The Insurance Mafia

[westkyle]

Driving isn't a right it's a privilege. Your premium is calculated by assessing your risk. Obviously if you have TWO dwis your critical thinking skills aren't very high. YOU chose to drive drunk. You didn't learn from your first mistake. Take some responsibility for your actions and quit blaming everyone else.

As a repeat drunk driver you get the honor of being in the pool with other drunk drivers who obviously have a higher degree of risk associated with your actions.

Human beings travel in this world. We aren't plants staying in the same place. If someone has not caused any harm, their travel should not be restricted. Just like free speech; we are free to say what we want, but if we yell "Fire!" in a crowded hall with no danger present we are responsible for any damage that come from our speech. Your ideas are anti-freedom and statist.

 

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

 

[donnay]

Driving isn't a right it's a privilege.

It's a privilege to know Ron Paul, it isn't a privilege to drive.

6. PRIVILEGE OR RIGHT?

6.1 The use of the roadways for the purpose of travel and transportation is NOT a mere PRIVILEGE, but a "COMMON AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT" of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived. (Emphasis added) See: Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, supra; See: Ligare v. Chicago, 28 N.E. 934; See: Boone v. Clark, 214 S. W. 607;

See: American Jurisprudence 1st Ed., Highways 163 6.2 A Citizen 's "RIGHT" to travel upon public highways includes the right to use usual conveyances of time, including horse-drawn carriage, or automobile, for ordinary purposes of life and business. See: Thompson v. Smith (Chief of Police), 154 S. E. 579, 580

6.3 The "RIGHT" of the Citizen to travel upon the public roadways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a "COMMON RIGHT" which he has under the "RIGHT" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. See: Thompson v. Smith, supra.

7. It could not be stated more conclusively that Citizens of the States have a "RIGHT" to travel, without approval or restriction, (license), and that this "RIGHT" is protected under the U.S. Constitution. After all, who do the roadways belong to anyway? The People-At-Large. The following are additional court decisions that expound the same facts:

7.1 . The streets and roadways belong to the public, for the use of the public in the ordinary and customary manner. See: Hadfield v. Lundin, 98 Wn. 657; 168 P. 516;

7.2 All those who travel upon, and transport their property upon, the public highways, using the ordinary conveyance of today, and doing so in the usual and ordinary course of life and business. See: Hadfield, supra; See: State v. City of Spokane, 109 Wn. 360; 186 P. 864.

7.3 The "RIGHT" of the Citizen to travel upon the highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, obviously differs radically from that of one who makes the highways his principal place of business and uses it for private gain ... See: State v. City of Spokane, supra.

7.4 . While a Citizen has the "RIGHT" to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that "RIGHT" does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place of business for private gain. For the latter purposes no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a MERE PRIVILEGE or license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion .... See: Hadfield, supra; State v. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; See: Cummins v. Jones, 155 P. 171; See: Packard v. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 257, 264 U.S. 140 and other cases too numerous to mention.

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/drivingisrightnotprivledge07apr05.shtml

 

[Anti Federalist]

It's a privilege to know Ron Paul, it isn't a privilege to drive.

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/drivingisrightnotprivledge07apr05.shtml

What Mrs. AF said.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Driving isn't a right it's a privilege. Your premium is calculated by assessing your risk. Obviously if you have TWO dwis your critical thinking skills aren't very high. YOU chose to drive drunk. You didn't learn from your first mistake. Take some responsibility for your actions and quit blaming everyone else.

As a repeat drunk driver you get the honor of being in the pool with other drunk drivers who obviously have a higher degree of risk associated with your actions.

And now you know why the insurance mafia is now monitoring you in real time.

Soon to be in your home.

Yeah, freedom.

The insurance mafia is the perfect example of government/corporate fascism.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

It's a privilege to know Ron Paul, it isn't a privilege to drive.


http://educate-yourself.org/cn/drivingisrightnotprivledge07apr05.shtml

Laws are for the lawful, not the political or Enforcer classes. The regime and its Enforcer Class are above The Law (in practice).

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

What Mrs. AF said.

You and Donna Y got hitched?

 

[Anti Federalist]

You and Donna Y got hitched?

LOL - been hitched for almost 20 years now.

Met on a CompuServe political forum much like this one.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

LOL - been hitched for almost 20 years now.

Met on a CompuServe political forum much like this one.

Well, I'll be durned. I had no idea.

Congratulations. Or, guess I should say happy (next) anniversary.

 

[jbauer]

Nice job buying into the propaganda there dude...

He very clearly stated that he's never been at fault for damages incurred as a result of his driving.

Being of similar vintage I can attest to the fact that driving moderately impaired was the norm for our formative years.

The same batch of busybodies who call for kops to regulate everything from pit bulls to vaccinations have brought you the standing DWI laws.

So once again; "Nice job buying into the propaganda there dude..."

Caught or not, damage or not, driving impaired lessens your ability to operate a 4000# machine going 55mph making it dangerous to me on the same roadway.

I have no problem requiring insurance to cover you if you hit me. I deserve to have damage caused by another to be paid for.

So how do you suggest setting aside funds to pay for my damage if not through insurance?

 

[tod evans]

Caught or not, damage or not, driving impaired lessens your ability to operate a 4000# machine going 55mph making it dangerous to me on the same roadway.

What a weak and illogical argument!

Sleep deprivation and stress have contributed to many more accidents than booze or chemicals.

In order to be consistent with such an illogical position though you must also speak against driving on prescribed pharmaceuticals...

I have no problem requiring insurance to cover you if you hit me.

Of course you don't, the idea that government mandates are for your benefit has been deeply ingrained.

I deserve to have damage caused by another to be paid for.

Yes you do.

Problem is your desire to have government mandate the means by which you would be compensated.

So how do you suggest setting aside funds to pay for my damage if not through insurance?

"Your damage" is a risk that a free man accepts when he leaves the walls surrounding his domain.

I'm far more likely to beat you within an inch of your life with my fists than I am to damage your automobile driving mine impaired, would you have government mandate that both you and I insure ourselves and our family members against "reactions to external stimuli" ?

Hell man, if we address Phil and his DWI's, you are over one million times more likely to be mauled by a shark than you are to be harmed by Phils driving, should government mandate that you pay for a shark attack rider on your policy since you'd have a helluva time collecting from a shark?

Like I said twice already;

"Nice job buying into the propaganda there dude..."

 

[angelatc]

You don't have to buy car insurance. Don't drive. You don't have to buy home insurance don't take out a loan. You don't have to buy life insurance. Don't die. Until Obama you didn't have to buy health insurance.

I don't have a problem with most insurance.

Well you should. The problem is the deeply ingrained philosophy that "someone should pay!!!" which doesn't really exist in other countries. Your insurance should protect you and your crap, while my insurance should protect me and mine. If I trip and break a hip walking up to your door, my medical insurance should pay for it, not your homeowner's policy.

If you and I crash into each other while driving, your policy should pay for your losses while my policy covers mine. But (and I already know from experience) that will never come to fruition in America. We are just too mean - we want blood when we perceive that someone has harmed us. But we will settle for money...

 

[satchelmcqueen]

You don't have to buy car insurance. Don't drive. You don't have to buy home insurance don't take out a loan. You don't have to buy life insurance. Don't die. Until Obama you didn't have to buy health insurance.

I don't have a problem with most insurance.

i dont have to do lots of other things, but to live and eat i have to work, so i have to drive. so yes i do have to buy certain things. and no i cant just move to a city so i dont need a car. sometimes its not as simple as you say.

 

[satchelmcqueen]

Mandatory Car Insurance was one of my first awakenings to the real world outside the ideals taught in high school. I realized, because I have a penis, I had to pay more than girls (fucking patriarchy!). Then, when I would tell others my frustrations with blatant, government mandated discrimination, I would get a lecture about males being more dangerous drivers as a whole, as if that is justification enough for government mandated discrimination.

Insurance loves to find a politically correct group, and tack on more, punishing the majority for the crimes of the few.

Death to the Insurance Industry. Death to the bankers. Death to them all. Hang them high.

And then along comes Obamacare.

Insurance is nothing but a sales schtick, using fear to make people give up their money. Then, when it is time for a claim, half the time, they refuse to pay. You can't get a basic "everything insurance", because if you could, it would be about 3 times your income, because nobody would be in that business, unless it was profitable.

You can buy fire, flood, earthquake, terrorism, loss of limb and car insurance, but what happens if you get hit in the head by a falling eucalyptus branch?

You didn't by eucalyptus tree insurance? Fool. Now look at you.

ty sir! yes ive never thought about it like that. so maybe they need to be sued for being sexist or some other word? class action by all the males. if they use the male thing as a defense, then we can counter by saying that we expect all asians to be billed higher than white males.

 

[kpitcher]

Only 1500 a year would be nice. I'm in Michigan which has the highest rates of the nation. I think it's due to the uncapped medical for any accident related injury. Also Michigan cops can now scan license plates and see if anyone's insurance has lapsed.

 

[KAlmquist]

If you get rid of the parts that aren't mandatory, you can usually get your insurance down to a couple of hundred bucks (less if you have a good driving record and no children under 25).

That's a lot more believable than the $1500 figure given in the original article. You are probably right that the $1500 includes insurance coverage that is not mandated.

 

[UWDude]

That's a lot more believable than the $1500 figure given in the original article. You are probably right that the $1500 includes insurance coverage that is not mandated.

Different states have different mandates. When I was 18, working at McDonalds for $5.25 an hour, the mandatory on my old Pontiac 4-door family sedan was about $120 a month. That was young male, no speeding tickets, no moving or parking violations, good grades in high school. It was outrageous. Insurance was eating over 15% of my take home pay.

Last I had insurance, (I hardly ever drive), minimum was $720 a year.

ty sir! yes ive never thought about it like that. so maybe they need to be sued for being sexist or some other word? class action by all the males. if they use the male thing as a defense, then we can counter by saying that we expect all asians to be billed higher than white males.

You can skew statistics to make any group of people look more dangerous. I mean holy crap, why aren't old people's insurance jacked up once they hit 65? One of the scariest times in my life was when my grandma drove my siblings and I around the Bay Area.

 

[paleocon1]

The Insurance Agenda?

by eric • April 9, 2015

http://ericpetersautos.com/2015/04/09/the-insurance-agenda/

.............................

Mr Peters has long had the ridiculous idea that requiring auto insurance (so that funds exist to compensate the victims of his reckless speeding should his reflexs turn out to not be as sharp as he imagines) somehow is an aggression.

 

[paleocon1]

What a weak and illogical argument!

Sleep deprivation and stress have contributed to many more accidents than booze or chemicals.

.......................................

Evidence? Regardless booze/dope are at the root of a huge number of accidents each year. To drink and drive is a clear signal of your lack of concern for anyone who happens to get in your way. Your aggression is noted.

 

[oyarde]

Ins in general is interesting .Some ins , like vision , dental , life , you may break even on while others are huge money pits , auto , home etc