea our pretty cars might get damaged by someone who can't pay us.

Let me see if I can make this clearer. If you Drive you might:

DIE.
BE PARALYZED.
BE BURNED.
BE MANGLED.
LOSE AN EYE.
LOSE YOUR CHILD.
Etc.

$50,000.00 won't cover ANY of this, Yet people take this risk to drive.

If people voluntarily risk Major losses that NO ONE can pay them for, why can't they risk minor injuries and property damage that poor people can't pay them for?

[EricF]

If insurance was a good idea for the average person, it wouldn't be profitable.

Open an account, place into that account what you spend on all forms of insurance...

$120-home
$100-car
$5-cell
$300-health
$40-life

...sound about average? Low on some, high on others depending upon where you live and what you have, of course.

But this is a modest number. $565 per month... $6780 per year...

How much do you use? I don't wreck cars, I've never had a fire or a flood, I've never lost my phone, I don't see the Dr. very often and when I do I still pay out of pocket until I hit my deductible...

It's a wonderful system for someone... but I would be better off with that money in an account to use if I needed it. Instead it pads a bottom line... and in most of these cases I have no choice in the matter.

It is wrong. It is corrupt. It is a bad bet you're forced to make.

I hate being the sucker...

LOL! I'm sorry man, but that is like saying 'if food was a good idea for the average person, it wouldn't be profitable'

[EricF]

Eric F,

You might commit a crime. So we are sending you to jail for one day a week so you can pay in advance. And to pay for criminals we can't catch.

And BTW how did David Willard and his insurance wind up paying for his accident. They have mandatory insurance in his state.

I already pay taxes which supports the infrastructure of our judiciary and law enforcement needed in case I do comit a crime. So in a way I'm already insured against crimes I may comit.

[EricF]

No, they are not. That's why it's an A-N-A-L-O-G-Y. It is an example of the same thinking applied to something else. I also used the analogy of prejudice. It is the same thinking applied to race. I.E. the thinking that someone is bad, (criminally inclined) "before the fact." The term "Prejudice" literally means to "Pre-Judge."

The Central point here is the "BEFORE the FACT" thing. I use the analogy of Indulgences and Prejudice because they are examples of this "Before the Fact" thinking.

Except that your analogy doesnt work, because the two situations you describe do not equate. The premise of insurance has nothing to do with prejudgement and everything to do with economic solvency in the event of an unintentional loss you might cause to others (without getting into the factors that go into underwriting of course). The key word there is UNINTENTIONAL. IE an Accident. If you intentionally cause damage to something, that is a crime, and an insurance policy actually has provisions to deny paying damages that are caused intentionally.

Yes, Infinite loss. Loss so great that no amount of money can cover it. THAT is the risk you present to others by driving on our roads.

This is patently false. If the risk of me driving were so great no amount of money could cover it, insurance companies would not be solvent. Such a high risk does exist however, it's called flooding. No private insurance company insures against flooding, because the risk is so great that it would bankrupt them all. So the burden falls to the federal government instead. (and before anyone comments, if you buy a flood policy from a private insurer, they are simply acting as an agent of the feds to sell you a National Flood Insurance policy)

What cost to cover damage that no one can repay? Were we to demand such accounting before the fact, No one would be able to drive at all.

False premise, see above.

It has absolutely nothing to do with sins, crime, slavery or any other colorful term you might try to strawman up.

That you do not want to see that the thinking (and theory) is the same in these examples is plain, but since you disagree, what is the distinction then?

I'm afraid I can't help you here if you cannot tell the difference between religious sin, crimes, or slavery when compared to a basic requirement of being economically solvent to protect against financial risk to others.

[KitemanSA]

You see - with or without insurance I am a professional. Not everyone is so meticulous.

Precisely!