"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 11/04/2010 1:20 AM, Bill McKee wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 20:56:51 -0400,
wrote:

What insurance does is create a target rich environment for lawyers.
Between the two of them you are right, it is a huge drag on the
economy. We would actually be better off without any insurance at all
but then people would have to plan for their own futures and their own
problems,



Health insurance should be a commodity product similar in a number of
aspects to car insurance.

That is the GOP "across state lines" plan isn't it?
Car insurance is a lawyer scam too. They are on TV every day
soliciting people to suddenly discover a sore neck or other ailment
that will result in a quick, lucrative settlement.
The classic ad on TV here is the one that says "call a lawyer before
you call your insurance company" and we wonder why car insurance is
over $1000 a year in some places

Probably 40% of the drivers on the road are uninsured. Most do not need
inusrance. They get in a crash. If it is their fault, and you are
insured
your uninsured coverage pays. Other guy walks as he has no assets. You
hit
the other guy and his lawyer gets him a million bucks of your insurance
and
assets. Cure the uninsured motorist problem in 5 minutes. Pass laws
that
say you can sue for as much insurance as you carry. No insurance, your
car
is totaled, tough ****. I would require the person at fault to pay
direct
medical costs. No pain and suffereing, no lost wages, no damages. You
would see insurance cost decrease dramatically.

Why not require insurance? Seriously? If your caught without it say
$1000 fine and lose the vehicle. Double the fine for each occurance and
jail if not paid.

Would be good to say if an uninsured was hit by an insured, the insured
does not have to pay for the uninsured. Makes sense, good social
engineering.

In Canada we have maximum settlements much lower than the US and don't see
it in the rates. I personally have no problem in suing a person into the
poor house if they DWI in a red light and kill someone. The real problem
is with juries making feel good judgements, that is they feel sorry for
the injured and figure they need money. The wrong way to make the
judgement.

Like our propeller case in another thread. In no way is the manufacture
liable for a idiot boater backing up on a swimmer. Nor a swimmer entering
the water with a motor a running. Stupid case shouldn't even be heard.

--
The Liberal way, take no responsibility.


Sounds like a gov't takeover to me. Did I mention you're an idiot today?

--
Nom=de=Plume