And a risk of cost burden that CAN.Diogenes wrote: 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.
Republicans are stupid thieves.
-
Heath_h49008
- Posts: 71
- Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 9:12 pm
- Location: Michigan
Food is actually consumed and used.EricF wrote: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'Heath_h49008 wrote: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...
If you want to use the analogy... I'm forced to buy more food than I need, some I don't even want, and I have to buy it from state approved sources.
In that case, yes. It would be just like that....
well we do have the FDAHeath_h49008 wrote:Food is actually consumed and used.EricF wrote: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'Heath_h49008 wrote: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...
If you want to use the analogy... I'm forced to buy more food than I need, some I don't even want, and I have to buy it from state approved sources.
In that case, yes. It would be just like that....
And just because you are forced to buy it, doesn't mean it is necessarily a bad thing.The first post in the thread explains it. Republicans in the Oklahoma State house wants to seize people's cars if they are found to be driving without insurance.seedload wrote:Didn't read this thread, just the poll and the OP first post.
That said, there is no analogy between state car insurance requirements and federal health insurance mandates for a couple of simple reasons.
Mandating insurance is a state right, not a federal one. States can make laws that the federal government can't. So says the Constitution.
Mandated car insurance is designed to cover damage you do not damage to you. You don't need collision. Just liability. Health insurance mandates are about mandating how you take care of yourself which is much different.
Finally, why this is a Republican vs Democrat issue per the title of the thread confuses me. I don't believe that this is much of a partisan issue.
This is an act of theft in my mind, and it is an example where the Republicans are abetting legalized thievery.
Skipjack wrote:Exactly. And insurance for things like that prevents a lot of, how should I call it?, unlawful settlements for these issues. I mean, you are crippled, your life ruined by someone who can not drive and then you are left with nothing and no compensation on top if that? I know what I would do in that situaion and it would not be pretty! But hey if your life is already ruined anyway, you might just as well ruin the life of the one at fault also, right? BUT that is not how things are supposed to work in a civilized society. This is anarchy. Many laws that we have, were developed because experience showed a need for that law. And yes, laws are not always perfect and not always ideal and there may be better solutions, but IMHO, car insurance is a good solution. The fact that it is required in most civilized countries should be a clue.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 problem with this theory requires the insertion of a Jerk. Accidents NOT caused by jerks leave you in the same situation as a Jerk that can't pay you anyway.
The flaw in this thinking is the same flaw in the Minimum wage thinking.
"People should make at LEAST X much money." Meaning, unless you can't make "X" amount of money, you can't work at all. Some people simply can't make "X" amount of money.
Think about it. "People shouldn't drive unless they pay "X" amount of money. Meaning people who can't pay "X" amount of money simply can't drive.
Pretty soon it's gonna be "People who can't do at least "X" amount of Usefulness shouldn't waste oxygen that more productive people might use.
As I understand it our Congress is already working on such a plan. Of course Madam "Parliament of Whores" Pelosi says we can't find out what the real plan is unless it passes.Pretty soon it's gonna be "People who can't do at least "X" amount of Usefulness shouldn't waste oxygen that more productive people might use.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
And you can change that by law?KitemanSA wrote:Precisely!MSimon wrote: You see - with or without insurance I am a professional. Not everyone is so meticulous.
In fact insurance inserts a moral hazard into the equation. If I had insurance I might do the design with disclaimers and let the insurance company handle the claims while I take home the profits (to pay the insurance).
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Most accidents wont kill you, but many will leave you with severe health issues and treatment costs, ESPECIALLY in the US, where many people do not have good coverage by health insurance.I don't know, but if you are killed in the crash, no amount of money will help YOU.
IMHO the party at fault should pay for that, not the party that got injured without fault. This is a principle of justice. As I said, it is a safer for the one causing the accident as well that way, because otherwise there might be a lot of people seeking justice with other means. One reason why we have systems that try to compensate victims (and I am still using that word) is that it prevents people from going out and shooting each other over accidents or small, minor disputes. That is what once was the case, so the system adapted and invented new laws.
But imagine this: You get hit by some ruthless driver, you get badly injured. You cant do your job anymore as a result. You loose your job. The medical bills keep piling up. You are in severe pain all day long and you get nothing from the guy that injured you, because he does not have anything and was not insured either. How would you feel?
Would you blame yourself? I dont think so?
It is like blaming a murder victim for having been at the wrong place at the wrong time. It does not make sense!
You wont be able to do that. Most insurance rates increase with the number of failures (at least with car insurance and some professional insurances). In fact, it is sometimes cheaper to simply pay the damages yourself, if they are small, so your insurance rates dont go up.In fact insurance inserts a moral hazard into the equation. If I had insurance I might do the design with disclaimers and let the insurance company handle the claims while I take home the profits (to pay the insurance).
You clearly have not had much insurance in your lifetime, have you?
Of course I can't change that by law. But I can demand that those who don't have your innate perfection (obviously few and far betweenMSimon wrote:And you can change that by law?KitemanSA wrote:Precisely!MSimon wrote: You see - with or without insurance I am a professional. Not everyone is so meticulous.
In fact insurance inserts a moral hazard into the equation. If I had insurance I might do the design with disclaimers and let the insurance company handle the claims while I take home the profits (to pay the insurance).
) at least have the where-with-all to compensate me for the financial burder they may cause me when their un-god-like (un-MSimon-like?) falibility kicks in. Since slavery after the fact is not an option, insurance before the fact is a reasonable compremise.By the way, I am not actually opposed to the "slavery after the fact" option either. Not all slavery is created equal!
The world of no limits that you yearn for exists. Might I suggest you move to Somalia?Diogenes wrote: The problem with this theory requires the insertion of a Jerk. Accidents NOT caused by jerks leave you in the same situation as a Jerk that can't pay you anyway.
The flaw in this thinking is the same flaw in the Minimum wage thinking.
"People should make at LEAST X much money." Meaning, unless you can't make "X" amount of money, you can't work at all. Some people simply can't make "X" amount of money.
Think about it. "People shouldn't drive unless they pay "X" amount of money. Meaning people who can't pay "X" amount of money simply can't drive.
Pretty soon it's gonna be "People who can't do at least "X" amount of Usefulness shouldn't waste oxygen that more productive people might use.
There are no limits and wrong limits. The USSR had lots of limits. They were the wrong ones.vankirkc wrote:The world of no limits that you yearn for exists. Might I suggest you move to Somalia?Diogenes wrote: The problem with this theory requires the insertion of a Jerk. Accidents NOT caused by jerks leave you in the same situation as a Jerk that can't pay you anyway.
The flaw in this thinking is the same flaw in the Minimum wage thinking.
"People should make at LEAST X much money." Meaning, unless you can't make "X" amount of money, you can't work at all. Some people simply can't make "X" amount of money.
Think about it. "People shouldn't drive unless they pay "X" amount of money. Meaning people who can't pay "X" amount of money simply can't drive.
Pretty soon it's gonna be "People who can't do at least "X" amount of Usefulness shouldn't waste oxygen that more productive people might use.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
EricF wrote: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.Diogenes wrote:
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.
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)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.
False premise, see above.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.
EricF wrote: It has absolutely nothing to do with sins, crime, slavery or any other colorful term you might try to strawman up.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.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?
You are simply not comprehending my point(s).
I mention "Infinite loss" and you talk about "Flood Insurance"? You seem to only understand the concept of "Loss" in terms of money. Most things which are important to people are not redeemable in dollars.
How much money would you sell your head for?
KitemanSA wrote:And a risk of cost burden that CAN.Diogenes wrote: 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.
I value my life, the lives of my loved ones and my bodily integrity more than money. So does everyone else.
This is where the hangup is I think. The emotional aspect of "justice" gets in the way of the logical aspect of "Impossible."Skipjack wrote:Most accidents wont kill you, but many will leave you with severe health issues and treatment costs, ESPECIALLY in the US, where many people do not have good coverage by health insurance.I don't know, but if you are killed in the crash, no amount of money will help YOU.
IMHO the party at fault should pay for that, not the party that got injured without fault. This is a principle of justice.
The "justice" is limited to $40,000.00 (or so) which is only sufficient to cover variations on a minor theme.
It will fix most pretty cars, and cover some medical bills for not too serious injuries. It will not Sew Heads back on, revive dead children or replace lost eyeballs.
There IS no "Justice" for these losses, and people KNOW that there is no recourse if this happens to them.
Why are we so complacent about Deadly risks, and so petty about damage to property? It's an emotional disconnect.
It certainly did! Laws that fly in the face of thousands of years of Precedent and violates the basic rights of people to use the public roads. It also violates the legal principle of being punished for a crime before committing it!Skipjack wrote: As I said, it is a safer for the one causing the accident as well that way, because otherwise there might be a lot of people seeking justice with other means. One reason why we have systems that try to compensate victims (and I am still using that word) is that it prevents people from going out and shooting each other over accidents or small, minor disputes. That is what once was the case, so the system adapted and invented new laws.
Also, the use of the term "Victim" criminalizes an accident. It also presumes that the injured party was innocent, which may not be the case. (the injured party may have caused the accident.)
This is an appeal to emotion. No different from "Do it for the Children!"Skipjack wrote: But imagine this: You get hit by some ruthless driver, you get badly injured. You cant do your job anymore as a result. You loose your job. The medical bills keep piling up. You are in severe pain all day long and you get nothing from the guy that injured you, because he does not have anything and was not insured either. How would you feel?
Would you blame yourself? I dont think so?
It is like blaming a murder victim for having been at the wrong place at the wrong time. It does not make sense!
Were the accident to have been caused by a falling rock, or an escaped cow, the results would be exactly the same with one significant difference. There would be no Person to play the role opposite the aggrieved party.