Mandatory Insurance or $8 gas?

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Foxfyre, Jul 28, 2010.

?

Where do you draw the line on mandatory insurance?

  1. The Federal Government should require mandatory insurance on some things.

    2 vote(s)
    16.7%
  2. The Federal Government cannot legally require people to buy insurance they don't want.

    8 vote(s)
    66.7%
  3. People should be able to opt out and pay any costs themselves.

    2 vote(s)
    16.7%
  4. Other - I'll explain in my post.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    47,678
    Thanks Received:
    10,789
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +14,379
    Read more here:
    How to Kill an Industry, or: Hello $8 Gas! | RedState

    Moral of the story. If the Federal government can force you to buy healthcare insurance, it can force you to insure anything.

    Do you approve of that?
     
  2. Meister
    Offline

    Meister VIP Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2009
    Messages:
    25,900
    Thanks Received:
    8,099
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Conservative part of the Northwest
    Ratings:
    +8,100
    I do agree with you, it's just another chip in the wall. Once they have a foot in the door there will be no stopping them. Our country was never set up to have such a large invasive government that we are becoming acquainted with.
     
  3. Baruch Menachem
    Offline

    Baruch Menachem '

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    14,204
    Thanks Received:
    3,235
    Trophy Points:
    185
    Ratings:
    +3,305
    Buying insurance against an accident caused by your actions is one thing. Buying insurance just cause others don't is tyrannical. If you are doing a dangerous thing, I have no qualm against requiring you to insure against things that might go wrong.

    The cap is the problematical part. Any damage you do over a certain amount is no longer your problem? I don't think that is that good of an idea.
     
  4. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    47,678
    Thanks Received:
    10,789
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +14,379
    That's really why I picked the short blurb to illustrate the issue. It is ambivalent and, probably without intending to, illustrated many of the problems.

    1. The State requires you to have automobile liability insurance IF you drive on public roads. You are not required to have liability insurance if a vehicle is not driven or is driven only off road or on private roads. I don't think any of us think this is unreasonable or unfair or oversteps government authority.

    BUT. . . .we would have a HUGE problem with it if the state decided that everybody has to have auto liability insurance because we MIGHT decide to drive on a public road at some time or because it would lower everybody's costs because everybody has to buy it.

    2. As it is the State that issues the licenses for oil companies to drill offshore oil and gas wells, I don't think anybody has a problem with requiring those companies to agree to pay any damages that might occur due to accident or other unforseen event and I have no problem with those companies being required to show financial ability to do so either through insurance or by placing funds in escrow or whatever.

    BUT. . . .the problem as stated in the OP is that this requirement would be required of even shallow water wells as well as deep water wells.

    I can certainly see an excellent reason for a cap on punative damages. And I can see a reason for an insurance minimum and a cap so that insurance companies would be willing to assume the risk. I don't see a good reason for imposing a cap on actual damages, however.

    3. I could see a good case for the Federal or State government to provide a means for people to buy catastrophic health insurance which would drastically reduce the cost of private insurance.

    I can find no justification to require people to buy a product that they don't want and don't intend to use.
     
  5. WillowTree
    Offline

    WillowTree Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    68,146
    Thanks Received:
    10,164
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +14,700
    now that the open borders crowd got their way there will soon be waaaaaaaaaaaaay more takers than there are givers, then just sit by and watch the shit hit the fan. :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
     
  6. JScott
    Offline

    JScott I check facts.

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2009
    Messages:
    1,538
    Thanks Received:
    93
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +93
    Yeah lets not get national health insurance. I like the waiting rooms at capacity with a 3 hour wait.
     
  7. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    47,678
    Thanks Received:
    10,789
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +14,379
    Well that's better than three month or three years wait that has people from Canada and the UK coming here when they just can't wait. And our new health czar--that isn't his actual title but that's pretty much what he is--drools over the UK system even as the UK is now admitting they can't sustain their system and are looking to decentralize and de-federalize it.
     
  8. rightwinger
    Offline

    rightwinger Paid Messageboard Poster Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    120,262
    Thanks Received:
    19,822
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    NJ & MD
    Ratings:
    +45,337
    More Right Wing conservatives making apologies to BP

    Can you possibly get more pathetic?
     
  9. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,014
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,221
    The cap doesn't work that way, all it odes is limit the economic damages on a federal level. This only covers the direct economic damages to other businesses, and in no way limits their tort liability under sate law, or even non economic liability in federal court.
     
  10. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    47,678
    Thanks Received:
    10,789
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +14,379
    All insurance policies, however, do have a maximum that the policy will pay that is either set by the insurance company or, in the case of insurance such as work comp, will usually have a statuatory limit.

    In this case I believe the idea is to require a a high statuatory minimum cap on a required insurance policy. The issue in this case is whether companies working on lower risk shallow water rigs should be required to insure at the same level as the higher risk deep water rigs. And there is of course the sticky wicket of the Federal government requiring the insurance rather than leaving that up to the states or property owners who provide the leases and licenses to do business.
     

Share This Page