A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
in article , BCITORGB at
wrote on 6/23/05 10:55 PM:
Scott explains:
=================
In the mandatory liability policy model, when I cause a wreck, my
liability
insurer is liable for the damages, so my company will fight tooth and
nail
to deny the claim, defend me and my actions and place the blame on you,
and
you'll be lucky if you ever see a dime from my liability insurance
policy.
However, if YOU have insurance to protect YOU against harms caused by
others, then YOUR insurance company has to pay off and then try to
extract
compensation from me, or my insurance company. You're much more likely
to
actually get a timely settlement if YOU insure yourself rather than
trusting
to MY insurance company's altruism.
=============
Scott, you aren't doing much in your campaign to be chosen as a non-idiot.
The rate to insure your car is going to be about $100000000000 given the
insurance company is going to have to spend all their time trying to squeeze
money out of deadbeat idiots driving uninsured cars.
You aren't looking any less idiotic yourself. Do you think money grows on
trees? Even with mandatory liability, the money has to come from somewhere,
and the insurance company that pays is always going to be looking for
someone's hide to take it out of in order to ensure their shareholder's
profit margins. The point of insurance is that the insurer insures large
numbers of people, only some of whom make claims. That's where they make
their profits, not by trying to squeeze money out of deadbeats. If the
person responsible is indeed a deadbeat, they just write off the loss.
Because they have to *compete* for customers (darn that free market model
anyway!) they cannot simply raise the rates because if they do, I'll just
cancel and find another company to insure me at a better rate. This ensures
that I can always get insurance at a reasonable rate if I'm a good driver,
not an inflated rate based on somebody else's bad driving record. And if
you're a rotten driver, then you justifiably can't be insured, and shouldn't
be allowed to drive.
I know the very concept of universal policies scares you to death, but only
an idiot (like yourself) fails to understand that it is necessary and
beneficial in many cases - including - and only an idiot would not see this
- automobile insurance.
Well, except that it's not beneficial to good drivers, it's only beneficial
to socialist leeches, and is entirely unnecessary because any person can
insure themselves against a particular risk for way less money than by
participating in a universal plan that lumps rotten drivers together with
good ones and makes the good ones pay for the bad ones as well. Such
policies, like government health care, makes people careless. If the
government will pay every time you have an accident, and you don't have to
pay any more for insurance as a result, why be careful?
And then there's the social implications of socialized insurance that are as
bad as those of socialized medicine.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser
"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM
© 2005 Scott Weiser