A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott:
===========
You are free to sue me if I do you harm should you decide not to buy
accidental damage and injury insurance. That's the way it should be.

Why "MUST" such insurance be compulsory?
===============

And if sue you, you may own nothing and then I'm SOL.

True. That's an excellent reason for YOU to buy insurance to cover YOU
against that risk, isn't it? In fact, that's the whole point of insurance,
to insure YOU against harm caused by someone, or something else, like a
fire, flood or burglar. "Liability" insurance, on the other hand, insures
OTHERS against you. Screw that. I don't want to insure you against me. If
you want to be insured against the wrongful acts of others, then YOU pay the
bill.


That's why such insurance MUST be compulsory.

No, that's why YOU want to force ME to pay to insure YOU, it's not a reason
why I should do so. If I don't own anything, and am therefore "judgment
proof," then you need to buy insurance to protect you against people like me
who might do you harm, not just in automobiles, but in any way. That's the
way insurance works, you see. You decide how much risk you face and you pay
a company to indemnify you for monetary losses associated with that risk.
You don't demand that everyone else on the planet obtain "liability"
insurance to cover you against some harm that they are statistically
unlikely to cause.

The fallacy of mandatory liability insurance is that it presumes that each
driver is an equal risk when it comes to causing an accident, and that this
means that all drivers should indemnify every other driver against loss.
This means that a good driver pays far more in premiums than he should
because he's not being insured based on HIS risk profile, instead he's being
charged based on the aggregate risk profile of the *worst of the worst*
drivers, ie: those drivers who are most likely to cause the insurance
company to have to pay money.

It's asinine for someone to have to pay based on the behavior of others they
have no control over.


Scott again:
==================
Then why is it not a "fee?" Why do I have to contract with a private
company
and pay them for a full year's coverage, 24/7, that I don't need, as
opposed
to having this "fee" assessed by the government, which would then
provide
the insurance itself.
===============

Well, in BC, you buy your insurance from a government insurance firm.
Without it, you may not drive. Quite right too, IMHO.

So, do you have to buy insurance as a pedestrian so that if you drunkenly
step out into traffic and cause a driver to swerve and crash? No? Didn't
think so. So why aren't you arguing for universal "user pays" liability
insurance to protect you against any possible harm that someone else might
possibly do to you...like, for example, burning down your house, or slugging
you in the nose or hitting you in the head with a baseball bat? Why are
those risks ones you have to pay to cover against but automobile liability
insurance is coerced against someone else?

Your system is somewhat better than ours, in that it's merely a compensation
fund paid for by the highway users, who presumably pay about the same amount
as everyone else, but it's still coercive where it should be voluntary. If I
wish to take the risk of being injured by some dipwad on the highway and
don't want to buy insurance to cover that risk, I should be allowed to do
so.


BTW, I too think it unfair that you pay 365 days insurance for only a
few days use. Surely you can buy insurance for short-term use.

Nope. I should be able to take the risk of driving the truck to the dump if
I want, and if something bad happens and you and I collide, then no matter
whose fault it is, your insurance company pays you for your damages. Then
they sue me.

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.

They call such insurance "uninsured motorist coverage," and it's designed
precisely to compensate me if the person who harmed me is indigent or
uninsured. In Colorado, in fact, it's a very good idea to have such
coverage, because we just repealed the "no fault" law, in which each
individual's insurer paid for their customer's loss no matter who was at
fault, and then the two companies slugged it out in court.

Now, even if I deliberately ram you with my car, you have to sue me anyway
to get anything, and you can be sure that my insurance company will do
everything in its power to prevent you from winning. And, if YOU don't have
insurance against such risks, then YOUR liability insurance provider WILL
NOT HELP YOU in court to win the case, as they would if it was their dime on
the line. This means that you have to hire a private attorney in order to
sue me, and you're up against the weight of a well-funded major insurance
company's legal staff who are strongly motivated to keep from letting you
win.

But, if YOU had insurance against being rammed by me, then your company
would have to pay you, and then your company would be the one suing me to
try to recover their payout.

So, the mandatory liability scam is not just a scam, it's quite dangerous to
rely upon.

Besides, I bet that under the BC system, you forfeit your right to sue
anybody, because such forfeiture of rights is common in government-run
insurance/compensation fund schemes...because the government doesn't want to
be involved in litigation.


As to Scott's assertion: "Sorry, but whether I carry insurance is none
of your, or especially the government's business, and you can both go
pound sand. If you don't like it, then don't drive."

That may work in Colorado, but not in BC. And I'm thankful for that.

Oh, I bet it happens in BC too. The point, however, is that your argument is
specious and not logically supportable. It's quite socialistically
predictable, but unsupportable nonetheless.


--
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

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.
=============

In BC, MY company is YOUR company. You'll only go to court if you don't
like the settlement OUR company offers you (been there, done that). In
the case of most minor bang-ups, there's not much of an issue -- get a
couple of bodyshop quotes, get the isurance company OK and then get the
job done.

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.

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.

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

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 6/24/05 6:09 PM:

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.

Uh, compared to you, I am the biggest freaking genius of all time.

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.

The just "write off the loss."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA

Do you think money grows on trees? The money has to come from somewhere!

Anyone ever see that episode of Seinfeld where Kramer is explaining
"write-offs" to Jerry? Notice how Scott is playing the role of Kramer almost
perfectly here?

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.

Your system punishes good drivers by forcing them to pay the skyrocketing
rate that will be necessary to sustain the profit levels of the insurance
company thanks to your idiotic "you don't have to have insurance" policy
which will result in huge numbers of claims where there are uninsured
parties resulting in "writing off the loss" also known as "passing on the
pain to the customer, because the money has to come from somewhere."


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

In fact, it is. It only benefits BAD drivers to remove universality of auto
insurance. How you cannot see this is only further tribute to your idiocy.

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.

When the good drivers keep getting hit by the uninsured bad drivers what do
you think happens Scott? You think a system where only good drivers pay
somehow makes it more affordable for the good drivers? What a nut!

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?

ROFL. Yeah, that's the problem, insurance is just too affordable!

And then there's the social implications of socialized insurance that are as
bad as those of socialized medicine.

Neither are as rotten as your rapidly detereorating intellect.

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

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.
=============

In BC, MY company is YOUR company.

And therein lies the problem.

You'll only go to court if you don't
like the settlement OUR company offers you (been there, done that). In
the case of most minor bang-ups, there's not much of an issue -- get a
couple of bodyshop quotes, get the isurance company OK and then get the
job done.

Yeah, "No fault" seems like a fine thing until you consider that you're
paying WAY more for your no-fault insurance plan than you might have to pay
if you are a good driver and insured through a private company. That's why
Colorado dumped no-fault insurance. My rates went down more than 30% within
six months after they did so.

--
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