Datsun1500 wrote:Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: Well - they have the option to have medical coverage to protect them from the part where they are walking down a sidewalk and something bad happens. So, the insurance they already have and pays for them to heal.What if I am the guy walking down the sidewalk and I chose not to pay for medical? Who pays? I did nothing wrong......
E36 M3 happens. What if you slipped on some ice and broke your hip?
You should look into MNs mandatory PIP insurance. Costs me @$25/mo per car policy, covers me if I am walking down the street. The real issue?: I have to pay for it on every policy, but I can only ever use one of them. So, for $25/ mo on the first car I get covered up to $40k. For the second and third car I also have to pay $25/mo for it, because it's required, even though I can't ever use it because they only cover me to $40k. If I wanted to spend a little extra, like another $20/mo per car they would allow me to use them sequentially.
Of course I'm still trying to figure out why I need insurance policies on all of my cars. I can only drive one at a time, so quote me up a policy for the most expensive one and it's should be good for the rest, right?
Bingo!
I pay out of pocket, because I chose to have no insurance.
My choice.
Home owners insurance has a liability section. It most likely will cover you when you hit that old lady with your bicycle or somebody trips on your sidewalk.
Ranger50 wrote: Because someone has to get paid!!! You caused the accident, "you" are going to pay! I'll flip the argument to something not exactly car insurance related. My parents had a pedigreed standard poodle. She got away from my father and gets CREAMED by some dumb bitch not paying attention to a HUGE white dog running around. The driver didn't even stop. Wait a few days, dumb bitch comes back and wants my parents HOMEOWNERS insurance policy numbers to cover fixing her POS. So what does a dog have to do with homeowners? Someone needs to be paid! Get this too, no police report or anything either. Brian
Thats because it is your parents fault for not controlling their dog. What if the same loose dog had decided to run over her parked car and scratched it up? Still his fault.
Same idea as if he forgot to set the E-Brake and his car rolled into her car. His actions or lack there of caused damage to her property.
I am sorry the dog got hit. My two have gotten loose before aside from a bite incident them getting hit is one of my biggest fears.
curtis73 wrote: Of course, there is a broader picture here. For example, I don't think the law should dictate whether or not I need to wear a helmet when I'm on two wheels. If I collide with another vehicle, it makes no measurable effect on financial impact to the person I hit if I have a helmet or not. It should be my choice to be stupid and have a death wish on a Kawasaki. But, there is a considerably different financial appeal in the grand scheme. The ensuing monetary municipal investment is much different at a crash scene where a dashingly handsome motorcyclist was merely injured versus a crash scene where a previously handsome motorcyclist had his head turned into a pancake by a Plymouth. [/soapbox]
What if instead of hitting someone, someone rear-ends you at a stop light? And instead of dying, you have major brain injury that leads to surgery and three months in a coma, not to mention a few broken bones? Now say you were wearing a helmet, and instead of the surgery, the doctor says you're lucky and are out the next day. To the insurance company paying the bills, the difference in their cost between the two situations may be a factor of ten.
MitchellC wrote: What if instead of hitting someone, someone rear-ends you at a stop light? And instead of dying, you have major brain injury that leads to surgery and three months in a coma, not to mention a few broken bones? Now say you were wearing a helmet, and instead of the surgery, the doctor says you're lucky and are out the next day. To the insurance company paying the bills, the difference in their cost between the two situations may be a factor of ten.
I could do the long explanation, but my opinion boils down to this: Entities (be it individuals or corporations) should need to be held accountable for their own actions - period.
In your example, I have several parametric options that are (or should be) my choice: wearing a helmet or not, carrying insurance or not, having uninsured motorist coverage or not... etc. Unfortunately for me, the guy who hit me has a few million options should he choose to explore them: he can sue the manufacturer of the brake pads on his car, claim that my brake light didn't work and sue me, endlessly appeal his rulings in court... etc.
The law has been abused to the point where you are guilty until proven innocent, right when you are wrong, and sent to death row for flirting with the wrong lady. (ok, I exaggerate)
IMHO, I am responsible for myself. If I choose to drive on the road, I assume the risk of getting in an accident. I should be able to choose to protect myself in my own way with my own insurance coverage and my own choice on whether or not to wear a seat belt or helmet - just like I'm allowed to choose my own vehicle. The difference in safety between seat belt or bareback is statistically inconsequential compared to the difference between having a wreck on two wheels compared to four. The law affords me the right to drive a 1930 Model A with rear-only manual drum brakes and no seat belt the same exact way it affords me the right to drive a brand new Mercedes with 432 air bags, ABS, VSC, active handling, auto butt wipe, yadda yadda. I promise you I am safer in with no belt in the new MBZ than I am in the Model A, but in the Model A its legal to drive without a seat belt because it wasn't originally equipped with one.
This is much like the age of consent being 18, but the age of legal drinking is 21. You are allowed to place yourself in remarkably terrible odds of survival in defense of your imperialist (oops, sorry. I meant capitalist) patriotic beliefs but you aren't allowed to kill a few brain cells with a beer until three more years of maturity.
Which brings me to another perfect example of the black/white legislation... evidently the government has decided that every single person in the U.S. has reached a self-sufficient emotional and intellectual maturity at 12:00 am midnight on the day of their 18th birthday. Much like its perfectly safe, legal, and moral to drive 75 mph in AZ, but once you cross the imaginary line into CA its suddenly unsafe and unlawful to exceed 65.
We all know that some people aren't mature enough or intelligent enough to wipe their own ass at age 60 while there are 12-year-olds that some of us would write in for president. -the same way we know that an imaginary line in the desert isn't magically safer to drive 10 mph faster on the eastern side than the west.
Everyone does need to be responsible for their own actions, period. it doesn't matter if i have insurance. If you cause me bodily harm, you need to pay for it, period. If you cause damage to my property, you need to pay for it, period. It doesn't matter how much insurance I have, I bought that to pay for stupid crap I do, not stupid crap you do.
This brings me to another issue, being insured for too small an amount. These days it's pretty easy to rack up a big bill. A few years back a kid joy riding in his parent's mini van lost control while doing about 70 or so in a 35 zone on a wet road, and plowed into my 944 Turbo and pushing through my office at work, along with a co-worker's car. The father ended up buying two cars and a HUGE building repair, along with his own vehicle. He had the minimum required insurance that only paid a fraction of the cost. Total cost of the accident I think was over $200k.
Not only do you need the insurance here that everyone is griping about, you need to make sure you have enough to cover yourself in a worst case scenario. I had a friend in college that caused an accident that he ended up paying for for about 20 years.
What is the min there?
I think it's $300k here, but everybody has $1-$2 mil
racerdave600 wrote: This brings me to another issue, being insured for too small an amount. These days it's pretty easy to rack up a big bill. A few years back a kid joy riding in his parent's mini van lost control while doing about 70 or so in a 35 zone on a wet road, and plowed into my 944 Turbo and pushing through my office at work, along with a co-worker's car. The father ended up buying two cars and a HUGE building repair, along with his own vehicle. He had the minimum required insurance that only paid a fraction of the cost. Total cost of the accident I think was over $200k. Not only do you need the insurance here that everyone is griping about, you need to make sure you have enough to cover yourself in a worst case scenario. I had a friend in college that caused an accident that he ended up paying for for about 20 years.
+1!
Back when I was delivering newspapers, I was REQUIRED to have 100k/300k coverage. I have seen kept it there even after I had my agent question it. I was like, "WTF. I REFUSE to totally lose my ass on an "act of God" possibility." Also, for myself at least, the additional coverage over the minimum isn't that much more then the minimum. I think I pay about $75/6mo more which when I already pay $600/6mo for my Dakota is a drop in the bucket for the piece of mind.
curtis73 wrote: IMHO, I am responsible for myself. If I choose to drive on the road, I assume the risk of getting in an accident. I should be able to choose to protect myself in my own way with my own insurance coverage
So you guys that are complaining about insurance coverage, what are you complaining about?
That you have to insure yourself against loss? That you have to insure against the potential damage that you will do to others? What does and does not constitute liability?
In reply to curtis73:
while it might get you a few traffic tickets, last i heard, insurance companies weren't denying claims for people not wearing seatbelts in cars or helmets on motorcycles.
z31maniac wrote: So you guys that are complaining about insurance coverage, what are you complaining about?
I'm not complaining about minimum liability - its a good thing that makes that other guy financially responsible for when he hits me. I personally have full coverage on all my operational vehicles because I got a screaming deal with my driving record and credit score.
BUT - for the government to require me to carry insurance I feel is a violation of my financial rights. It is forcing me to give money to a capitalist company who makes a profit. To me its no different than the government saying that when you buy a vehicle, you must use financing so that someone else makes a profit from it.
When you finance a car, they check your credit score and assign a monthly payment that spreads the financial burden out over several years while making a hefty profit in interest. When you purchase a liability policy, they check your credit score, estimate how much the bill will be on your first accident, and assign a monthly payment to spread out the financial burden while making a hefty profit.
If believe that I should have the freedom to choose that for myself. If I have a spare $150,000 sitting around, I could put it in a CD or money market account where it earns interest for ME. Then if I have an accident I can pay for it out of pocket
... of course I don't have that money, and that is an extreme example, but the government forcing me down a cattle chute which requires me to line the pockets of one of the most profitable industries in the nation. That's not capitalism. I happen to choose to pay liability insurance because I'm low income, and although I know I'm losing money when I compare premiums to payouts, but it sure beats trying to come up with $10,000 every time my wife dings a BMW at walmart. I'm getting financially raped, but at least I know how much and its spread out 
I think the consequences should be straight forward. Bill Gates hits you with his K-car? He should have the option to not carry insurance and instead write you a check for the damages -or- carry insurance and let them handle it. Cletus Trailertrash hits you with his Dart Swinger? He needs to provide you with the same thing. He should have the option to not carry insurance knowing that they can seize his tractor, his Dart, his double-wide, and the engine block in the front yard if that's what it takes to cover his debts. ... But at least give him the choice. Empower him. The last thing we need to do is make that welfare redneck either struggle to pay his insurance while his 10 babies go hungry or force him to be an criminal.
How are we ever going to evolve as a society when we're not given the empowering choices to make?
You're first argument is completely wrong.
Being forced to buy insurance is NOTHING like if you were forced to finance a car. You're grasping for straws and missing on that one.
curtis73 wrote: I think the consequences should be straight forward. Bill Gates hits you with his K-car? He should have the option to not carry insurance and instead write you a check for the damages -or- carry insurance and let them handle it. Cletus Trailertrash hits you with his Dart Swinger? He needs to provide you with the same thing. He should have the option to not carry insurance knowing that they can seize his tractor, his Dart, his double-wide, and the engine block in the front yard if that's what it takes to cover his debts. ... But at least give him the choice. Empower him. The last thing we need to do is make that welfare redneck either struggle to pay his insurance while his 10 babies go hungry or force him to be an criminal. How are we ever going to evolve as a society when we're not given the empowering choices to make?
OK, so now redneck who doesn't have insurance has his double-wide seized? My car is still wrecked.
Now his double-wide is sold and the money begins to filter through the court/gov't systems? My car is still wrecked.
Granted most insurance companies aren't exemplified for their timeliness, but now getting the courts involved in siezing property, selling it and returning it to the victim is a better idea?
And the starving redneck that couldn't feed his babies because he was paying insurance, no longer has a car or home because they were seized, and is now in public housing on food stamps. Increasing his burden on the public system.
Choice is great, but your position has done nothing to illustrate a better choice for society.
curtis73 wrote:z31maniac wrote: So you guys that are complaining about insurance coverage, what are you complaining about?I'm not complaining about minimum liability - its a good thing that makes that other guy financially responsible for when he hits me. I personally have full coverage on all my operational vehicles because I got a screaming deal with my driving record and credit score. BUT - for the government to require me to carry insurance I feel is a violation of my financial rights. It is forcing me to give money to a capitalist company who makes a profit. To me its no different than the government saying that when you buy a vehicle, you must use financing so that someone else makes a profit from it. I think the consequences should be straight forward. Bill Gates hits you with his K-car? He should have the option to not carry insurance and instead write you a check for the damages -or- carry insurance and let them handle it. Cletus Trailertrash hits you with his Dart Swinger? He needs to provide you with the same thing. He should have the option to not carry insurance knowing that they can seize his tractor, his Dart, his double-wide, and the engine block in the front yard if that's what it takes to cover his debts. ... But at least give him the choice. Empower him. The last thing we need to do is make that welfare redneck either struggle to pay his insurance while his 10 babies go hungry or force him to be an criminal. How are we ever going to evolve as a society when we're not given the empowering choices to make?
A couple of things.
First, it's not a violation of any financial rights. Owning a car is considered a "privilege", not a "right". So you always have the option of not owning a car, then you don't have to buy insurance. Yes, of course, having a car makes life easier, but not everyone has one. What the government says is that if you choose to have the privilege of owning a car, you must buy insurance with it.
Second, regarding the argument of Bill Gates...technically he could actually not carry insurance. If someone can prove to the state that they are financially solvent enough to absorb their own risks, then they can be considered "self insured". There are plenty of companies out there that do that. We handle claims for many of them...i.e. they're financially solvent enough to pay for losses, they just hire an insurance company to handle the investigations, processing, etc... I'm not sure if there are many individuals do it, I'd guess not, but it actually is an option to apply for it.
Ranger50 wrote:racerdave600 wrote: This brings me to another issue, being insured for too small an amount. These days it's pretty easy to rack up a big bill. A few years back a kid joy riding in his parent's mini van lost control while doing about 70 or so in a 35 zone on a wet road, and plowed into my 944 Turbo and pushing through my office at work, along with a co-worker's car. The father ended up buying two cars and a HUGE building repair, along with his own vehicle. He had the minimum required insurance that only paid a fraction of the cost. Total cost of the accident I think was over $200k. Not only do you need the insurance here that everyone is griping about, you need to make sure you have enough to cover yourself in a worst case scenario. I had a friend in college that caused an accident that he ended up paying for for about 20 years.+1! Back when I was delivering newspapers, I was REQUIRED to have 100k/300k coverage. I have seen kept it there even after I had my agent question it. I was like, "WTF. I REFUSE to totally lose my ass on an "act of God" possibility." Also, for myself at least, the additional coverage over the minimum isn't that much more then the minimum. I think I pay about $75/6mo more which when I already pay $600/6mo for my Dakota is a drop in the bucket for the piece of mind.
Yep. State minimums vary state to state. For example, here in PA, the minimum coverage is $5000 for property damage and $15,000 for injury. E36 M3....if you break a pair of headlights on a guys new Mercedes you'll hit $5000. When that stuff happens, it becomes a messy situation.
For example, if you carry $5000 in coverage, and cause $11,000 in damage to my car, it doesn't necessarily mean you'll be on the hook for the extra $6000. My insurance company would have to make a financial decision. They won't get paid by your insurance company until they sign a release, which aboslves them and you of all liability. So your insurance company will offer my insurance $5000 in return for a signed release. My insurance now has to decide if they want to sign the release and walk away from the remaining $6000, or pursue you for the rest. If they choose to pursue you for the rest, they have to figure out if you have the $6000 first of all. Then they have to pursue you for it. That could incur legal fees, added time, etc... In the meantime, they won't get a dime of the $5000 your insurance company offered until they sign that release.
z31maniac wrote: OK, so now redneck who doesn't have insurance has his double-wide seized? My car is still wrecked. Now his double-wide is sold and the money begins to filter through the court/gov't systems? My car is still wrecked.
I think you maybe took me too literally. I didn't say this is my new proposed legislation, I was speaking more figuratively.
Granted most insurance companies aren't exemplified for their timeliness, but now getting the courts involved in siezing property, selling it and returning it to the victim is a better idea?
Maybe the court could assume the requisite properties from Cletus and write you a check for the damages pending the sale of said properties. ... Or the government could assume a loan against the value of his assets and let him pay it off. That would be like letting him pay for his "premiums" over time. It would let him cover his damages on an as-needed basis instead of making him pay to a profit-heavy company on the chance that he might cause damage in the future. Like I said, not a final plan, more of a comical representation of another option.
And the starving redneck that couldn't feed his babies because he was paying insurance, no longer has a car or home because they were seized, and is now in public housing on food stamps. Increasing his burden on the public system.
You seemed to have missed the point. My point wasn't to argue mulitple eschelons of Cletus' burden to society, nor was it designed to be a solution to any problem. Just simply my opinion on a topic using a farcical example. The point was not "how is this better for Cletus," the point was "this should be Cletus' choice, not the government's." Right now, cletus has to choose between feeding his babies and being an outlaw, or conforming to the law and letting his babies starve... because the government is forcing him to choose. If the government didn't force him, he would be responsible for his own actions. He may choose to not carry insurance and feed his babies since the the chances of damaging his children outweigh the likelyhood that he will cause an accident. But its HIS choice. Much like the helmet law... from a municipal burden standpoint it has a tiny amount of merit. From a personal protection standpoint, I don't think the government has the right to tell me I need to conform to their idea of what keeps me safe. I'm a big boy. I can make my own bad choices. From a Darwinian standpoint, if I'm stupid enough to not wear a helmet then my chances of surviving and passing on my stupid genes to my offspring are decreased and its good that I die for the betterment of my species.
Choice is great, but your position has done nothing to illustrate a better choice for society.
You're right it didn't, but what I intended to show was that there should be a choice, not that my choice was better for society.
You're also applying current legal paradigms to my one obscure example talking about Cletus' impending burden on taxpayers. Maybe my obscure example exists in a world without food stamps and homeless shelters. Maybe ...
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: If I lick your spoon or kiss you full on the mouth and give you rabies or Hanta Virus you are going to incur medical costs. Huge medical costs. Why don't I have general liability coverage with a special rider for "deep-tongue kissing" if I am so worried about my effect on everyone else?
Mainly because the insurance industry was able to generate enough fear/support to get bills passed that made insurance mandatory without a huge public outcry. The argument for those that didn't support it: "If you don't like it, don't drive."
They would probably not have the same luck trying to pass a bill that tried to cover what you're talking about, mainly because the argument would be "If you don't like it, don't kiss anyone, and keep your spoon under your own control at all times."
curtis73 wrote: Right now, cletus has to choose between feeding his babies and being an outlaw, or conforming to the law and letting his babies starve... because the government is forcing him to choose. If the government didn't force him, he would be responsible for his own actions. He may choose to not carry insurance and feed his babies since the the chances of damaging his children outweigh the likelyhood that he will cause an accident. But its HIS choice.
So basically you're saying, you have provided a thought experiment with no grounds in reason or logic, like there are no homeless shelters or food stamps, or any basis of sanity.
I'm not exactly sure about you, but if I walked outside after work today and saw that someone just totaled my 2010 MS3, had no insurance to cover the loss and because they can't afford $40 a month for liability, they obviously don't have $25k laying around to buy me a new one..................needless to say I would be furious.
I understand that you are arguing for the sake of arguing, but at least present a defensible point of view. You are arguing that people should be able to make a choice, regardless of the possible consequences of those around them.
curtis73 wrote: BUT - for the government to require me to carry insurance I feel is a violation of my financial rights. It is forcing me to give money to a capitalist company who makes a profit. To me its no different than the government saying that when you buy a vehicle, you must use financing so that someone else makes a profit from it. ... If believe that I should have the freedom to choose that for myself. If I have a spare $150,000 sitting around, I could put it in a CD or money market account where it earns interest for ME. Then if I have an accident I can pay for it out of pocket
You can self-insure.....I can't find out how to actually do it though...
GA Motor Vehicle Division Acceptable Proof of Georgia Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance A self-insured insurance information card and a certificate of self-insurance issued by the Georgia Insurance and Safety Fire Commissioners office (ICO) are acceptable proof of insurance for a self-insured vehicle. Both this card and the certificate of self-insurance must be issued in the registered owner's name and be carried in the vehicle at all times while the vehicle is being driven.
Id start with talking to your state insurance commissioner office.
You'll need to be a millionaire a few times over though.
z31maniac wrote: So basically you're saying, you have provided a thought experiment with no grounds in reason or logic, like there are no homeless shelters or food stamps, or any basis of sanity.
No, I'm saying I have provided a thought experiment from an enlightened Libertarian point of view. You have chosen to apply the judgement that in your opinion I must be a wacko shiny happy person that needs to be slapped. Again, I never suggested "there are no homeless shelters or food stamps," I merely ended my argument with another what if statement that was intended to be about as pertinent as saying, "what if my car was purple and had warts."
You guys are thinking so deeply in the box. I'm not saying I hate food stamps, I'm posing what-if questions. I said "what if they seized Cletus' double wide" and everybody jumped on me citing reasons why it couldn't work with every other judicial and legislative issue surrounding it. There is no Cletus. Its a figurative hypothetical question.
Its like I said "It would be neat if my car had a V16 diesel in it" and everybody jumped on me saying, "no way it weighs too much," or "it will be too loud..." I didn't say I was planning on DOING it. Sheesh.
......needless to say I would be furious.
Enlightened souls would say that its because you chose to be furious about it. I wouldn't be. Honestly. I watched a guy hit my 96 Impala SS, speed off, and I got his plate number. Of course the police did nothing and it just went away. I chose to make my own decision on how to maturely feel about it. The universe provided in other ways.
I understand that you are arguing for the sake of arguing, but at least present a defensible point of view. You are arguing that people should be able to make a choice, regardless of the possible consequences of those around them.
My hypotheticals come from a theoretical point of social enlightenment. Just because you can't grasp the concept doesn't make my argument any less defensible.
I never EVER argued anything remotely to the effect of "regardless of possible consequences." In fact, I'm arguing for people to berkeleying stand up and handle their E36 M3 instead of hiding behind legal BS and the not-my-problem attitude that is so rampant.
In a truly enlightened society, there IS no choice but what affects those around you, since you ARE those around you. Right now, people don't understand that and they act as individuals; selfishly. Our legal system supports that individual right and entitlement which is not only corrosive, it often screws up and berkeleys the wrong person.
In a truly enlightened society, there is no law, no entitlement, no karmic debt, no individual consciousness - only individual bodies and minds.
Like I said, it is the basis of the Libertarian sponsor -either by emulation or education. But since you can't see past the status quo to reach that far into hypothetical reasoning, let's just agree to disagree. 
In reply to curtis73:
you can self insure, in texas you have to file a certificate of deposit with the state equal to the minimum liability coverage required.
you are also proposing that the government step in and require someone else to take out a loan against their property to repay you in the event that they wreck your car, but also complaining about the government requiring you to purchase insurance in order to drive.
curtis73 wrote: You guys are thinking so deeply in the box.
+this
I asked the original question as a serious "How it got to this point" and I like the thought experiment.
In a perfect world - nobody would need insurance because we would all be able and willing to pay for the ramifications of our mistakes. In the world we do live in - we pay such a huge price to protect ourselves from the corruption we have created for ourselves. Every once in a while its nice to entertain the "What if", if for nothing more than to acknowledge that the boundaries we think are there - are really just because we are afraid or unable to face the real consequences.
[cue song] Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose...
you are also proposing that the government step in and require someone else to take out a loan against their property to repay you in the event that they wreck your car, but also complaining about the government requiring you to purchase insurance in order to drive.
Correct, however I am saying that if the government forces Cletus to take a loan to pay his damages, that's a darn sight better than if the law requires him to line the pockets of an insurance company prior to his causing any damage. Its like putting you in jail just in case you commit a crime next year.
Now... if the government made me pay into one of those accounts like they do now for medical care, that's a different story. The money is still mine. Of course the financial institution gets their cut by using my money, but the principal and interest is mine.
You'll need to log in to post.
