Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 84

Thread: This guy has a moral issue with insurance. Anyone else feel the same?

  1. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brandon View Post
    You can opt out, you just can't drive a car on their roads then. Fair enough? If you don't think they should own roads, well that that's fine but that's a different discussion. I promise you that if roads ever were privatized you would still be required by the owners to be insured.
    Really? Can I opt out of my taxes, I will start traveling by horseback and pooping all over your roads if we can cut this deal. My land was bought with ingress and egress rights. Otherwise, I would not have bought the damn land. Those roads will remain public in the sense that I can use them for the intended purpose of traversal without cost.

    As regards "private roads", it is the rare accident indeed that damages the road. Normally the road is just like, "SWEEP UP THE GLASS AND HOSE ME DOWN!". If the private road owner was so concerned about damage and liability, then they would buy insurance for this purpose and raise prices accordingly. Why would they want the paperwork nightmare of dealing with tens of thousands customers? If the damage is specific, they go after one or a few parties and if those parties can't pay up, then they will have their own insurance or contingency plans in place (like self insurance).

    Whenever anybody says, "you need to have insurance" or "your contractor has to have insurance", then it is a damn good bet what they really mean is, "we don't properly mitigate risk ourselves, so we need you to do it for us".

    I understand the lawsuit happy world in which we reside. That said, the motivation that mandates insurance is not risk mitigation, it is corporatism and foolhardy notions regarding the nature of risk and the nature of insurance. Mandating insurance is the first step towards "universal mandatory umbrella insurance". After all, you didn't create the universe, why should you be responsible for anything?



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eric_cartman View Post
    however, there could be roads that do not require insurance. people driving on these roads would be doing so knowing that uninsured drivers might hit them and not be able to cover their bills. therefore, most people would not drive on roads with these types of rules.
    Why not? I live in a state that mandates auto insurance. Naturally, when I got rear-ended, the other vehicle did not have insurance. The law is not for my protection. The state collects millions in fines from uninsured motorists. People like me overpay for insurance while the poor get perpetually fined and ticketed for things like being uninsured. It's called win-win-lose-lose (state-insurance-me-you).

    To end the story, despite not being insured, my insurance company covered the $7000 because that's what I pay the assholes for. I thought I was out my $1000 deductible. Boo hoo, right? Wrong! They collected enough money to at least cover my deductible. Cost to me: temporary back pain and the joy of driving a previously-damaged vehicle.
    Last edited by The Free Hornet; 02-10-2012 at 04:38 PM.

  4. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thoughtomator View Post
    Mandatory insurance is an institution of fascism, and a subsidy from owners of modest vehicles to those who own more expensive ones.
    Mandatory auto insurance protects the wealthy from the judgment-proof poor.

  5. #34

    Default

    One of the reasons I can't stand to watch TV is because of all the insurance and drug ads. The crap is so deeply imbedded in the minds of people that they will never be able to consider life without insurance unless the government decides we do not need it.

    Insurance was invented out of greed and nothing else. I hate it and will refuse to buy it any way I can. I think it is the biggest financial fraud ever perpetrated on people in the USA. I do have auto insurance the minimum allowable with the highest deductible possible. I am a very careful driver and have never gotten a ticket is my premium set on my driving record? Hell no it is about my credit rating F#% You insurance companies!!!!

  6. #35

    Default

    If insurance is mandatory, then everyone driving on the road should have it right?

    Maybe we should go back to better bumpers to keep bodywork prices down AND let people know that screaming, "My neck! My neck!" might be unethical if nothing is wrong with their neck.

    Insurance did not start out for greed. Do not confuse auto insurance with the rest. You have never owned a business I bet. It started out in small communities to help people mitigate risk. As we have turned from names to numbers it seems more to be about greed.

  7. #36

    Default

    I think that if you want to insure yourself on the roads then you are making a responsible decision. If you decide not to, be prepared for the consequences. What about the others? Insure yourself.

    Is that coherent?

  8. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FrancisMarion View Post
    I think that if you want to insure yourself on the roads then you are making a responsible decision. If you decide not to, be prepared for the consequences. What about the others? Insure yourself.

    Is that coherent?
    very.
    "Freedom is Popular!" - Ron Paul
    "...if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed" - Jesus Christ
    "Time to nut up, or shut up" - Tallahassee
    "Your heart is free; have the courage to follow it." - Malcolm Wallace

    Quote Originally Posted by supermario21 View Post
    Raul Labrador just threw the hammer down..."said we need to stop acting like moderates and talking like conservatives" and start "talking like moderates and acting like conservatives".
    looking for a second major political party

  9. #38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Simple View Post
    I have never paid for medical nor dental insurance and maintained just the legal limit on my vehicles. I don't want to know that I'll be taken care of as much as I want to be free even if that means assuming responsibility.
    And if you hit someone and cause then $250,000 worth of medical bills, whose going to pay for they? Can you afford to pay it out of pocket?

    How about if (God forbid) you get cancer? What are you going to do? Have medicaid pay for your treatment?

  10. #39
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    the back row
    Posts
    1,023

    Default

    If you really want to be free don't even have a car, home, phone, boss...who said living free should be easy?

  11. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eduardo89 View Post
    And if you hit someone and cause then $250,000 worth of medical bills, whose going to pay for they? Can you afford to pay it out of pocket?

    How about if (God forbid) you get cancer? What are you going to do? Have medicaid pay for your treatment?
    Why can't the person who has the medical bills have insured themselves in this regard?

    What about if you make a false assumption, that the uninsured person who gets cancer will seek treatment?

  12. #41

    Default

    You buy insurance to pay for your costs, not others.
    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of apportionment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  13. #42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Danke View Post
    You buy insurance to pay for your costs, not others.
    If you cause an accident your insurance pays for your liability to others. That's what insurance is for. If I damage you or your property I should pay.

  14. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eduardo89 View Post
    And if you hit someone and cause then $250,000 worth of medical bills, whose going to pay for they? Can you afford to pay it out of pocket?
    You must have missed when I wrote this:
    Mandatory auto insurance protects the wealthy from the judgment-proof poor.

  15. #44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eduardo89 View Post
    If you cause an accident your insurance pays for your liability to others. That's what insurance is for. If I damage you or your property I should pay.
    Currently yes, that is how it works. This is a liberty forum, remember?
    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of apportionment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  16. #45

    Default

    Mandatory insurance is very like fiat currency, as it forces everyone at gunpoint to value something they don't necessarily value, and quite possibly cannot afford, which in turn distorts its real value, while everyone is forced to pay in order to go jointly and severally liable with everyone else. And despite propaganda that shows insurance companies "favoring" the safer insured, whilst penalizing those whose behavior is deemed riskier, the real truth is that everyone is paying higher premiums overall based on the weakest links who are forced into the risk pool (think Greece to the Euro).

    Pooling risk isn't morally wrong in and of itself - it's forcing everyone into a collective accountability pool that is morally wrong, as it is a forced redistribution of wealth, accountability rights, and ultimately liberty itself. Mandatory insurance has absolutely no place in a free market, as it opens the door to control of others for behavior deemed risky -- not just behavior that could be damaging to others, but even behavior that could be damaging to yourself. By favoring mandatory insurance, you are essentially declaring a willingness to give up other people's liberty and right to individual accountability for your own financial security, making you unworthy of either in the end. And there's the slippery slope, as laws are then created, not to protect you, but rather the claims windows of insurance companies - from anything from seat belt laws to what you should and should not be allowed to do with your own body.

  17. #46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Danke View Post
    Currently yes, that is how it works. This is a liberty forum, remember?
    And that's why I don't understand your reasoning. If I damage you or your property, shouldn't I be liable to compensate you? Why should it be up to you to cover damage that I created?

    In a free society you should be held liable for your actions, if you cause an accident and hurt someone else, you should pay for their medical services.

  18. #47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eduardo89 View Post
    And that's why I don't understand your reasoning. If I damage you or your property, shouldn't I be liable to compensate you? Why should it be up to you to cover damage that I created?

    In a free society you should be held liable for your actions, if you cause an accident and hurt someone else, you should pay for their medical services.
    Yes. Doesn't contradict my reasoning a bit.
    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of apportionment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  19. #48

    Default

    Insurance, a game where you pay money to bet you'll screw up, the insurance company takes the money, sets certain conditions and bets you won't.
    It's all based in maritime law.

  20. #49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Danke View Post
    Yes. Doesn't contradict my reasoning a bit.
    Sorry I misunderstood what you wrote. I thought in we're saying insurance should only pay for you, not the damage you cause to others. When you said "your costs" I'm assuming now you mean your entire liability to others.

  21. #50

    Default

    I agree about paying for one's negligence.

    The fact is that many people can't pay for theirs, and if there is damages involved somebody is going to have to. And in that case it is you.

    I also understand the reasoning behind mandatory insurance due to the fact that it is an unique area (the public roads). However, it just doesn't work. There are plenty of drivers in my state that drive daily without insurance. That's why (as someone mentioned before) we have the line item for "uninsured motorists" on your auto insurance bill.

    In short why should we agree with government setting legal precedence for mandatory purchasing? Especially when the only thing that is gained is more power for them.

    Do you need insurance with mopeds? Maybe we should all drive those damn things.

  22. #51

    Default

    I got a business model. Klunker Insurance Inc. We only insure autos less than 3000USD in BB value for 100USD/annum. Huge pool, many older and experienced driver and you can replace their car with hardly any considerable outlay.

    Rev9
    Drain the swamp - BIG DOG
    http://mindreleaselabs.com/
    Seeking work on Apps, Games, Art based projects

  23. #52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brandon View Post
    I'm not even sure if you read my post? The first issue i mentioned was protecting your assets and making sure you are able to cover damages you cause to other people's property. I didn't say a damn thing about who is going to "take care of me."
    You either quickly forgot what you posted or had no clue what you agreed with... You agreeing to this staement is you wanting to know "Who is going to take care of me?"---> "This comment summed it up :" "I have a problem with auto insurance"? You idiot, if you run into me and cause $250K of medical bills who is going to pay? So you don't mind if I confiscate your house and garnish your wages for the next 50 years? What an idiot..."
    Last edited by Noclone; 02-11-2012 at 12:41 AM.

  24. #53

  25. #54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brandon View Post
    I think it's a good idea to require people to get insurance before they engage in activities that have a high chance of causing property damage or injury.

    This comment summed it up :" "I have a problem with auto insurance"? You idiot, if you run into me and cause $250K of medical bills who is going to pay? So you don't mind if I confiscate your house and garnish your wages for the next 50 years? What an idiot..."
    Shouldn't be required. The whole concept that someone else should pay is where the problem always lies. If you're worried about somebody driving into you and leaving you with $250k in medical bills, then insure yourself against that risk. If you want to drive a $100,000 car, then you better have insurance that's willing to pony up $5000 for a fender, because I'm really not that into your car.
    .
    "Every great new thought was opposed. Every great new invention was denounced. The first motor was considered foolish. The airplane was considered impossible. The power loom was considered vicious. Anesthesia was considered sinful. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered and they paid. But they won."
    - Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead
    ..
    .

    I blog at Red State Eclectic, and I tweet here,.

  26. #55

    Default

    so......... how about my state? i live in a no fault state, if someone rear ends me my insurance company has to cover my medical and pyhiscal damage. even though the other guy is clearly at fault and i cant even sue him unless the damages are over 500,000 or if someone dies or theres 2 otheres in that rule but forgot

    and his insurance would cover his problems
    Rand Benedict Paul.
    Not only did he sell us out, this douche bag did it to his own father! I'm more upset him selling his father out. I don't care who i think is going to win i would never sell my father out. If his willing to sell his father out what else is for sale?

  27. #56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by psi2941 View Post
    so......... how about my state? i live in a no fault state, if someone rear ends me my insurance company has to cover my medical and pyhiscal damage. even though the other guy is clearly at fault and i cant even sue him unless the damages are over 500,000 or if someone dies or theres 2 otheres in that rule but forgot

    and his insurance would cover his problems
    sounds like your state's is absurdly messed up, and the docket is too full.

  28. #57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 123tim View Post
    Doctor sends you out for every expensive (and overpriced) test under the sun. Every part of a doctors exam is set up for people with insurance.

    If there was no insurance, things would be a lot cheaper.
    I recently spent some time at Cleveland Clinic. They, and Mayo's, do things a little different. They charge for a procedure, not for individual visits. So the back and forth of tests actually hurts their bottom line. It pays doctors a specific rate so it encourages the doctor to diagnose correctly, only test as needed, and make sure they don't mess up as followups won't be profitable to them. That makes sense to me. It also is encouraging that our #1 and #2 hospitals in the country do the same thing.
    I saw news article that 40 more hospitals will be changing to this billing method this year. About time!

    This also follows the real world for a change. Medical billing is asinine otherwise. Could you imagine calling a plumber to get your water heater fixed. Plumber shows up, hands you an initial bill, says 'well first I"d like to consult a well driller to ensure the quality of the water, and an electrician to make sure there aren't any oddities with the electric to it. Once you pay those other two people, they report back to the plumber which then shows up 2 weeks later and fixes it, and hands you the bill for the final fix.
    “…let us teach them that all who draw breath are of equal worth, and that those who seek to press heel upon the throat of liberty, will fall to the cry of FREEDOM!!!” – Spartacus, War of the Damned

    BTC: 1AFbCLYU3G1dkbsSJnk3spWeEwpqYVC2Pq

  29. #58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Noclone View Post
    You either quickly forgot what you posted or had no clue what you agreed with... You agreeing to this staement is you wanting to know "Who is going to take care of me?"---> "This comment summed it up :" "I have a problem with auto insurance"? You idiot, if you run into me and cause $250K of medical bills who is going to pay? So you don't mind if I confiscate your house and garnish your wages for the next 50 years? What an idiot..."
    You must have missed when I wrote that insurance protects those of means from the judgement-proof. The system is set up so the poor don't eat the rich.

  30. #59

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brandon View Post
    Wow it only costs him $80 to insure two vehicles?! I pay $300/month to insure one!


    Insurance is great when it's used appropriately, as a way to mitigate risk. If you have any sizable amount of assets, or plan to accumulate them in the next few years, you would be a fool to drive without insurance. One accident could cost you everything you have. I think it's a good idea to require people to get insurance before they engage in activities that have a high chance of causing property damage or injury.

    This comment summed it up :" "I have a problem with auto insurance"? You idiot, if you run into me and cause $250K of medical bills who is going to pay? So you don't mind if I confiscate your house and garnish your wages for the next 50 years? What an idiot..."
    I'm so glad you're still here.

    You're 100% right. Apparently the other posters haven't opened their local phone book to see the sheer number of personal injury lawyers in their local area. If you have any amount of assets, the minute price of car insurance is probably one of the best investments you can make. And, at a certain point, an umbrella policy is great too. (Just don't tell anyone!)

    If you just buy state minimum coverage then you're going to get screwed. It's in the extra coverage that you really start getting your money's worth. Look at it this way, if you have a $25k policy and get in an accident with $200k in frivolous medical bills/disability payments, the insurance company isn't going to take that to court. They're going to pay their $25k and be done with it, leaving you with the $175k in excess of your coverage. If you have a $500k policy and get in the same accident, the insurance company is going to fight tooth and nail to make sure they don't lose that $200k. For just a few dollars extra a month, you get a great legal team in the case a long-tail event decides to bite.

    We have bigger problems in this country than insurance. Stooping to new lows to find new extremes to defend is a waste of time. Hell, for the cost of the wars you could buy every taxpayer in this country a brand new car!
    Last edited by Jordan; 02-11-2012 at 09:43 AM.

  31. #60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    You must have missed when I wrote that insurance protects those of means from the judgement-proof. The system is set up so the poor don't eat the rich.
    I directed that statement towards Brandon. Anyways, you need to finish yours: "The system is set up so the poor don't eat the rich. Much like the rich eats the poor!"

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast





« Previous Thread | Next Thread »


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •