PDA

View Full Version : The Insurance Mafia




Anti Federalist
04-10-2015, 04:54 PM
The Insurance Agenda?

by eric • April 9, 2015

http://ericpetersautos.com/2015/04/09/the-insurance-agenda/

Without all this insurance, most of us would be pretty rich.

http://ericpetersautos.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/luca-brasi--300x239.jpg

Or at least, not poor.

But that (us being poor, or at least struggling) may be exactly what’s wanted.

It is very hard to acquire capital assets, avoid debt and build up savings when one is forced to spend a large and growing percentage of one’s income on various – on multiple – insurance policies.

Many of us understand this – which is why they have to force us to buy insurance. Self-interest would prompt us to “cover” our cars, our health and homes… if it really were in our self-interest to do so. For the same reason most of us elect not to play Russian Roulette.

The truth is, to a great extent, it’s not in our self-interest to buy all this “coverage.” This can be said to be true of anything that requires the application of coercion to get people to go along with it. Unless you take the position that most people are blithering idiots unable to act rationally in their own self-interest. Which, when you think about it, is a stupendously arrogant and condescending opinion to have of your fellow men – and one that radiates the implied personal superiority (rarely justified) of the person who holds that opinion.

Most people are not blithering idiots. They can, for example, do supermarket math. Which means they can figure out that car insurance (for openers) is a terrible deal for most people.

According to Forbes magazine, the average cost of a standard auto insurance policy is $1,510 annually (see here). You may pay a lot more than that, of course. Many do. Very few pay less than that. And we’re all forced to pay something (assuming we’re not riding the bus) whether we feel we need to or not. And regardless of whether we’ve ever once caused harm to someone else or their property.

Fifteen hundred (and ten) bucks a year. Over ten years – this is about how long most of us will keep our car before buying another – we will have paid out more than $15,000 to the insurance mafia (and “mafia” is the proper term for a gang of thugs that forces you to do business with them).

This is a lot of money.

More money than some people spend on the car itself. Even if you bought a $30,000 car (and assuming your premium only cost $1,510 annually – which isn’t likely) you’re actually looking at a $45,000 purchase. Now you know why the duration of the average new car loan (5-6 years) is roughly double what it was 40 years ago (3-4) when it was still possible to decline insurance – which exerted a necessary check on the cost of insurance generally for those who did not decline.

Don’t be deceived by the apparently higher sticker price of new cars. When adjusted for inflation, you can still buy a basic car today for about what a basic car cost 40 years ago. A bare bones 1975 Chevy Nova (back then, equivalent to something like a new Nissan Versa today) had a base price of $3,099. Adjusted for inflation, that sum in 1975 dollars is equivalent to just under $14,000 in today’s dollars. This is actually more than what you’d need to pay to acquire a bare-bones modern equivalent such as the aforesaid Nissan Versa (which – unlike the ’75 Nova – comes standard with AC).

Now, it’s certainly true you can spend more on a new car today than most people spent back in ’75.

But the point is, you do not have to.

Whereas you do have to buy insurance.

If you want to own a car without worrying about a Luca Brasi type paying you a visit.

And because the insurance mafia is legally empowered to make you an offer you can’t refuse, the price goes up, up up. It now costs twice or more what it used to cost to insure a car back in the ’70s – when it was still possible to decline coverage.

This ought not to be surprising to anyone. How much do you suppose a fast-food burger would cost if the government passed a law requiring everyone to eat at McDonald’s – or Burger King – at least once a week? When you’re not free to say no, the free market no longer exists. Cartel/crony capitalism ensues. It enriches the cartel – and impoverishes us.

I am convinced that the next thing they’re going to force-feed us will be mandatory home insurance. Right now, one can (if one’s home is paid off) still “opt out” – decide that the risk of a total loss is fairly small and that it’s a reasonable (because slight) risk to skip the guaranteed annual loss of $2k or more for “coverage” one will probably never need and, instead, put that aside for a rainy day that will probably never come and which, in that event, will leave the money available for other things.

I did exactly that.

Bastards tried to increase our premium by several hundred dollars – for no reason that had to do with me; I’d never filed a claim, have excellent credit, etc. The guy on the other end of the phone admitted as much; said that “everyone” was paying more because of a general rate hike.

It was delicious to tell the guy: Ok, cancel the got-damned policy. Then I hung up the phone.

I’ve already saved several thousand dollars. Money that would otherwise have been out the window.

Consider it: Let’s say your policy is “affordable” – a mere $1,500 annually (this is pretty cheap, if averages are any indication).

How much is that over 30 years (the duration of the typical home loan)?

$45,000. Out the window.

And that’s merely the principal and does not factor in the lost investment/opportunity cost.

Now, they’ve added mandatory health insurance – forcing people to spend money on that, too.

How much do you suppose the average American is forced to spend each year on all this insurance? Figure $1,500 for the car (just the one car; double this figure if you own two or more) plus another $1,500 for the house plus another $6,000 or so on the low end (see here, if you disbelieve) for the health insurance.

That’s close to $10k a year, right off the top. The average American family income is just over $51,000 (see here). This means that the average American family is paying – forced to pay – 20 percent of its income to the insurance mafia. People (rightly) hate the IRS, but the federal tax bite for the average American family is less than the flesh-rending mouthful extracted by the insurance mafia. And at least we get roads and so on for our tax dollars. What do we get from the insurance mafia?

Usually, nothing.

You pay them 30 years for a car policy, never file a claim – and what have you got to show for it? Same for your home insurance – and don’t get me started on the health insurance – the object of which is to not pay for your medical care. Almost all of us would be much better off paying fee for service as and when necessary – and saving the money (of which we’d have a lot more, absent insurance-at-gunpoint) for the possibility of a major event at some point down the road.

Much as I despise government, I harbor a deeper hatred for the insurance mafia. Anyone associated with this “business” as it exists today should look in the mirror and ask themselves whether they like what they see.

heavenlyboy34
04-10-2015, 06:19 PM
Throw 'em in the woods alongside all the other useless debris.

jbauer
04-10-2015, 07:34 PM
You don't have to buy car insurance. Don't drive. You don't have to buy home insurance don't take out a loan. You don't have to buy life insurance. Don't die. Until Obama you didn't have to buy health insurance.

I don't have a problem with most insurance.

phill4paul
04-10-2015, 07:42 PM
You don't have to buy car insurance. Don't drive. You don't have to buy home insurance don't take out a loan. You don't have to buy life insurance. Don't die. Until Obama you didn't have to buy health insurance.

I don't have a problem with most insurance.

I'm 50 years old. I've never caused a wreck in which I needed to pay out to someone else. I've never been in one in which I've collected. Fuck me. Right?

heavenlyboy34
04-10-2015, 07:51 PM
You don't have to buy car insurance. Don't drive. You don't have to buy home insurance don't take out a loan. You don't have to buy life insurance. Don't die. Until Obama you didn't have to buy health insurance.

I don't have a problem with most insurance.
Sounds like Freedommmm!!!(TM) :rolleyes: /sarc

phill4paul
04-10-2015, 08:00 PM
I'm 50 years old. I've never caused a wreck in which I needed to pay out to someone else. I've never been in one in which I've collected. Fuck me. Right?

I will add that I have had two DUI's even though I've never had to pay out either to myself or someone else. I wasn't stopped for driving dangerously. The first was wrong place, wrong time, the second a checkpoint. Wanna talk premiums? After 50 years I'd think they should start sending me checks in the mail minus the interest they have made. But, it doesn't work that way. Does it? You must be an actuarian that somehow feels my time is due, jbauer.

Anti Federalist
04-10-2015, 08:14 PM
You don't have to buy car insurance. Don't drive. You don't have to buy home insurance don't take out a loan. You don't have to buy life insurance. Don't die. Until Obama you didn't have to buy health insurance.

I don't have a problem with most insurance.

Yeah, but now you do.

So now you have to pay a tax to breathe.

Sounds like freedom to me.

UWDude
04-11-2015, 12:10 AM
Mandatory Car Insurance was one of my first awakenings to the real world outside the ideals taught in high school. I realized, because I have a penis, I had to pay more than girls (fucking patriarchy!). Then, when I would tell others my frustrations with blatant, government mandated discrimination, I would get a lecture about males being more dangerous drivers as a whole, as if that is justification enough for government mandated discrimination.

Insurance loves to find a politically correct group, and tack on more, punishing the majority for the crimes of the few.

Death to the Insurance Industry. Death to the bankers. Death to them all. Hang them high.

And then along comes Obamacare.

Insurance is nothing but a sales schtick, using fear to make people give up their money. Then, when it is time for a claim, half the time, they refuse to pay. You can't get a basic "everything insurance", because if you could, it would be about 3 times your income, because nobody would be in that business, unless it was profitable.

You can buy fire, flood, earthquake, terrorism, loss of limb and car insurance, but what happens if you get hit in the head by a falling eucalyptus branch?

You didn't by eucalyptus tree insurance? Fool. Now look at you.

thoughtomator
04-11-2015, 01:06 AM
I could completely replace my vehicle - as in buy another one of the same make model and year - with less than 2 years' worth of auto insurance payments. Never been in an accident in my entire life, never made an insurance claim in my entire life, don't drive all that much to begin with, haven't gotten a ticket since 2005. The only reason I have to buy insurance is the risk of government violence against me if I don't.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
04-11-2015, 01:14 AM
Insurance is nothing but a sales schtick, using fear to make people give up their money.

.


I totally agree. Fear trumps slim mathematical probabilities. The fear is now so great that it's mandated by law. The new health care law is only the beginning.

asurfaholic
04-11-2015, 05:19 AM
All this insurance I'm forced to buy and I have a 90% hearing loss in both ears. My old hearing aids just gave out and I can't afford the $5900 hearing aids I need.

Insurance won't cover them. Don't know what I'm going to do, it's really sad and pathetic that all il the insurance premiums I'm forced to pay in and for some reason being near deaf is not a medical condition worthy of coverage.

I'm convinced that I am going to die if I don't soon figure out a way to scape nearly six grand together. I've almost walked in front of 2 cars and a fast moving forklift.

tod evans
04-11-2015, 05:38 AM
All this insurance I'm forced to buy and I have a 90% hearing loss in both ears. My old hearing aids just gave out and I can't afford the $5900 hearing aids I need.

Insurance won't cover them. Don't know what I'm going to do, it's really sad and pathetic that all il the insurance premiums I'm forced to pay in and for some reason being near deaf is not a medical condition worthy of coverage.

I'm convinced that I am going to die if I don't soon figure out a way to scape nearly six grand together. I've almost walked in front of 2 cars and a fast moving forklift.

The solution is quite simple comrade, stop working and let government take care of you....:rolleyes:

ghengis86
04-11-2015, 06:17 AM
My insurance agent is actually a good, honest guy; he told me point blank, the companies make money off of guys like me, who have a clean record, low risk category, etc. I get a marginally lower rate because the math says they'll never pay anything out. He also does my life insurance and basically said the same thing; your reward for staying healthy is to subsidize the insurance company to guarantee they make a profit.

It's a racket like anything else these days. As soon as I can drop my homeowners, it's gone. As soon as I hit 59.5, bye-bye life insurance. Health insurance? Lol, what uncle sugar don't know...

jbauer
04-11-2015, 06:21 AM
I will add that I have had two DUI's even though I've never had to pay out either to myself or someone else. I wasn't stopped for driving dangerously. The first was wrong place, wrong time, the second a checkpoint. Wanna talk premiums? After 50 years I'd think they should start sending me checks in the mail minus the interest they have made. But, it doesn't work that way. Does it? You must be an actuarian that somehow feels my time is due, jbauer.

Driving isn't a right it's a privilege. Your premium is calculated by assessing your risk. Obviously if you have TWO dwis your critical thinking skills aren't very high. YOU chose to drive drunk. You didn't learn from your first mistake. Take some responsibility for your actions and quit blaming everyone else.

As a repeat drunk driver you get the honor of being in the pool with other drunk drivers who obviously have a higher degree of risk associated with your actions.

enhanced_deficit
04-11-2015, 06:32 AM
The Insurance Agenda?

by eric • April 9, 2015

http://ericpetersautos.com/2015/04/09/the-insurance-agenda/

Without all this insurance, most of us would be pretty rich.

http://ericpetersautos.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/luca-brasi--300x239.jpg

Or at least, not poor.

...

Fifteen hundred (and ten) bucks a year. Over ten years – this is about how long most of us will keep our car before buying another – we will have paid out more than $15,000 to the insurance mafia (and “mafia” is the proper term for a gang of thugs that forces you to do business with them).

This is a lot of money.

..

Yea for very large number of car owners, cost of insurance may be almost equal to cost of the car.

tod evans
04-11-2015, 06:35 AM
Driving isn't a right it's a privilege. Your premium is calculated by assessing your risk. Obviously if you have TWO dwis your critical thinking skills aren't very high. YOU chose to drive drunk. You didn't learn from your first mistake. Take some responsibility for your actions and quit blaming everyone else.

As a repeat drunk driver you get the honor of being in the pool with other drunk drivers who obviously have a higher degree of risk associated with your actions.


Nice job buying into the propaganda there dude...

He very clearly stated that he's never been at fault for damages incurred as a result of his driving.

Being of similar vintage I can attest to the fact that driving moderately impaired was the norm for our formative years.

The same batch of busybodies who call for kops to regulate everything from pit bulls to vaccinations have brought you the standing DWI laws.

So once again; "Nice job buying into the propaganda there dude..."

Voluntarist
04-11-2015, 07:58 AM
xxxxx

phill4paul
04-11-2015, 08:08 AM
Driving isn't a right it's a privilege. Your premium is calculated by assessing your risk. Obviously if you have TWO dwis your critical thinking skills aren't very high. YOU chose to drive drunk. You didn't learn from your first mistake. Take some responsibility for your actions and quit blaming everyone else.

As a repeat drunk driver you get the honor of being in the pool with other drunk drivers who obviously have a higher degree of risk associated with your actions.

What tod said, because it deserves being repeated.


Nice job buying into the propaganda there dude...

He very clearly stated that he's never been at fault for damages incurred as a result of his driving.

Being of similar vintage I can attest to the fact that driving moderately impaired was the norm for our formative years.

The same batch of busybodies who call for kops to regulate everything from pit bulls to vaccinations have brought you the standing DWI laws.

So once again; "Nice job buying into the propaganda there dude..."

Lots of entities made some cash off me at gun point. Cops, courts, Drug and Alcohol counselors, insurance companies, community service recipients, ad naseum. And yet no harm to property or life. What actions am I supposed to take responsibility for exactly? Causing no harm to property or life? Sure, I'll proudly own up to that. All for the privilege to be able to go to work so they can extract even more cash from me. I guess it could be said that I am one of the "privileged" class. Can you smell the freedom?

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to tod evans again.

ghengis86
04-11-2015, 08:14 AM
This may not be much comfort, but the only part of the insurance we're forced to buy is the liability and property damage coverage (and medical payments coverage in some states). If you get rid of the parts that aren't mandatory, you can usually get your insurance down to a couple of hundred bucks (less if you have a good driving record and no children under 25).

I live in a relatively metropolitan area with two cars. The car my under-25 son drives costs about $300 a year for liability and property damage. The newer car that I drive only costs $40 a year for liability and property damage.

But I also carry comprehensive insurance coverage (I live in hail country) which is the pricest part of my policy - but my choice. And uninsured motorist coverage and medical payment coverage; which have negligible costs.

The reason the average policy costs $1500 a year is because people are signing up for the optional parts like collision coverage and the ones I mentioned previously.

One car, one owner occupied home, one rental is $104/month for me.

Comprehensive and collision, ID theft protection (+$30/yr), roadside ($15/yr), no flood rider, a couple personal property riders, home business and rental property riders, max benefit/payout for everything is $750k.

But the mandatory auto is $350/year. And homeowners is mandatory because the CU requires it for the loan.

Voluntarist
04-11-2015, 08:32 AM
xxxxx

westkyle
04-11-2015, 09:05 AM
Driving isn't a right it's a privilege. Your premium is calculated by assessing your risk. Obviously if you have TWO dwis your critical thinking skills aren't very high. YOU chose to drive drunk. You didn't learn from your first mistake. Take some responsibility for your actions and quit blaming everyone else.

As a repeat drunk driver you get the honor of being in the pool with other drunk drivers who obviously have a higher degree of risk associated with your actions.

Human beings travel in this world. We aren't plants staying in the same place. If someone has not caused any harm, their travel should not be restricted. Just like free speech; we are free to say what we want, but if we yell "Fire!" in a crowded hall with no danger present we are responsible for any damage that come from our speech. Your ideas are anti-freedom and statist.

Voluntarist
04-11-2015, 09:15 AM
xxxxx

donnay
04-11-2015, 10:06 AM
Driving isn't a right it's a privilege.

It's a privilege to know Ron Paul, it isn't a privilege to drive.


6. PRIVILEGE OR RIGHT?

6.1 The use of the roadways for the purpose of travel and transportation is NOT a mere PRIVILEGE, but a "COMMON AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT" of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived. (Emphasis added) See: Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, supra; See: Ligare v. Chicago, 28 N.E. 934; See: Boone v. Clark, 214 S. W. 607;

See: American Jurisprudence 1st Ed., Highways 163 6.2 A Citizen 's "RIGHT" to travel upon public highways includes the right to use usual conveyances of time, including horse-drawn carriage, or automobile, for ordinary purposes of life and business. See: Thompson v. Smith (Chief of Police), 154 S. E. 579, 580

6.3 The "RIGHT" of the Citizen to travel upon the public roadways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a "COMMON RIGHT" which he has under the "RIGHT" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. See: Thompson v. Smith, supra.

7. It could not be stated more conclusively that Citizens of the States have a "RIGHT" to travel, without approval or restriction, (license), and that this "RIGHT" is protected under the U.S. Constitution. After all, who do the roadways belong to anyway? The People-At-Large. The following are additional court decisions that expound the same facts:

7.1 . The streets and roadways belong to the public, for the use of the public in the ordinary and customary manner. See: Hadfield v. Lundin, 98 Wn. 657; 168 P. 516;

7.2 All those who travel upon, and transport their property upon, the public highways, using the ordinary conveyance of today, and doing so in the usual and ordinary course of life and business. See: Hadfield, supra; See: State v. City of Spokane, 109 Wn. 360; 186 P. 864.

7.3 The "RIGHT" of the Citizen to travel upon the highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, obviously differs radically from that of one who makes the highways his principal place of business and uses it for private gain ... See: State v. City of Spokane, supra.

7.4 . While a Citizen has the "RIGHT" to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that "RIGHT" does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place of business for private gain. For the latter purposes no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a MERE PRIVILEGE or license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion .... See: Hadfield, supra; State v. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; See: Cummins v. Jones, 155 P. 171; See: Packard v. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 257, 264 U.S. 140 and other cases too numerous to mention.
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/drivingisrightnotprivledge07apr05.shtml

Anti Federalist
04-11-2015, 12:37 PM
It's a privilege to know Ron Paul, it isn't a privilege to drive.

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/drivingisrightnotprivledge07apr05.shtml

What Mrs. AF said.

Anti Federalist
04-11-2015, 12:40 PM
Driving isn't a right it's a privilege. Your premium is calculated by assessing your risk. Obviously if you have TWO dwis your critical thinking skills aren't very high. YOU chose to drive drunk. You didn't learn from your first mistake. Take some responsibility for your actions and quit blaming everyone else.

As a repeat drunk driver you get the honor of being in the pool with other drunk drivers who obviously have a higher degree of risk associated with your actions.

And now you know why the insurance mafia is now monitoring you in real time.

Soon to be in your home.

Yeah, freedom.

The insurance mafia is the perfect example of government/corporate fascism.

heavenlyboy34
04-11-2015, 12:43 PM
It's a privilege to know Ron Paul, it isn't a privilege to drive.


http://educate-yourself.org/cn/drivingisrightnotprivledge07apr05.shtml
Laws are for the lawful, not the political or Enforcer classes. The regime and its Enforcer Class are above The Law (in practice). :(

NorthCarolinaLiberty
04-12-2015, 12:16 AM
What Mrs. AF said.

You and Donna Y got hitched?

Anti Federalist
04-12-2015, 12:53 AM
You and Donna Y got hitched?

LOL - been hitched for almost 20 years now.

Met on a CompuServe political forum much like this one.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
04-12-2015, 02:48 AM
LOL - been hitched for almost 20 years now.

Met on a CompuServe political forum much like this one.


Well, I'll be durned. I had no idea.

Congratulations. Or, guess I should say happy (next) anniversary.

jbauer
04-12-2015, 07:29 AM
Nice job buying into the propaganda there dude...

He very clearly stated that he's never been at fault for damages incurred as a result of his driving.

Being of similar vintage I can attest to the fact that driving moderately impaired was the norm for our formative years.

The same batch of busybodies who call for kops to regulate everything from pit bulls to vaccinations have brought you the standing DWI laws.

So once again; "Nice job buying into the propaganda there dude..."

Caught or not, damage or not, driving impaired lessens your ability to operate a 4000# machine going 55mph making it dangerous to me on the same roadway.

I have no problem requiring insurance to cover you if you hit me. I deserve to have damage caused by another to be paid for.

So how do you suggest setting aside funds to pay for my damage if not through insurance?

tod evans
04-12-2015, 07:49 AM
Caught or not, damage or not, driving impaired lessens your ability to operate a 4000# machine going 55mph making it dangerous to me on the same roadway.

What a weak and illogical argument!

Sleep deprivation and stress have contributed to many more accidents than booze or chemicals.

In order to be consistent with such an illogical position though you must also speak against driving on prescribed pharmaceuticals...


I have no problem requiring insurance to cover you if you hit me.

Of course you don't, the idea that government mandates are for your benefit has been deeply ingrained.


I deserve to have damage caused by another to be paid for.

Yes you do.

Problem is your desire to have government mandate the means by which you would be compensated.


So how do you suggest setting aside funds to pay for my damage if not through insurance?

"Your damage" is a risk that a free man accepts when he leaves the walls surrounding his domain.

I'm far more likely to beat you within an inch of your life with my fists than I am to damage your automobile driving mine impaired, would you have government mandate that both you and I insure ourselves and our family members against "reactions to external stimuli" ?

Hell man, if we address Phil and his DWI's, you are over one million times more likely to be mauled by a shark than you are to be harmed by Phils driving, should government mandate that you pay for a shark attack rider on your policy since you'd have a helluva time collecting from a shark?

Like I said twice already;


"Nice job buying into the propaganda there dude..."

angelatc
04-12-2015, 08:18 AM
You don't have to buy car insurance. Don't drive. You don't have to buy home insurance don't take out a loan. You don't have to buy life insurance. Don't die. Until Obama you didn't have to buy health insurance.

I don't have a problem with most insurance.

Well you should. The problem is the deeply ingrained philosophy that "someone should pay!!!" which doesn't really exist in other countries. Your insurance should protect you and your crap, while my insurance should protect me and mine. If I trip and break a hip walking up to your door, my medical insurance should pay for it, not your homeowner's policy.

If you and I crash into each other while driving, your policy should pay for your losses while my policy covers mine. But (and I already know from experience) that will never come to fruition in America. We are just too mean - we want blood when we perceive that someone has harmed us. But we will settle for money...

satchelmcqueen
04-12-2015, 11:15 AM
You don't have to buy car insurance. Don't drive. You don't have to buy home insurance don't take out a loan. You don't have to buy life insurance. Don't die. Until Obama you didn't have to buy health insurance.

I don't have a problem with most insurance.
i dont have to do lots of other things, but to live and eat i have to work, so i have to drive. so yes i do have to buy certain things. and no i cant just move to a city so i dont need a car. sometimes its not as simple as you say.

satchelmcqueen
04-12-2015, 11:18 AM
Mandatory Car Insurance was one of my first awakenings to the real world outside the ideals taught in high school. I realized, because I have a penis, I had to pay more than girls (fucking patriarchy!). Then, when I would tell others my frustrations with blatant, government mandated discrimination, I would get a lecture about males being more dangerous drivers as a whole, as if that is justification enough for government mandated discrimination.

Insurance loves to find a politically correct group, and tack on more, punishing the majority for the crimes of the few.

Death to the Insurance Industry. Death to the bankers. Death to them all. Hang them high.

And then along comes Obamacare.

Insurance is nothing but a sales schtick, using fear to make people give up their money. Then, when it is time for a claim, half the time, they refuse to pay. You can't get a basic "everything insurance", because if you could, it would be about 3 times your income, because nobody would be in that business, unless it was profitable.

You can buy fire, flood, earthquake, terrorism, loss of limb and car insurance, but what happens if you get hit in the head by a falling eucalyptus branch?

You didn't by eucalyptus tree insurance? Fool. Now look at you.
ty sir! yes ive never thought about it like that. so maybe they need to be sued for being sexist or some other word? class action by all the males. if they use the male thing as a defense, then we can counter by saying that we expect all asians to be billed higher than white males.

kpitcher
04-12-2015, 12:00 PM
Only 1500 a year would be nice. I'm in Michigan which has the highest rates of the nation. I think it's due to the uncapped medical for any accident related injury. Also Michigan cops can now scan license plates and see if anyone's insurance has lapsed.

KAlmquist
04-13-2015, 01:20 AM
If you get rid of the parts that aren't mandatory, you can usually get your insurance down to a couple of hundred bucks (less if you have a good driving record and no children under 25).

That's a lot more believable than the $1500 figure given in the original article. You are probably right that the $1500 includes insurance coverage that is not mandated.

UWDude
04-13-2015, 01:39 AM
That's a lot more believable than the $1500 figure given in the original article. You are probably right that the $1500 includes insurance coverage that is not mandated.

Different states have different mandates. When I was 18, working at McDonalds for $5.25 an hour, the mandatory on my old Pontiac 4-door family sedan was about $120 a month. That was young male, no speeding tickets, no moving or parking violations, good grades in high school. It was outrageous. Insurance was eating over 15% of my take home pay.

Last I had insurance, (I hardly ever drive), minimum was $720 a year.



ty sir! yes ive never thought about it like that. so maybe they need to be sued for being sexist or some other word? class action by all the males. if they use the male thing as a defense, then we can counter by saying that we expect all asians to be billed higher than white males.

You can skew statistics to make any group of people look more dangerous. I mean holy crap, why aren't old people's insurance jacked up once they hit 65? One of the scariest times in my life was when my grandma drove my siblings and I around the Bay Area.

paleocon1
04-13-2015, 08:47 AM
The Insurance Agenda?

by eric • April 9, 2015

http://ericpetersautos.com/2015/04/09/the-insurance-agenda/

.............................

Mr Peters has long had the ridiculous idea that requiring auto insurance (so that funds exist to compensate the victims of his reckless speeding should his reflexs turn out to not be as sharp as he imagines) somehow is an aggression.

paleocon1
04-13-2015, 08:51 AM
What a weak and illogical argument!

Sleep deprivation and stress have contributed to many more accidents than booze or chemicals.

.......................................

Evidence? Regardless booze/dope are at the root of a huge number of accidents each year. To drink and drive is a clear signal of your lack of concern for anyone who happens to get in your way. Your aggression is noted.

oyarde
04-13-2015, 09:02 AM
Ins in general is interesting .Some ins , like vision , dental , life , you may break even on while others are huge money pits , auto , home etc

surf
04-13-2015, 10:51 AM
"private insurance" vs gov't regulation:

we all know of people/projects that have been derailed or hindered by gov't inspectors and gov't regulations. it's not uncommon for a contractor to tell a client to remove something detrimental to operations if/when it "passes inspection."

I've long argued that the regulatory relief any builder seeks could best be attained by insurance companies taking over the inspecting process. after all, who is (theoretically) better at measuring and quantifying risk: some bureaucratic bumblefuck inspector or someone involved with an actual financial stake in any loss? business forces would direct an insurance based model that would supply correct pricing of risks - i.e. you're going to pay more to insure your house on the outer banks (unless it is built to withstand hurricanes) than you will for a ranch house in Montana.

edit: and your pool won't be shut down because the fence is 58 inches tall rather than the new regulation of 60 inches (one of many banal threats we've rec'd from a health inspector)

acesfull
04-13-2015, 11:47 AM
The Government is in theory forcing citizens to enter into contracts, they require insurance before they will issue tags or registration.

In my opinion forcing citizens to acquire insurance is a clear violation of " due process". We have a common law right of Refusal to Deal.

We have in this country something called " Freedom of Dealing". Per Thomas M. Cooley, in his 19th century treatise on tort law, described the right in this way.

" It is a part of every man's civil rights that he be left at liberty to refuse business relations with any person whomsoever, whether the refusal rests upon reason, or is the result of whim,caprice, prejudice or malice. With his reasons neither the public nor third persons have any legal concern. It is also his right to have business relations with any one with whom he can make contracts, and if he is wrongfully deprived of this right by others, he is entitled to redress."

Simply put the government is forcing its citizens to enter into a contract.
Read Liberty of Contract by David N. Mayer for a better understanding. I would have titled the book" Liberty to Contract" however Mayer makes some great legal arguments that government cannot force citizens to make contracts.

My .02

Acesfull

acesfull
04-13-2015, 11:55 AM
It's a privilege to know Ron Paul, it isn't a privilege to drive.


http://educate-yourself.org/cn/drivingisrightnotprivledge07apr05.shtml

+1

However try getting an attorney to make this argument for you in traffic court. The municipal judge, the prosecutor and lawyers do not want folks aware of this very basic concept. I have used this argument twice in separate municipal courts, using the information you posted and both times the cases were dismissed with prejudice. Both times I filed motion to dismiss and quoted the text of your post in my brief... Both times I won....

Best regards
Acesfull

Anti Federalist
04-13-2015, 12:47 PM
Evidence? Regardless booze/dope are at the root of a huge number of accidents each year. To drink and drive is a clear signal of your lack of concern for anyone who happens to get in your way. Your aggression is noted.

Says the guy who is just fine with a cop blowing away an unarmed man, so he won't have to pay for any more of his bastard kids.


All he had to do was stop. He was the author of his own demise. And No I am not sad that he won't be adding any more of his spawn to my TaxBill.

You sound like a real "law and order" kind of guy...

Tell me, are you in favor of "no refusal" DUI checkpoints, where, if you refuse a breath test the cops have the "right" to strap you down to a gurney and take your blood?

Anti Federalist
04-13-2015, 12:57 PM
Well you should. The problem is the deeply ingrained philosophy that "someone should pay!!!" which doesn't really exist in other countries. Your insurance should protect you and your crap, while my insurance should protect me and mine. If I trip and break a hip walking up to your door, my medical insurance should pay for it, not your homeowner's policy.

If you and I crash into each other while driving, your policy should pay for your losses while my policy covers mine. But (and I already know from experience) that will never come to fruition in America.

We are just too mean - we want blood when we perceive that someone has harmed us. But we will settle for money...

This.

mad cow
04-13-2015, 01:22 PM
The Government is in theory forcing citizens to enter into contracts, they require insurance before they will issue tags or registration.

In my opinion forcing citizens to acquire insurance is a clear violation of " due process". We have a common law right of Refusal to Deal.

We have in this country something called " Freedom of Dealing". Per Thomas M. Cooley, in his 19th century treatise on tort law, described the right in this way.

" It is a part of every man's civil rights that he be left at liberty to refuse business relations with any person whomsoever, whether the refusal rests upon reason, or is the result of whim,caprice, prejudice or malice. With his reasons neither the public nor third persons have any legal concern. It is also his right to have business relations with any one with whom he can make contracts, and if he is wrongfully deprived of this right by others, he is entitled to redress."

Simply put the government is forcing its citizens to enter into a contract.
Read Liberty of Contract by David N. Mayer for a better understanding. I would have titled the book" Liberty to Contract" however Mayer makes some great legal arguments that government cannot force citizens to make contracts.

My .02

Acesfull

Excellent quote,+ rep.
We have been round and round on this subject here many times throughout the years.
I hope I can find this quote the next time the matter comes up.

PRB
04-13-2015, 11:33 PM
In order to be consistent with such an illogical position though you must also speak against driving on prescribed pharmaceuticals...



and what if he is? your problem can't be with him being inconsistent, god forbid if he's a consistent Fascist that wants all driving banned for safety!

PRB
04-13-2015, 11:35 PM
Caught or not, damage or not, driving impaired lessens your ability to operate a 4000# machine going 55mph making it dangerous to me on the same roadway.


that's a lie, statistics prove sober drivers cause 9x more accidents than drunk drivers. that's a FACT.



I have no problem requiring insurance to cover you if you hit me. I deserve to have damage caused by another to be paid for.


No you don't. You're not entitled to anything, if you don't want to be damaged, don't go on the road, it's called FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY.

Your name is Jack Bauer, named after a statist proganda TV show.

PRB
04-13-2015, 11:39 PM
Driving isn't a right it's a privilege. Your premium is calculated by assessing your risk. Obviously if you have TWO dwis your critical thinking skills aren't very high.


What's your problem? Self righteous prick. If you don't like to drink and drive, don't do it, why ruin it for the rest of us?



YOU chose to drive drunk. You didn't learn from your first mistake. Take some responsibility for your actions and quit blaming everyone else.


Learn from what mistake? Being harassed by the police, fined and thrown in jail proves you did something wrong? How much are you paid here to blame victims of the state?



As a repeat drunk driver you get the honor of being in the pool with other drunk drivers who obviously have a higher degree of risk associated with your actions.

You fail at Liberty 101.

People are INDIVIDUALS. Treating people in groups is SOCIALIST GROUPTHINK, GENERALIZATION and the opposite of liberty. If you want freedom and less government, you must treat ALL people as blank slates and separately without assumptions and stereotypes. Stereotypes are for socialists, communists and racists.

PRB
04-13-2015, 11:40 PM
no i cant just move to a city so i dont need a car. sometimes its not as simple as you say.

what's stopping you? a law?

PRB
04-13-2015, 11:41 PM
The Government is in theory forcing citizens to enter into contracts, they require insurance before they will issue tags or registration.



be thankful you're not forced to drive.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
04-14-2015, 12:50 AM
You fail at Liberty 101.




You fail at trolling, Democrat. Neg rep for not coming up with something new already.


PRB: Phony Repetitive Bore

paleocon1
04-14-2015, 08:04 AM
Says the guy who is just fine with a cop blowing away an unarmed man, so he won't have to pay for any more of his bastard kids.



.........................

Evidence is that the thug did in fact attack the cop.The shoot was legit regards of the PC crowd yammering.

paleocon1
04-14-2015, 08:07 AM
................................................
Tell me, are you in favor of "no refusal" DUI checkpoints, where, if you refuse a breath test the cops have the "right" to strap you down to a gurney and take your blood?

Nope

jbauer
04-14-2015, 08:21 AM
Sober drivers cause more accidents because there's MORE OF THEM. Talk about statistics that lie!!!!! You'd have to look at an accidents per hours driven to come up with safer or not. You cannot possibly believe that drinking makes you a 9x better driver can you?

Jack Bauer came by long after my parents named me and the J isn't for Jack. I didn't know we had to be aware of all future tv shows casts when naming children. If you know where that list of future tv shows names is I'd like to check my kids....you know to make sure that they're not the same name as the future Hitler.


that's a lie, statistics prove sober drivers cause 9x more accidents than drunk drivers. that's a FACT.



No you don't. You're not entitled to anything, if you don't want to be damaged, don't go on the road, it's called FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY.

Your name is Jack Bauer, named after a statist proganda TV show.

phill4paul
04-14-2015, 08:27 AM
Evidence is that the thug did in fact attack the cop.The shoot was legit regards of the PC crowd yammering.

- rep. There is nothing legit in shooting a man 8 times in the back while he is running away from you. If legit then why re-position evidence?

jbauer
04-14-2015, 08:45 AM
All of which is fine until you infringe on my right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness. Driving drunk increases the likelihood of an accident. I'm going to use the CDCs numbers even though they're one of those government agencies.

In 2012, 10,322 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (31%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.1
http://www.cdc.gov/Motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html

To be equally dangerous as normal driving there would need to be 31% of the population driving drunk 24/7/365. Do you really believe that?

According to MADD (who would have every reason to inflate numbers) says there are 300,000 drunk drivers per day.
http://www.madd.org/statistics/

So, lets assume that 300k drunk drivers are on the road per day. There's 320,000,000 people in the USA. Lets assume that 50% drive each day??


So 300,000 drivers divided by 160M total drivers x100 = 0.1875% of the total drivers causing 31% of all driving deaths. (assuming 1/2 the country drives each day)

Lets back that down some, lets say only 25% of the country drives each day:

300,000/80,000,000*100= 0.375% of the drivers causing 31% of all traffic deaths.

Even more, lets say 10% of the country drives each day:

300,000/32,000,000*100 = 0.9375% of drivers causing 31% of accidents.

I've obviously used some arithmetic, assumptions and websites numbers to come up with those figures so there's plenty of room to argue that my numbers aren't entirely accurate. But if they are even remotely close to 1% of all drivers causing 1/3 of all traffic deaths then I'd say the government has every right to protect my life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Driving drunk is irresponsible and anyone caught doing so should suffer the consequences of doing so PERIOD.




What's your problem? Self righteous prick. If you don't like to drink and drive, don't do it, why ruin it for the rest of us?



Learn from what mistake? Being harassed by the police, fined and thrown in jail proves you did something wrong? How much are you paid here to blame victims of the state?



You fail at Liberty 101.

People are INDIVIDUALS. Treating people in groups is SOCIALIST GROUPTHINK, GENERALIZATION and the opposite of liberty. If you want freedom and less government, you must treat ALL people as blank slates and separately without assumptions and stereotypes. Stereotypes are for socialists, communists and racists.

phill4paul
04-14-2015, 08:48 AM
I've obviously used some arithmetic, assumptions and websites numbers to come up with those figures so there's plenty of room to argue that my numbers aren't entirely accurate.

You sure did. Starting with the base line figures from the CDC, NHTSA and MADD.

jbauer
04-14-2015, 09:30 AM
You sure did. Starting with the base line figures from the CDC, NHTSA and MADD.

Where would you like me to get the figures from? Is there an anti-MADD statistic place? Go ahead, discount their numbers by 50% and you still have nearly 1.0 correlation between drunk driving and motor vehicle deaths. There's also a ton of slop in those numbers. Every one of those alleged 300k drunk drives spends time behind the wheel while not intoxicated. It makes those numbers even more extreme. How many mile have you driven drunk relative to regular hours? 1% of your 12k average miles per year intoxicated? Less?

phill4paul
04-14-2015, 11:26 AM
Where would you like me to get the figures from? Is there an anti-MADD statistic place? Go ahead, discount their numbers by 50% and you still have nearly 1.0 correlation between drunk driving and motor vehicle deaths. There's also a ton of slop in those numbers. Every one of those alleged 300k drunk drives spends time behind the wheel while not intoxicated. It makes those numbers even more extreme. How many mile have you driven drunk relative to regular hours? 1% of your 12k average miles per year intoxicated? Less?

Plenty of places to find the truth regarding statistics. You can begin your journey here:http://www.motorists.org/search/?cx=012764196079927696726%3Awjakvq0mjhs&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=DUI
While you are on their website check out how they believe the problem can best be solved WITHOUT trampling on individual rights. Their proposals at least find a middle ground instead of revenge based/reactionary legislation.

jbauer
04-14-2015, 11:42 AM
Plenty of places to find the truth regarding statistics. You can begin your journey here:http://www.motorists.org/search/?cx=012764196079927696726%3Awjakvq0mjhs&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=DUI
While you are on their website check out how they believe the problem can best be solved WITHOUT trampling on individual rights. Their proposals at least find a middle ground instead of revenge based/reactionary legislation.

Ok, this chart says that 62ish% of fatal crashes were caused by sober drivers and 24ish% are caused by .14+ BAC: http://www.motorists.org/Images/dui/BACdrivers.gif
The other 14ish% are also attributable to folks with 0 - .1399 BAC

So this is pretty much exactly what the CDC quoted although they are two different years. It still shows that drunk driving has a significant link to fatal accidents. This is EXACTLY why insurance rates are higher for folks convicted of drunk driving. This topic is about insurance. Insurance companies put everything on a spreadsheet to identify risk. Just because the OP didn't cause a wreak YET doesn't mean that he wont. I get the whole precrime idea, but when you are knowingly putting others at a higher degree of risk by your actions shouldn't we try to find a way to decrease that?

phill4paul
04-14-2015, 11:46 AM
Ok, this chart says that 62ish% of fatal crashes were caused by sober drivers and 24ish% are caused by .14+ BAC: http://www.motorists.org/Images/dui/BACdrivers.gif
The other 14ish% are also attributable to folks with 0 - .1399 BAC

So this is pretty much exactly what the CDC quoted although they are two different years. It still shows that drunk driving has a significant link to fatal accidents. This is EXACTLY why insurance rates are higher for folks convicted of drunk driving. This topic is about insurance. Insurance companies put everything on a spreadsheet to identify risk. Just because the OP didn't cause a wreak YET doesn't mean that he wont. I get the whole precrime idea, but when you are knowingly putting others at a higher degree of risk by your actions shouldn't we try to find a way to decrease that?

And look who is that source of that graph. NHTSA.


The federal government defines an alcohol-related fatal traffic accident as an accident where someone died and a person involved in the accident had some measurable amount of alcohol in his or her system. For example, a sober driver hits a pedestrian who has been drinking, even modestly. That's considered an alcohol-related accident. A sober driver rear-ends a driver that has had something to drink. That's considered an alcohol-related accident. A man has a drink before committing suicide in his vehicle. That's an alcohol-related accident. A driver has a single drink and is involved in a fatal accident that he did not cause. That's considered an alcohol-related accident. Do these sound like "drunk-driver-caused" accidents to you? That's what the government and the anti-drinking organizations would like you to believe.

http://www.motorists.org/dui/myths

EDit: And as an aside I am simply amazed that the government is capable of coming up with such statistics when they can't even tell us how many citizens are killed by law-enforcement every year.

PRB
04-14-2015, 02:22 PM
Ok, this chart says that 62ish% of fatal crashes were caused by sober drivers and 24ish% are caused by .14+ BAC: http://www.motorists.org/Images/dui/BACdrivers.gif
The other 14ish% are also attributable to folks with 0 - .1399 BAC

So this is pretty much exactly what the CDC quoted although they are two different years. It still shows that drunk driving has a significant link to fatal accidents.


No it doesn't. In your Orwellian view, black is white and up is down. It shows the OPPOSITE.

Sober drivers cause more accidents, so you're more likely to be killed by a SOBER DRIVER. Banning drunk driving will only reduce 1/4 of all fatal crashes, so if you really cared about safety, bark off the RIGHT tree.



This is EXACTLY why insurance rates are higher for folks convicted of drunk driving.


No, insurance rates are higher for folks convicted because of government mandate, stigma and propaganda.



This topic is about insurance. Insurance companies put everything on a spreadsheet to identify risk. Just because the OP didn't cause a wreak YET doesn't mean that he wont.


Just because he hasn't means he hasn't and if he did he did. Treating a person who hasn't hurt anybody like a criminal is PRECRIME AND FASCISM. what part of liberty don't you get????



I get the whole precrime idea, but when you are knowingly putting others at a higher degree of risk by your actions shouldn't we try to find a way to decrease that?

So you get precrime and you're still for it? That makes you evil instead of merely ignorant.

No, we shouldn't find a way to decrease risk, risk is what freedom means, if you want to decrease risk by reducing freedom, you're a fascist. freedom is more important than safety, just ask Benjamin Franklin.

PRB
04-14-2015, 02:24 PM
Sober drivers cause more accidents because there's MORE OF THEM. Talk about statistics that lie!!!!! You'd have to look at an accidents per hours driven to come up with safer or not. You cannot possibly believe that drinking makes you a 9x better driver can you?


Yes, I can, because I believe in liberty and you're brainwashed by the Prohibitionist Lobby to ban freedom. This is a LIBERTY FORUM, if you want more govenrment, get lost, we don't need you here.



Jack Bauer came by long after my parents named me and the J isn't for Jack. I didn't know we had to be aware of all future tv shows casts when naming children. If you know where that list of future tv shows names is I'd like to check my kids....you know to make sure that they're not the same name as the future Hitler.

I'm supposed to believe it's all coincidence?

PRB
04-14-2015, 02:25 PM
All of which is fine until you infringe on my right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness.


My drunk driving is not an infringement on your freedom.



Driving drunk increases the likelihood of an accident. I'm going to use the CDCs numbers even though they're one of those government agencies.


CDC is a government website, govenrment websites are always full of lies. Just ask anybody else here.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
04-14-2015, 02:28 PM
.


Neg rep. No trolling creativity.

Come on, PRB, come up with a new game. :rolleyes:

PRB
04-14-2015, 02:30 PM
Neg rep. No trolling creativity.

Come on, PRB, come up with a new game. :rolleyes:

What part of what I said do you disagree with?

NorthCarolinaLiberty
04-14-2015, 02:35 PM
What part of what I said do you disagree with?


I barely read what you say any more. You are just really horrible now. No effort at all.

What about Olaf, the poster you befriended? Bring back that account. Or Ecolibertarian. Something.

PRB
04-14-2015, 02:44 PM
I barely read what you say any more. You are just really horrible now. No effort at all.

What about Olaf, the poster you befriended? Bring back that account. Or Ecolibertarian. Something.

you admit you call me a troll and liar without reading what I say?

I have nothing to do with those accounts.

surf
04-15-2015, 10:28 AM
I thought I made a good comment about insurance companies and their role in monitoring risk vs gov't meddling - see post #41. taking a viewpoint that, left alone, insurance companies are a somewhat necessary if not helpful thing. anyone want to discuss (vs bashing each other over the concept of drunk driving)?