Pro Choice?

Beefy said:
Yes. Insurance should be optional and only cover one's self. That's the most fair way to do it. You should be able to choose whether or not you're covered. And if you choose not to be covered, then you're not covered.

It is not something that should be handed to the trial lawyers like a bigassed golden egg on a platter.
Click to expand...

Dude, seriously, there are so many people out there who, if they sold all their assets, couldn't pay for the damages. Think about it. If someone comes and hits your kid, and your kid is left retarded for the rest of their life, you can't barely make up all that's been lost (financially) because they don't own enough to pay the settlement. People can't pay what they don't have. Mandatory insurance is the fairest way to do it. It is not a choice to rip other people off.
 
Watermark said:
Dude, seriously, there are so many people out there who, if they sold all their assets, couldn't pay for the damages. Think about it. If someone comes and hits your kid, and your kid is left retarded for the rest of their life, you can't barely make up all that's been lost (financially) because they don't own enough to pay the settlement. People can't pay what they don't have. Mandatory insurance is the fairest way to do it. It is not a choice to rip other people off.
Click to expand...

That's why you should have insurance. Making it mandatory doesn't mean people will get it.

If you want to be covered, buy insurance. Its pretty simple.
 
Beefy said:
Yes. Insurance should be optional and only cover one's self. That's the most fair way to do it. You should be able to choose whether or not you're covered. And if you choose not to be covered, then you're not covered.

It is not something that should be handed to the trial lawyers like a bigassed golden egg on a platter.
Click to expand...
So you don't mind if someone without insurance hits you does more damage than your insurance will pay and you can't get shit out of them cause they have nothing to take? Insurance is supposed to help keep society from having to pay your medical bills when your insurance runs out and you can't pay your medical bills. Again wanting to shove the bills on to other tax payers so you don't have to have insurance that pays someone elses bills when YOU cause the accident.
 
Socrtease said:
So you don't mind if someone without insurance hits you does more damage than your insurance will pay and you can't get shit out of them cause they have nothing to take? Insurance is supposed to help keep society from having to pay your medical bills when your insurance runs out and you can't pay your medical bills. Again wanting to shove the bills on to other tax payers so you don't have to have insurance that pays someone elses bills when YOU cause the accident.
Click to expand...

Your premise is that the taxpayer should pay for whatever insurance one doesn't have. I disagree.

People should cover their own asses. What is so novel about that? Cover your ass, don't expect anyone else to.

Insure yourself. If you want to be insured, then buy goddamned insurance and don't expect the state to mandate that everyone else has enough incase youre wronged.
 
Most people have a 50/100 policy. If I sue the persons insurance and get a max damages award of policy limits I get 15k tops and my client get 35k. Hardly a winfall. The people that end up paying big are the Pepsi Cola truck owners whose drivers run stop signs and push school buses into lakes and they should pay. But in your world if Pepsi doesn't want to have insurance they shouldn't be required to. You are all about shoveing the cost of health care onto all of us aren't you? Because when a person comes in with injuries that run up a bill of 50 or 100k the hospital has to provide care without knowing in advance if anyone has insurance and if they don't the cost is passed on to us. But you don't mind saddling everyone with that so long as you aren't inconvenienced.
 
You are the type of Libertarian that gives the rest of us a bad name. You don't want to be TOLD you have to have insurance to pay for injuries you cause in an accident if you were driving and talking on the phone but you DON'T mind that the hospital gets stuck with the bill that YOU cause through your negligence. That is the selfish libertarianism that costs society shit loads of money cause you don't want to be inconvenienced.
 
Socrtease said:
Most people have a 50/100 policy. If I sue the persons insurance and get a max damages award of policy limits I get 15k tops and my client get 35k. Hardly a winfall. The people that end up paying big are the Pepsi Cola truck owners whose drivers run stop signs and push school buses into lakes and they should pay. But in your world if Pepsi doesn't want to have insurance they shouldn't be required to. You are all about shoveing the cost of health care onto all of us aren't you? Because when a person comes in with injuries that run up a bill of 50 or 100k the hospital has to provide care without knowing in advance if anyone has insurance and if they don't the cost is passed on to us. But you don't mind saddling everyone with that so long as you aren't inconvenienced.
Click to expand...

If Pepsi doesn't want insurance, then they risk losing millions of their own assets instead of Lloyds of London's.

Pepsi would lose assets, they would still have a judgement but they wouldn't be insured.

In other words, Pepsico would be retarded not to have insurance.
 
Beefy said:
If Pepsi doesn't want insurance, then they risk losing millions of their own assets instead of Lloyds of London's.

Pepsi would lose assets, they would still have a judgement but they wouldn't be insured.

In other words, Pepsico would be retarded not to have insurance.
Click to expand...
And if YOU cause the same amount of damages but don't have insurance you have nothing I can take to pay the full amount so to bad so sad the rest of society can foot the bill for Beefy driving negligently. I mean if people didn't want to be maimed for life they should carry more insurance for Beefy's driving like a shithead. I hope you never get hit by someone that has no insurance and end up with 100k dollars in medical bills alone.
 
Socrtease said:
And if YOU cause the same amount of damages but don't have insurance you have nothing I can take to pay the full amount so to bad so sad the rest of society can foot the bill for Beefy driving negligently. I mean if people didn't want to be maimed for life they should carry more insurance for Beefy's driving like a shithead. I hope you never get hit by someone that has no insurance and end up with 100k dollars in medical bills alone.
Click to expand...

So we should require everyone to have what minimum soc? What if I broadside a bus of kids drunk and the bills are $300 million over 50 years? Should I be required to have that much insurance?
 
Beefy said:
So we should require everyone to have what minimum soc? What if I broadside a bus of kids drunk and the bills are $300 million over 50 years? Should I be required to have that much insurance?
Click to expand...

Of course. How could that not logically follow from what we've been saying.

Because, at the extreme end of something, there is something ridiculous, it means the whole line of thought should be abandoned.

Think of libertarianism for instance. We should all abolish the government and then we'll get along and love one another. Perfectly logically consistent. There's no probablem with that rosy view of the world.
 
Watermark said:
Of course. How could that not logically follow from what we've been saying.

Because, at the extreme end of something, there is something ridiculous, it means the whole line of thought should be abandoned.

Think of libertarianism for instance. We should all abolish the government and then we'll get along and love one another. Perfectly logically consistent. There's no probablem with that rosy view of the world.
Click to expand...

People should be responsible for themselves, not everyone else.

Seriously, the world is hazardous, get insurance.
 
Beefy said:
Pro Choice has become a term that pro abortionists use to espouse that their opinion on the issue is about choice, freedom, personal decisions.

But as usual, they're flat full of shit. They're not pro choice, because if they were, they would really care about choices.

If they were pro choice, and honest about it, how would they fell about the following?......
Click to expand...
The "be consistent" argument fails when people buy into cute, meaningless labels. In this case neither issue is about "choice".

On abortion, Liberals want the freedom to live their lives unencumbered, even if it means killing an unborn child. Conservatives insist on personal responsibility and the sanctity of the innocent human life.

On School Choice, Liberals want the power to control the minds of our children in order to perpetuate liberalism. Conservatives see a failed system and turn to the free market system to fix it.
 
Southern Man said:
The "be consistent" argument fails when people buy into cute, meaningless labels. In this case neither issue is about "choice".

On abortion, Liberals want the freedom to live their lives unencumbered, even if it means killing an unborn child. Conservatives insist on personal responsibility and the sanctity of the innocent human life.

On School Choice, Liberals want the power to control the minds of our children in order to perpetuate liberalism. Conservatives see a failed system and turn to the free market system to fix it.
Click to expand...


That's such a nice, unbiased way to put it. I would never be able to guess your political affinity from these characterizations.
 
Southern Man said:
The "be consistent" argument fails when people buy into cute, meaningless labels. In this case neither issue is about "choice".

On abortion, Liberals want the freedom to live their lives unencumbered, even if it means killing an unborn child. Conservatives insist on personal responsibility and the sanctity of the innocent human life.

On School Choice, Liberals want the power to control the minds of our children in order to perpetuate liberalism. Conservatives see a failed system and turn to the free market system to fix it.
Click to expand...

The idea that a party of war-mongers, including a developmentally stunted moron who likes to dress up and play soldier, hold human life in any sanctity, is laughable, or would be, if there weren't so many thousands of dead children in Iraq and elsewhere, killed by bombs cheered on by the "sanctity of life" crowd.

You fools are in for a big surprise someday. When you find out that God loves brown people too. Yeah, they're human.
 
Darla said:
The idea that a party of war-mongers, including a developmentally stunted moron who likes to dress up and play soldier, hold human life in any sanctity, is laughable, or would be, if there weren't so many thousands of dead children in Iraq and elsewhere, killed by bombs cheered on by the "sanctity of life" crowd.

You fools are in for a big surprise someday. When you find out that God loves brown people too. Yeah, they're human.
Click to expand...

[insult detected] Ding ding! The Southern Man scores! :)
 
uscitizen said:
People just do not all make the same choices, that is what choice is all about.
some people even chose to be stupid and vote for bush.
But that was their freedom, to ultimately give up more freedoms.
Click to expand...

And some try to limit choices for others if the choice threatens some aspect of an entrenched and powerful entity, like the teacher's union or satan himself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top