On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:01:55 -0600, wrote:

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:56:47 -0800, jps wrote:

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:50:52 -0600, wrote:

On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 10:39:33 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
m...

There was a recent post in this NG about a large number of vultures, I
believe, that were seen flocking together. Here in the Midwest, one
may generally see as many as 6 buzzards loitering around roadkill
carcasses on the roadside, and that's about the most that will be
together at anyone time, as carrion birds in this area of the country
go. This morning on the way to the office, though, I saw in a
recently harvested corn field a flock of about 60 buzzards foraging
for leftover corn. (At least I think that's what they were doing.) I
had never in my life seen so many buzzards together at one time in a
single location. But, after giving it some thought, I concluded that
this may not quite be the ominous portent it would seem. This may be
what will ultimately defeat the health-care reform package in
Washington. If all the Democrat senators are gorging themselves on
scraps in the Midwest, they won't be in the Nation's Capitol present
to vote on repugnant, damnable health-care reform legislation.


As to gorging, certainly both side of the aisle have done this, but the
majority of Americans want healthcare reform, including a strong public
option. The Republicans are feasting at the ins. companys' trough and
refusing to do what their constituents want and need. At least the Democrats
are doing something. It may not be enough. The bill that will come out of
committee may not be perfect, but it's better than nothing and it can be
fixed and updated, as most legislation is after it initially passes. The
ins. companies need to have their special anti-trust status revoked. They
need to be barred from excluding those with "pre-existing" conditions (which
they sometimes make up as they go along), and they need to have real
competition.

Do you know what the individual state regulations are for pre-x, Em?
Do you know in what manner the states are influenced in the regulation
of pre-x conditions by the NAICS? Are insurance companies free to be
completely arbitrary with pre-x conditions? Insurance companies are
very heavily regulated as it is, state by state. In my state, Unicare
just pulled completely out of the health insurance market. Was this
because Unicare was unable to make obscene profits? Insurance
companies stop offering insurance when it's impossible to make a
profit, as they should.

Personally, Em, I really am not all that concerned about what the
majority of Americans allegedly want. Any law, code, regulation, or
edict that requires that I carry health insurance is repugnant and
indecent. I have no doubt that most of the founding fathers would
stand aghast at what is foisted, and proposed to be foisted, on the
citizenry of this country. It's an oppressive state of affairs in
which I firmly believe those early revolutionaries would find cause to
revolt.

How do you feel about having to carry auto insurance?

How do you feel about having to carry home owners insurance if you've
got a mortgage?

Do you find either of those government foisted mandates repugnant?

Yes, on the first. The second is a matter of business practicality,
not a mandate by government. A mortgage company or lender will assign
its own insurance to a mortgage if the homeowner fails to comply with
the terms of the mortgagee to carry homeowners insurance. Similarly,
a lender will require full coverage on a vehicle for which it provides
a loan. This constrasts with most state requirements which is for
liability only.

You find the requirement to carry auto insurance repugnant?

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:01:55 -0600, wrote:

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:56:47 -0800, jps wrote:

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:50:52 -0600, wrote:

On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 10:39:33 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
om...

There was a recent post in this NG about a large number of vultures,
I
believe, that were seen flocking together. Here in the Midwest, one
may generally see as many as 6 buzzards loitering around roadkill
carcasses on the roadside, and that's about the most that will be
together at anyone time, as carrion birds in this area of the country
go. This morning on the way to the office, though, I saw in a
recently harvested corn field a flock of about 60 buzzards foraging
for leftover corn. (At least I think that's what they were doing.)
I
had never in my life seen so many buzzards together at one time in a
single location. But, after giving it some thought, I concluded that
this may not quite be the ominous portent it would seem. This may be
what will ultimately defeat the health-care reform package in
Washington. If all the Democrat senators are gorging themselves on
scraps in the Midwest, they won't be in the Nation's Capitol present
to vote on repugnant, damnable health-care reform legislation.


As to gorging, certainly both side of the aisle have done this, but the
majority of Americans want healthcare reform, including a strong public
option. The Republicans are feasting at the ins. companys' trough and
refusing to do what their constituents want and need. At least the
Democrats
are doing something. It may not be enough. The bill that will come out
of
committee may not be perfect, but it's better than nothing and it can
be
fixed and updated, as most legislation is after it initially passes.
The
ins. companies need to have their special anti-trust status revoked.
They
need to be barred from excluding those with "pre-existing" conditions
(which
they sometimes make up as they go along), and they need to have real
competition.

Do you know what the individual state regulations are for pre-x, Em?
Do you know in what manner the states are influenced in the regulation
of pre-x conditions by the NAICS? Are insurance companies free to be
completely arbitrary with pre-x conditions? Insurance companies are
very heavily regulated as it is, state by state. In my state, Unicare
just pulled completely out of the health insurance market. Was this
because Unicare was unable to make obscene profits? Insurance
companies stop offering insurance when it's impossible to make a
profit, as they should.

Personally, Em, I really am not all that concerned about what the
majority of Americans allegedly want. Any law, code, regulation, or
edict that requires that I carry health insurance is repugnant and
indecent. I have no doubt that most of the founding fathers would
stand aghast at what is foisted, and proposed to be foisted, on the
citizenry of this country. It's an oppressive state of affairs in
which I firmly believe those early revolutionaries would find cause to
revolt.

How do you feel about having to carry auto insurance?

How do you feel about having to carry home owners insurance if you've
got a mortgage?

Do you find either of those government foisted mandates repugnant?

Yes, on the first. The second is a matter of business practicality,
not a mandate by government. A mortgage company or lender will assign
its own insurance to a mortgage if the homeowner fails to comply with
the terms of the mortgagee to carry homeowners insurance. Similarly,
a lender will require full coverage on a vehicle for which it provides
a loan. This constrasts with most state requirements which is for
liability only.

You find the requirement to carry auto insurance repugnant?

What I find repugnant, is a guy carrying minimum insurance or no insurance
crashes in to you, and you get very little. Your uninsured motorist
coverage pays for most of your loss. Minimum Liability in California is
less than my truck cost. But if you crash in to the same guy and you have a
million in insurance and assets, he can get all of it. Limit the liability
of the crash to the lowest insurance coverage carried.

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 10:02:03 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:01:55 -0600, wrote:

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:56:47 -0800, jps wrote:

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:50:52 -0600, wrote:

On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 10:39:33 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
news:k1tte559lva30tdd41pthro85jnvc0b163@4ax. com...

There was a recent post in this NG about a large number of vultures,
I
believe, that were seen flocking together. Here in the Midwest, one
may generally see as many as 6 buzzards loitering around roadkill
carcasses on the roadside, and that's about the most that will be
together at anyone time, as carrion birds in this area of the country
go. This morning on the way to the office, though, I saw in a
recently harvested corn field a flock of about 60 buzzards foraging
for leftover corn. (At least I think that's what they were doing.)
I
had never in my life seen so many buzzards together at one time in a
single location. But, after giving it some thought, I concluded that
this may not quite be the ominous portent it would seem. This may be
what will ultimately defeat the health-care reform package in
Washington. If all the Democrat senators are gorging themselves on
scraps in the Midwest, they won't be in the Nation's Capitol present
to vote on repugnant, damnable health-care reform legislation.


As to gorging, certainly both side of the aisle have done this, but the
majority of Americans want healthcare reform, including a strong public
option. The Republicans are feasting at the ins. companys' trough and
refusing to do what their constituents want and need. At least the
Democrats
are doing something. It may not be enough. The bill that will come out
of
committee may not be perfect, but it's better than nothing and it can
be
fixed and updated, as most legislation is after it initially passes.
The
ins. companies need to have their special anti-trust status revoked.
They
need to be barred from excluding those with "pre-existing" conditions
(which
they sometimes make up as they go along), and they need to have real
competition.

Do you know what the individual state regulations are for pre-x, Em?
Do you know in what manner the states are influenced in the regulation
of pre-x conditions by the NAICS? Are insurance companies free to be
completely arbitrary with pre-x conditions? Insurance companies are
very heavily regulated as it is, state by state. In my state, Unicare
just pulled completely out of the health insurance market. Was this
because Unicare was unable to make obscene profits? Insurance
companies stop offering insurance when it's impossible to make a
profit, as they should.

Personally, Em, I really am not all that concerned about what the
majority of Americans allegedly want. Any law, code, regulation, or
edict that requires that I carry health insurance is repugnant and
indecent. I have no doubt that most of the founding fathers would
stand aghast at what is foisted, and proposed to be foisted, on the
citizenry of this country. It's an oppressive state of affairs in
which I firmly believe those early revolutionaries would find cause to
revolt.

How do you feel about having to carry auto insurance?

How do you feel about having to carry home owners insurance if you've
got a mortgage?

Do you find either of those government foisted mandates repugnant?

Yes, on the first. The second is a matter of business practicality,
not a mandate by government. A mortgage company or lender will assign
its own insurance to a mortgage if the homeowner fails to comply with
the terms of the mortgagee to carry homeowners insurance. Similarly,
a lender will require full coverage on a vehicle for which it provides
a loan. This constrasts with most state requirements which is for
liability only.

You find the requirement to carry auto insurance repugnant?

What I find repugnant, is a guy carrying minimum insurance or no insurance
crashes in to you, and you get very little. Your uninsured motorist
coverage pays for most of your loss. Minimum Liability in California is
less than my truck cost. But if you crash in to the same guy and you have a
million in insurance and assets, he can get all of it. Limit the liability
of the crash to the lowest insurance coverage carried.


But our insurance reseller finds the requirement to carry even minimum
insurance repugnant???

Is that because "conservatives" always hold their mud and pay in cash?

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:01:55 -0600, wrote:

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:56:47 -0800, jps wrote:

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:50:52 -0600, wrote:

On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 10:39:33 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
news:k1tte559lva30tdd41pthro85jnvc0b163@4ax. com...

There was a recent post in this NG about a large number of vultures,
I
believe, that were seen flocking together. Here in the Midwest, one
may generally see as many as 6 buzzards loitering around roadkill
carcasses on the roadside, and that's about the most that will be
together at anyone time, as carrion birds in this area of the
country
go. This morning on the way to the office, though, I saw in a
recently harvested corn field a flock of about 60 buzzards foraging
for leftover corn. (At least I think that's what they were doing.)
I
had never in my life seen so many buzzards together at one time in a
single location. But, after giving it some thought, I concluded
that
this may not quite be the ominous portent it would seem. This may
be
what will ultimately defeat the health-care reform package in
Washington. If all the Democrat senators are gorging themselves on
scraps in the Midwest, they won't be in the Nation's Capitol present
to vote on repugnant, damnable health-care reform legislation.


As to gorging, certainly both side of the aisle have done this, but
the
majority of Americans want healthcare reform, including a strong
public
option. The Republicans are feasting at the ins. companys' trough and
refusing to do what their constituents want and need. At least the
Democrats
are doing something. It may not be enough. The bill that will come out
of
committee may not be perfect, but it's better than nothing and it can
be
fixed and updated, as most legislation is after it initially passes.
The
ins. companies need to have their special anti-trust status revoked.
They
need to be barred from excluding those with "pre-existing" conditions
(which
they sometimes make up as they go along), and they need to have real
competition.

Do you know what the individual state regulations are for pre-x, Em?
Do you know in what manner the states are influenced in the regulation
of pre-x conditions by the NAICS? Are insurance companies free to be
completely arbitrary with pre-x conditions? Insurance companies are
very heavily regulated as it is, state by state. In my state, Unicare
just pulled completely out of the health insurance market. Was this
because Unicare was unable to make obscene profits? Insurance
companies stop offering insurance when it's impossible to make a
profit, as they should.

Personally, Em, I really am not all that concerned about what the
majority of Americans allegedly want. Any law, code, regulation, or
edict that requires that I carry health insurance is repugnant and
indecent. I have no doubt that most of the founding fathers would
stand aghast at what is foisted, and proposed to be foisted, on the
citizenry of this country. It's an oppressive state of affairs in
which I firmly believe those early revolutionaries would find cause to
revolt.

How do you feel about having to carry auto insurance?

How do you feel about having to carry home owners insurance if you've
got a mortgage?

Do you find either of those government foisted mandates repugnant?

Yes, on the first. The second is a matter of business practicality,
not a mandate by government. A mortgage company or lender will assign
its own insurance to a mortgage if the homeowner fails to comply with
the terms of the mortgagee to carry homeowners insurance. Similarly,
a lender will require full coverage on a vehicle for which it provides
a loan. This constrasts with most state requirements which is for
liability only.

You find the requirement to carry auto insurance repugnant?

What I find repugnant, is a guy carrying minimum insurance or no insurance
crashes in to you, and you get very little. Your uninsured motorist
coverage pays for most of your loss. Minimum Liability in California is
less than my truck cost. But if you crash in to the same guy and you have
a million in insurance and assets, he can get all of it. Limit the
liability of the crash to the lowest insurance coverage carried.

Sounds like you're in favor an appropriate amount of insurance for everyone.
I agree!

--
Nom=de=Plume

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:01:55 -0600, wrote:

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:56:47 -0800, jps wrote:

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:50:52 -0600, wrote:

On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 10:39:33 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
news:k1tte559lva30tdd41pthro85jnvc0b163@4ax .com...

There was a recent post in this NG about a large number of
vultures, I
believe, that were seen flocking together. Here in the Midwest,
one
may generally see as many as 6 buzzards loitering around roadkill
carcasses on the roadside, and that's about the most that will be
together at anyone time, as carrion birds in this area of the
country
go. This morning on the way to the office, though, I saw in a
recently harvested corn field a flock of about 60 buzzards foraging
for leftover corn. (At least I think that's what they were doing.)
I
had never in my life seen so many buzzards together at one time in
a
single location. But, after giving it some thought, I concluded
that
this may not quite be the ominous portent it would seem. This may
be
what will ultimately defeat the health-care reform package in
Washington. If all the Democrat senators are gorging themselves on
scraps in the Midwest, they won't be in the Nation's Capitol
present
to vote on repugnant, damnable health-care reform legislation.


As to gorging, certainly both side of the aisle have done this, but
the
majority of Americans want healthcare reform, including a strong
public
option. The Republicans are feasting at the ins. companys' trough and
refusing to do what their constituents want and need. At least the
Democrats
are doing something. It may not be enough. The bill that will come
out of
committee may not be perfect, but it's better than nothing and it can
be
fixed and updated, as most legislation is after it initially passes.
The
ins. companies need to have their special anti-trust status revoked.
They
need to be barred from excluding those with "pre-existing" conditions
(which
they sometimes make up as they go along), and they need to have real
competition.

Do you know what the individual state regulations are for pre-x, Em?
Do you know in what manner the states are influenced in the regulation
of pre-x conditions by the NAICS? Are insurance companies free to be
completely arbitrary with pre-x conditions? Insurance companies are
very heavily regulated as it is, state by state. In my state, Unicare
just pulled completely out of the health insurance market. Was this
because Unicare was unable to make obscene profits? Insurance
companies stop offering insurance when it's impossible to make a
profit, as they should.

Personally, Em, I really am not all that concerned about what the
majority of Americans allegedly want. Any law, code, regulation, or
edict that requires that I carry health insurance is repugnant and
indecent. I have no doubt that most of the founding fathers would
stand aghast at what is foisted, and proposed to be foisted, on the
citizenry of this country. It's an oppressive state of affairs in
which I firmly believe those early revolutionaries would find cause to
revolt.

How do you feel about having to carry auto insurance?

How do you feel about having to carry home owners insurance if you've
got a mortgage?

Do you find either of those government foisted mandates repugnant?

Yes, on the first. The second is a matter of business practicality,
not a mandate by government. A mortgage company or lender will assign
its own insurance to a mortgage if the homeowner fails to comply with
the terms of the mortgagee to carry homeowners insurance. Similarly,
a lender will require full coverage on a vehicle for which it provides
a loan. This constrasts with most state requirements which is for
liability only.

You find the requirement to carry auto insurance repugnant?

What I find repugnant, is a guy carrying minimum insurance or no
insurance crashes in to you, and you get very little. Your uninsured
motorist coverage pays for most of your loss. Minimum Liability in
California is less than my truck cost. But if you crash in to the same
guy and you have a million in insurance and assets, he can get all of it.
Limit the liability of the crash to the lowest insurance coverage
carried.

Sounds like you're in favor an appropriate amount of insurance for
everyone. I agree!

--
Nom=de=Plume


There is always going to be those who carry no insurance. They should get
at the most medical paid for. No loss of wages, no pain and suffering, etc.
If we do not require the crasher to pay medical, then the rest of us will
pay for the medical. 40% of the people do not need to carry auto insurance.
Except it is the law to drive. But if you have no assets, why have
insurance?

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:01:55 -0600, wrote:

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:56:47 -0800, jps wrote:

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:50:52 -0600, wrote:

On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 10:39:33 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
news:k1tte559lva30tdd41pthro85jnvc0b163@4a x.com...

There was a recent post in this NG about a large number of
vultures, I
believe, that were seen flocking together. Here in the Midwest,
one
may generally see as many as 6 buzzards loitering around roadkill
carcasses on the roadside, and that's about the most that will be
together at anyone time, as carrion birds in this area of the
country
go. This morning on the way to the office, though, I saw in a
recently harvested corn field a flock of about 60 buzzards
foraging
for leftover corn. (At least I think that's what they were
doing.) I
had never in my life seen so many buzzards together at one time in
a
single location. But, after giving it some thought, I concluded
that
this may not quite be the ominous portent it would seem. This may
be
what will ultimately defeat the health-care reform package in
Washington. If all the Democrat senators are gorging themselves
on
scraps in the Midwest, they won't be in the Nation's Capitol
present
to vote on repugnant, damnable health-care reform legislation.


As to gorging, certainly both side of the aisle have done this, but
the
majority of Americans want healthcare reform, including a strong
public
option. The Republicans are feasting at the ins. companys' trough
and
refusing to do what their constituents want and need. At least the
Democrats
are doing something. It may not be enough. The bill that will come
out of
committee may not be perfect, but it's better than nothing and it
can be
fixed and updated, as most legislation is after it initially passes.
The
ins. companies need to have their special anti-trust status revoked.
They
need to be barred from excluding those with "pre-existing"
conditions (which
they sometimes make up as they go along), and they need to have real
competition.

Do you know what the individual state regulations are for pre-x, Em?
Do you know in what manner the states are influenced in the
regulation
of pre-x conditions by the NAICS? Are insurance companies free to be
completely arbitrary with pre-x conditions? Insurance companies are
very heavily regulated as it is, state by state. In my state,
Unicare
just pulled completely out of the health insurance market. Was this
because Unicare was unable to make obscene profits? Insurance
companies stop offering insurance when it's impossible to make a
profit, as they should.

Personally, Em, I really am not all that concerned about what the
majority of Americans allegedly want. Any law, code, regulation, or
edict that requires that I carry health insurance is repugnant and
indecent. I have no doubt that most of the founding fathers would
stand aghast at what is foisted, and proposed to be foisted, on the
citizenry of this country. It's an oppressive state of affairs in
which I firmly believe those early revolutionaries would find cause
to
revolt.

How do you feel about having to carry auto insurance?

How do you feel about having to carry home owners insurance if you've
got a mortgage?

Do you find either of those government foisted mandates repugnant?

Yes, on the first. The second is a matter of business practicality,
not a mandate by government. A mortgage company or lender will assign
its own insurance to a mortgage if the homeowner fails to comply with
the terms of the mortgagee to carry homeowners insurance. Similarly,
a lender will require full coverage on a vehicle for which it provides
a loan. This constrasts with most state requirements which is for
liability only.

You find the requirement to carry auto insurance repugnant?

What I find repugnant, is a guy carrying minimum insurance or no
insurance crashes in to you, and you get very little. Your uninsured
motorist coverage pays for most of your loss. Minimum Liability in
California is less than my truck cost. But if you crash in to the same
guy and you have a million in insurance and assets, he can get all of
it. Limit the liability of the crash to the lowest insurance coverage
carried.

Sounds like you're in favor an appropriate amount of insurance for
everyone. I agree!

--
Nom=de=Plume


There is always going to be those who carry no insurance. They should get
at the most medical paid for. No loss of wages, no pain and suffering,
etc. If we do not require the crasher to pay medical, then the rest of us
will pay for the medical. 40% of the people do not need to carry auto
insurance. Except it is the law to drive. But if you have no assets, why
have insurance?

Where do you get that number... 40%?

If you have no assets and you're liable, they can garnish your wages... Not
to mention that everyone else picks up the tab for your medical bills.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:56:19 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

But if you have no assets, why have insurance?

Personal responsibility?

Do you assume the poor are less honorable than those who aren't?

Would that be your POV is you were poor?

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:01:55 -0600, wrote:

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:56:47 -0800, jps wrote:

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:50:52 -0600, wrote:

On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 10:39:33 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
news:k1tte559lva30tdd41pthro85jnvc0b163@4 ax.com...

There was a recent post in this NG about a large number of
vultures, I
believe, that were seen flocking together. Here in the Midwest,
one
may generally see as many as 6 buzzards loitering around roadkill
carcasses on the roadside, and that's about the most that will be
together at anyone time, as carrion birds in this area of the
country
go. This morning on the way to the office, though, I saw in a
recently harvested corn field a flock of about 60 buzzards
foraging
for leftover corn. (At least I think that's what they were
doing.) I
had never in my life seen so many buzzards together at one time
in a
single location. But, after giving it some thought, I concluded
that
this may not quite be the ominous portent it would seem. This
may be
what will ultimately defeat the health-care reform package in
Washington. If all the Democrat senators are gorging themselves
on
scraps in the Midwest, they won't be in the Nation's Capitol
present
to vote on repugnant, damnable health-care reform legislation.


As to gorging, certainly both side of the aisle have done this, but
the
majority of Americans want healthcare reform, including a strong
public
option. The Republicans are feasting at the ins. companys' trough
and
refusing to do what their constituents want and need. At least the
Democrats
are doing something. It may not be enough. The bill that will come
out of
committee may not be perfect, but it's better than nothing and it
can be
fixed and updated, as most legislation is after it initially
passes. The
ins. companies need to have their special anti-trust status
revoked. They
need to be barred from excluding those with "pre-existing"
conditions (which
they sometimes make up as they go along), and they need to have
real
competition.

Do you know what the individual state regulations are for pre-x, Em?
Do you know in what manner the states are influenced in the
regulation
of pre-x conditions by the NAICS? Are insurance companies free to
be
completely arbitrary with pre-x conditions? Insurance companies are
very heavily regulated as it is, state by state. In my state,
Unicare
just pulled completely out of the health insurance market. Was this
because Unicare was unable to make obscene profits? Insurance
companies stop offering insurance when it's impossible to make a
profit, as they should.

Personally, Em, I really am not all that concerned about what the
majority of Americans allegedly want. Any law, code, regulation, or
edict that requires that I carry health insurance is repugnant and
indecent. I have no doubt that most of the founding fathers would
stand aghast at what is foisted, and proposed to be foisted, on the
citizenry of this country. It's an oppressive state of affairs in
which I firmly believe those early revolutionaries would find cause
to
revolt.

How do you feel about having to carry auto insurance?

How do you feel about having to carry home owners insurance if you've
got a mortgage?

Do you find either of those government foisted mandates repugnant?

Yes, on the first. The second is a matter of business practicality,
not a mandate by government. A mortgage company or lender will assign
its own insurance to a mortgage if the homeowner fails to comply with
the terms of the mortgagee to carry homeowners insurance. Similarly,
a lender will require full coverage on a vehicle for which it provides
a loan. This constrasts with most state requirements which is for
liability only.

You find the requirement to carry auto insurance repugnant?

What I find repugnant, is a guy carrying minimum insurance or no
insurance crashes in to you, and you get very little. Your uninsured
motorist coverage pays for most of your loss. Minimum Liability in
California is less than my truck cost. But if you crash in to the same
guy and you have a million in insurance and assets, he can get all of
it. Limit the liability of the crash to the lowest insurance coverage
carried.

Sounds like you're in favor an appropriate amount of insurance for
everyone. I agree!

--
Nom=de=Plume


There is always going to be those who carry no insurance. They should
get at the most medical paid for. No loss of wages, no pain and
suffering, etc. If we do not require the crasher to pay medical, then the
rest of us will pay for the medical. 40% of the people do not need to
carry auto insurance. Except it is the law to drive. But if you have no
assets, why have insurance?

Where do you get that number... 40%?

If you have no assets and you're liable, they can garnish your wages...
Not to mention that everyone else picks up the tab for your medical bills.

--
Nom=de=Plume


At least 40% of the people are in the poverty or low end economic level.
Sure they garnishee the wages. How much are you going to get from a person
making maybe $24k a year? Maybe in a 100 years, they have paid enough to
cover the vehicle, let alone the medical costs.

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:56:19 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

But if you have no assets, why have insurance?

Personal responsibility?

Do you assume the poor are less honorable than those who aren't?

Would that be your POV is you were poor?

Personal Responsibility? Hardly seen these days. Look at the people suing
and getting big bucks when they do some stupid thing and blame the other
person for having a bad roof, they are walking across to rob the business.
Personal Responsibility? People would have medical insurance. and not a
BMW.

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
news

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:01:55 -0600, wrote:

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:56:47 -0800, jps wrote:

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:50:52 -0600, wrote:

On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 10:39:33 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
news:k1tte559lva30tdd41pthro85jnvc0b163@ 4ax.com...

There was a recent post in this NG about a large number of
vultures, I
believe, that were seen flocking together. Here in the Midwest,
one
may generally see as many as 6 buzzards loitering around
roadkill
carcasses on the roadside, and that's about the most that will
be
together at anyone time, as carrion birds in this area of the
country
go. This morning on the way to the office, though, I saw in a
recently harvested corn field a flock of about 60 buzzards
foraging
for leftover corn. (At least I think that's what they were
doing.) I
had never in my life seen so many buzzards together at one time
in a
single location. But, after giving it some thought, I concluded
that
this may not quite be the ominous portent it would seem. This
may be
what will ultimately defeat the health-care reform package in
Washington. If all the Democrat senators are gorging themselves
on
scraps in the Midwest, they won't be in the Nation's Capitol
present
to vote on repugnant, damnable health-care reform legislation.


As to gorging, certainly both side of the aisle have done this,
but the
majority of Americans want healthcare reform, including a strong
public
option. The Republicans are feasting at the ins. companys' trough
and
refusing to do what their constituents want and need. At least the
Democrats
are doing something. It may not be enough. The bill that will come
out of
committee may not be perfect, but it's better than nothing and it
can be
fixed and updated, as most legislation is after it initially
passes. The
ins. companies need to have their special anti-trust status
revoked. They
need to be barred from excluding those with "pre-existing"
conditions (which
they sometimes make up as they go along), and they need to have
real
competition.

Do you know what the individual state regulations are for pre-x,
Em?
Do you know in what manner the states are influenced in the
regulation
of pre-x conditions by the NAICS? Are insurance companies free to
be
completely arbitrary with pre-x conditions? Insurance companies
are
very heavily regulated as it is, state by state. In my state,
Unicare
just pulled completely out of the health insurance market. Was
this
because Unicare was unable to make obscene profits? Insurance
companies stop offering insurance when it's impossible to make a
profit, as they should.

Personally, Em, I really am not all that concerned about what the
majority of Americans allegedly want. Any law, code, regulation,
or
edict that requires that I carry health insurance is repugnant and
indecent. I have no doubt that most of the founding fathers would
stand aghast at what is foisted, and proposed to be foisted, on the
citizenry of this country. It's an oppressive state of affairs in
which I firmly believe those early revolutionaries would find cause
to
revolt.

How do you feel about having to carry auto insurance?

How do you feel about having to carry home owners insurance if
you've
got a mortgage?

Do you find either of those government foisted mandates repugnant?

Yes, on the first. The second is a matter of business practicality,
not a mandate by government. A mortgage company or lender will
assign
its own insurance to a mortgage if the homeowner fails to comply with
the terms of the mortgagee to carry homeowners insurance. Similarly,
a lender will require full coverage on a vehicle for which it
provides
a loan. This constrasts with most state requirements which is for
liability only.

You find the requirement to carry auto insurance repugnant?

What I find repugnant, is a guy carrying minimum insurance or no
insurance crashes in to you, and you get very little. Your uninsured
motorist coverage pays for most of your loss. Minimum Liability in
California is less than my truck cost. But if you crash in to the
same guy and you have a million in insurance and assets, he can get
all of it. Limit the liability of the crash to the lowest insurance
coverage carried.

Sounds like you're in favor an appropriate amount of insurance for
everyone. I agree!

--
Nom=de=Plume


There is always going to be those who carry no insurance. They should
get at the most medical paid for. No loss of wages, no pain and
suffering, etc. If we do not require the crasher to pay medical, then
the rest of us will pay for the medical. 40% of the people do not need
to carry auto insurance. Except it is the law to drive. But if you have
no assets, why have insurance?

Where do you get that number... 40%?

If you have no assets and you're liable, they can garnish your wages...
Not to mention that everyone else picks up the tab for your medical
bills.

--
Nom=de=Plume


At least 40% of the people are in the poverty or low end economic level.
Sure they garnishee the wages. How much are you going to get from a
person making maybe $24k a year? Maybe in a 100 years, they have paid
enough to cover the vehicle, let alone the medical costs.

That's an even better argument for everyone having health insurance.

--
Nom=de=Plume