Republicans are stupid thieves.

[Diogenes]

Because we live in a society that makes people responsible for their actions. And because we place value on our cars and necks, and get very angry when someone takes them from us. Unlike MSimon, I am a firm believer in justice. And vengeance

I don't mind people being responsible for their own actions, but why must they be responsible for everyone else's actions? Why am *I* insuring your car from damage? Why don't we all insure our own? Those of us who want it, buy it. Those of us who don't, Don't.

I call this strange idea "Freedom."

That's not how insurance works. You don't pay to insure everyones property, just the people who's risk pool you share. High risk people are lumped together and pay a higher premium, low risk people are in the low risk pool and have lower premiums.

We can insure ourselves, thats called being 'self-insured'. Rental companies are frequently self insured. They set aside a pool of money to use in the event there is damage to their property that they cannot recoup from the responsible party.

Unfortunately by and large people are not responsible enough to set aside money for anything, let alone a car accident, so they wind up causing damage to other people. By forcing people to buy insurance, you are forcing them to be responsible for their actions up front.

Good point. "Prior to the fact." Isn't this a legal term meaning you can't charge someone with a crime before they commit it ?

I think this is actually a bedrock legal principle. Why isn't mandating insurance a case of Prior to the fact of a crime, or in the case of civil law, prior to the fact of an injury?

Come to think of it, I think mandatory insurance may be the only example I know of the government Forcing you to pay for an injury you haven't caused before the fact!

I suppose you could say the selling of indulgences might be a prior example of this sort of thing, and that didn't turn out very well, did it ?

[Diogenes]

Ah, in that case we're quids in - the bl**dy aristocrats own all the deer so ...

Ha ha ha... not around here. Outside the City, and just north on the Ft. Sill range where the Deer and the Antelope play,(literally) there are Turkeys, Bobcats, Rattlesnakes, Buzzards, Buffalo, Longhorns, prairie dogs, and sometimes soldiers.

My cousin was driving down the road one night when he hit a cow. I mentioned cows move pretty slow. Could he not see it? He says "it Darted out in front of me."

I just never visualized a cow as "Darting."

You know what's funny, if a cow escapes from the pasture and you hit the cow with the car, in 99% of the country the farmer is responsible for the damage to your automobile (hence his property insurance becomes responsible). Same if your pet dog/cat ect escapes from captivity and is hit by a car, it's your fault for the damage to the auto.

Except in parts of Texas, which have free range laws. Then if you hit the cattle, its your fault

Don't even get me started on the hit deer accidents. When hunting season starts I get 5-6 of them called in PER DAY. By the way if you hit a deer, don't save the hair and feces, wash that crap off

Had a claim from out west where a deer leapt off an embankment into the back seat of a dude's convertible. Had another one where a lady hit a deer in a freakin Wal*Mart parking lot!

D@mn dangerous deer! They should make them buy Insurance!

[Diogenes]

I dont see how this is a problem.

It misses the point. We can't demand that everyone else stay off the highway because we are afraid that they may injure us. We must accept the risk that we might get hurt badly, possibly killed, or worse, that someone will damage our pretty car and not pay us.

If my son is killed by a deer or a blown out tire, it provides me no relief to wish it had been a person I can collect money from.

I accept that risk and so does everyone else. Why can we not accept the same risk for uninsured drivers?

Because the deer or blown tire doesn't know any better. People do.

Really? Then how did we get Obama?

[MSimon]

Everything not forbidden is mandatory.

[choff]

In my province car insurance is mandatory, but we have to use a government car insurance company. It was passed into law by the socialist NDP back in the seventies. It's been lovingly referred to as The Insurance Corporation of BC, or The Insurance Corruption of BC, or Icky-Bicky, or Moscow Mutual Insurance.
I'm sure the fact that mandatory car insurance is being proposed by a paticular political party has more to do with protecting injured parties than political philosophy.

[KitemanSA]

Let me try one of my stock arguments on you.

What is your life worth? Can you be compensated for your life with money? Were you to lose your head in a car crash, would it make any difference to you whether the accident was your fault or the other guy's?

My point is, the most valuable thing to any individual is their bodily integrity, yet they willingly risk it by driving on the roads. Every Day, People will risk the lives of their wives and children, yet God forbid that they should have to risk damage to their automobile!

There IS no compensation for your life. Insurance will not save your life, nor your body. *IF* you choose to drive on the public roads, you willingly take this risk.

I suspect that if you read the proposed law, the only requirement is that you have insurance for damages you inflict on OTHERS. Insure yourself or not as you please, but you MUST insure against your damages to others. At least, that is how it seems to be here in VA.

[KitemanSA]

It is wrong to deny others the right to travel (which is virtually the same thing as their ability to work.) to protect the prettyness of other people's cars.

You keep harping about "the prettyness" of other's cars. Would you accept this bill if it were restricted to insurance to pay for the life & limb of the other driver, and the FUNCTIONALITY of the other car? After all, doesn't the victim have the same "right of way" as you? Aren't you liable to compensate that victim if you destroy HIS ability to hold a job? Is YOUR ability to get to YOU job more sactrosanct than his?
You sound like one of the heartless Democrats!

[KitemanSA]

Again, a state compels you to patronize a non governmental third party for the state to grant you permission to use the public roads. Why is this acceptable?

They are not denying you permission to use the roads; just permission to financially endanger others while doing it.

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.

[KitemanSA]

I'm amused at the Obama health-care plan, which will essentially criminalized failure to have health insurance. This will also be a burden on the poor, especially those employed part-time or sporadically. Depending on how it is implemented, it may be a license to require people to buy insurance at whatever the insurance companies care to charge.

You are showing an inkling of what I am getting at.

The distinction is that I suspect the law in questio doesn't require you to cover YOURSELF, just your liability to others.

If OK were Libertarian Land, the government wouldn't own the roads, a company would. I suspect that company would either require that you have insurance or charge a BIG premium to use the road. After all, if YOU can't compensate the other driver for his injuries that YOU caused, almost certainly the company would be required to. So the law in question is your fault for not making OK into Libertarian Land.

[KitemanSA]

1. As I mentioned earlier, My mother was ran over by a horse drawn wagon and nearly died. She underwent several operations. People have been killed by horses and wagons.

2. If you are hit by Warren Buffet, and he has millions of dollars of insurance, it won't help you a bit if your neck is broken.

1. Hers or someone elses? If someone elses, shouldn't they pay for the operations?

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.

[Skipjack]

Ha ha ha... you're pulling your own leg! I know a woman who works at Whataburger. At $7.25/ hour, she makes $1160.00/ month before taxes. Figure $300.00/ month off the top for FICA and Taxes. A typical apartment might cost $450.00/ month. Figure $10.00/ day for food = $300.00/ month. Let's give her her water and electricity for free. This leaves $110.00 / month to spend on everything else. (Toilet paper? Soap? etc.) This particular woman has an infant granddaughter that she has been taking care of. She gets food stamps, does certain other nefarious things to get additional money. She catches rides from friends to get her to work.

First, if at that income she is paying that much in taxes, there is something seriously wrong with your system to begin with.
Second, I lived of less than that and still managed to pay my monthly fees.
Third, at that income and with a child, she would get support from the government, right?
Fourth, she could always ride a bike to work. That is what poor people here do. It is healthy too and saves money on gas, oil, other fluids, inspection, repairs etc as well.
5th, TP for a two person household is <8 dollars a month and if you really need to save on that, then use yesterdays newspaper or if you dont have one, then yesterdays cathalogues, gggg

I guess the insurance industry in the US indeed sucks as bad as Obama said. In Austria, I have up to a million coverage for those 50 Euros that I pay every month and quite a bit of that is tax (per horsepower).
In Austria (I guess that is contrary to the US), the minimum coverage is 100k. You cant get less. The price is about the same as in the US if you take the lower tax into account.
The insurance here is purposedly meant to cover peoples injuries first and then their damages. In fact, it is sometimes cheaper to pay small damages out of your own pocket, so your insurance rate does not go up.
It is meant as an insurance for catastrophic accidents with lots of damages to material and life.
And the "then insure yourself" argument is total fail, sorry. It is not just other motorists that get injured in traffic accidents. What about pedestrians? Little children? You want a 3 year old to go get an insurance against being hit by a car? Do you know how ridiculous that sounds?
Now if this 3 year old was to be hit by a car, what follows could be years of pain, surgeries, disadvantages in school and job situations and yes these things can be put into numbers. Many lawyers in the US make a living of doing just that.

[MSimon]

They are not denying you permission to use the roads; just permission to financially endanger others while doing it.

Practically they are not even doing that. All the law means is that if they CATCH YOU you will be heavily taxed.

What it amounts to is a subsidy for insurance cos and car companies (used car dealers esp - cars taken off the road) - oh yeah car towing companies as well.

Look up Lincoln Park Pirates.

Who wouldn't want to be in a state licensed business (reduces competition) with a mandated customer base.

[MSimon]

Fourth, she could always ride a bike to work.

Unless you live in a city that is not possible. Euros generally have little feel for the distances involved in America. Or the difficulty getting around in typical American snowfalls. I hear you are getting a taste this winter though.

http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNew ... um=twitter

below freezing temperatures are still hampering transport.