novaderrik wrote: now if MN would just get rid of the stupid mandatory car insurance law, i'd be a happy camper..
I agree with that.
Insurance is backwards, and it's that way for a reason. How it should work (IMO), is that you should insure yourself, so if anyone hits you, you're covered. If you're not insured, you're out of luck. Your call.
Zomby Woof wrote:novaderrik wrote: now if MN would just get rid of the stupid mandatory car insurance law, i'd be a happy camper..I agree with that. Insurance is backwards, and it's that way for a reason. How it should work (IMO), is that you should insure yourself, so if anyone hits you, you're covered. If you're not insured, you're out of luck. Your call.
Umm, no. I insure myself against the liability of the wrecks I cause. You should do the same or walk, or you can ride a liquor cycle (moped) with the rest of the DUI winners. It's called paying for your mistakes. You break, you buy; not you break, I buy.
Hal wrote:novaderrik wrote: now if MN would just get rid of the stupid mandatory car insurance law, i'd be a happy camper..Until some uninsured drunk runs a stop sign and T-bones you putting you in the hospital for 10 days. BTDT and was very happy I had insurance.
hopefully the drunk idiot has the means to cover his risky lifestyle.. if not, his stuff becomes mine and gets liquidated to pay my bills.
make the penalties for stupid behavior more severe and don't make me pay for something intangible that only kicks in when something bad happens. maybe crack down harder on idiots that drive drunk- MN has special license plates for people that get a DWI conviction that have the letters "WH" on them.. they are called "whiskey plates" and seem to be worn by full size pickups as a badge of honor.. get rid of those plates and actually take away the privilege of driving (and the plates of all vehicles in the household) for something like 5 years after a DWI conviction and you can bet the risk of being hit by a drunk driver goes down considerably, thus lowering my personal risk and need to insure against that risk.
In reply to Toyman01:
No need to explain, I understand how it works. I just disagree with it. I think if you want to go out on the roads, you accept the consequences of such, and insure appropriately. Don't want to be subjected to it, or pay for insurance? Don't drive.
novaderrik wrote:Hal wrote:hopefully the drunk idiot has the means to cover his risky lifestyle.. if not, his stuff becomes mine and gets liquidated to pay my bills. make the penalties for stupid behavior more severe and don't make me pay for something intangible that only kicks in when something bad happens. maybe crack down harder on idiots that drive drunk- MN has special license plates for people that get a DWI conviction that have the letters "WH" on them.. they are called "whiskey plates" and seem to be worn by full size pickups as a badge of honor.. get rid of those plates and actually take away the privilege of driving (and the plates of all vehicles in the household) for something like 5 years after a DWI conviction and you can bet the risk of being hit by a drunk driver goes down considerably, thus lowering my personal risk and need to insure against that risk.novaderrik wrote: now if MN would just get rid of the stupid mandatory car insurance law, i'd be a happy camper..Until some uninsured drunk runs a stop sign and T-bones you putting you in the hospital for 10 days. BTDT and was very happy I had insurance.
Excellent straw man, no one had been speaking of drunk driving.
Again, let's say you make a mistake (I know it's hard to believe since you're perfect).......do you have the ability to buy me a new car ($35k), pay my medical bills, time off work, rental car, etc?
So, do you have your state's minimum liability requirements? Then self-insure. Otherwise, I'm not interested in your old house or Duran Duran LPs.
z31maniac wrote:novaderrik wrote:Excellent straw man, no one had been speaking of drunk driving. Again, let's say you make a mistake (I know it's hard to believe since you're perfect).......do you have the ability to buy me a new car ($35k), pay my medical bills, time off work, rental car, etc? So, do you have your state's minimum liability requirements? Then self-insure. Otherwise, I'm not interested in your old house or Duran Duran LPs.Hal wrote:hopefully the drunk idiot has the means to cover his risky lifestyle.. if not, his stuff becomes mine and gets liquidated to pay my bills. make the penalties for stupid behavior more severe and don't make me pay for something intangible that only kicks in when something bad happens. maybe crack down harder on idiots that drive drunk- MN has special license plates for people that get a DWI conviction that have the letters "WH" on them.. they are called "whiskey plates" and seem to be worn by full size pickups as a badge of honor.. get rid of those plates and actually take away the privilege of driving (and the plates of all vehicles in the household) for something like 5 years after a DWI conviction and you can bet the risk of being hit by a drunk driver goes down considerably, thus lowering my personal risk and need to insure against that risk.novaderrik wrote: now if MN would just get rid of the stupid mandatory car insurance law, i'd be a happy camper..Until some uninsured drunk runs a stop sign and T-bones you putting you in the hospital for 10 days. BTDT and was very happy I had insurance.
read the quote that i quoted in the quote that you quoted.. my drunk driving dealio was in response to someone else that mentioned drunk driving, and i took the opportunity to use it as an example of ways to lower my (and everyone else's) exposure to risks when they drive by cracking down in a real and effective way on that particular form of idiocy.
never said i was perfect- far from it- but i don't feel the need to pay for someone to cover my ass if i screw up. it's a personal responsibility thing- something that seems to be lacking in the world any more.
People who drive without insurance generally do it because they can't afford it (though they magically find the money for their cell phone, internet and Comcast cable). When one of these losers hits someone the idea is that the victim or his insurance can sue them and take everything they own in payment. Except they don't own anything. They rent their furniture, they rent their apartment, the car is a 200,000 mile Navigator with bad air suspension and they make so little a wage garnishment would take a decade to even make a dent in your loss.
But if you want to self insure, by all means, go for it.
In reply to ddavidv:
It's not necessarily about the money. I just want them to be miserable for a while.
My wife has been hit by two uninsured drivers in the past 6 months. Totaled her Venture and luckily did no damage to the Liberty we just got. (I was pleased to see the shiny new trailer hitch I installed ripped the guts out of the front of the car. 
) Both drivers will lose their licenses for one year. If the insurance company takes the Venture wreck to court and wins, they lose their licenses until the judgement is settled. It'll probably cost them their jobs if they can't get to work. It will probably cost them their houses if they can't pay for them. I have no problem with that. They took the chance, and lost.
In my model, you'd be covered because you had insurance. Similar to house, or comprehensive insurance. If something happens to your house or car, you're covered because you bought a policy for that.
novaderrik wrote: never said i was perfect- far from it- but i don't feel the need to pay for someone to cover my ass if i screw up. it's a personal responsibility thing- something that seems to be lacking in the world any more.
I get that. But what you keep ignoring is, Do you have the ability, on your own, to make someone whole if you cause a loss.
ddavidv wrote: This thread started out about car insurance.
This is my favorite response in the thread. You can learn a lot about the internet right here.
Datsun1500 wrote:Zomby Woof wrote: In my model, you'd be covered because you had insurance. Similar to house, or comprehensive insurance. If something happens to your house or car, you're covered because you bought a policy for that.Ok, but if I'm like you and did not buy a policy, I am out of luck if you cause damage to me? Your fault, but I pay?
Correct.
Simmer down, young-uns!
Well we have stayed away from the OP. So I will continue.
I pay extra for uninsured motorist on my auto insurance. I also pay extra for UNDERinsured motorist. Because the cost of auto and medical have gone up so much. So yes, if someone hits me with no insurance, I basically sue my own insurance company.
If anyone here thinks drunk drivers have insurance think again. Most are on their third of forth offense and haven't had a license or insurance for years. Our legislature cuts the guts out of our DUI laws, because most of the thieving bastards are lawyers.
Zomby Woof wrote:Datsun1500 wrote:Correct.Zomby Woof wrote: In my model, you'd be covered because you had insurance. Similar to house, or comprehensive insurance. If something happens to your house or car, you're covered because you bought a policy for that.Ok, but if I'm like you and did not buy a policy, I am out of luck if you cause damage to me? Your fault, but I pay?
By that logic, if kids are playing baseball in the street (or in my case, street hockey), and one of them breaks your garage window and then the car window in one fell swoop (I didn't know I could shoot that hard!), the guy with the broken windows is the one who has to pay, and the kid doesn't have to mow the guys lawn for a year, all because he didn't have the forsight to put metal bars over his garage window.
That makes sense.
You insure yourself, just like home, health, and comprehensive insurance. That way it doesn't have to be mandatory. If you don't want insurance, you don't buy it. If you don't want exposure, then you don't drive. It makes a lot more sense to me than the auto policy I'm paying for. In your example, your comp policy would pay for the car, and your home policy the house window. Both existing examples of what I'm talking about that you probably already have.
As far as the kid being responsible, he still is and you can work that out with him and his parents. I was only talking about insurance coverage, not responsibility.
I'd wager that there are VERY few people who could actually self-insure.
And I'm out before I say something bad.
In reply to Zomby Woof:
I understand what you are saying, but I don't agree with it.
That's cool though. Differing opinions is what makes life interesting. Otherwise we would all be lemmings.
In reply to z31maniac:
If that was a response to me, that's not what I'm talking about. I meant that you would buy insurance to cover yourself in case something happens, just like health, or comprehensive insurance.
In reply to Toyman01:
No we wouldn't.
The older I've gotten, the more insurance I've decided I wanted. Part of that is because I have nicer things, but a bigger part of that is because I don't want my family to wind up on the street if something bad really happened.Some people are glass half full kind of people. I'm a what glass kind of person- it is just a matter of time before something bad happens.
You'll need to log in to post.
