Your Government, Your Friend

[ILOVEJESUS]

Victus wrote

Then rejoice, because it's not. As far as I can tell, the UK only requires you to buy third party insurance, or what we would call liability or personal responsibility insurance. That is, you are required to buy insurance against destroying others' property or injuring others, but are free to run the risk of financial losses to yourself.

So why do you have full coverage, then?



I still haven't heard an argument as to why a mandate would increase either individual premiums or the profitability of covering a given policy. Indeed, most of the arguments I've ever heard for mandated auto insurance run in the other direction; mandating everyone to buy liability insurance would lower the costs of personal property protection insurance for the average, responsible driver.



Based on what I can tell about UK insurance mandate laws, you already buy auto insurance voluntarily. So apparently prices have already lowered sufficiently to encourage you to buy.

I sold my car and am on my wifes fully com as it was cheaper than me insuring myself. Third party os still a legal requirements and still insurance. I cannot drive without it legally, and my car would be taken if I did. Not sure what you are driving at here, if you pardon the pun.

[Victus]

ILOVEJESUS wrote

I sold my car and am on my wifes fully com as it was cheaper than me insuring myself. Third party os still a legal requirements and still insurance. I cannot drive without it legally, and my car would be taken if I did. Not sure what you are driving at here, if you pardon the pun.

My point is that you said you wouldn't buy auto insurance but for a mandate, yet you appear to have insurance beyond what the mandate covers.

[ILOVEJESUS]

Victus wrote

My point is that you said you wouldn't buy auto insurance but for a mandate, yet you appear to have insurance beyond what the mandate covers.

I don't, I am not lying when I tell you I would not have insurance at the price it is were it not for the law. Insurance would not be as big a business were it not for the law. I understand your point, it just has no place with what I am telling you.
To change subjects, how about privatising prisons?

[ubs]

Private prisons are slavery and inspite of the name, they are not private. They are subcontractors for the state.

I hold that slavery is not compatible with a LIBER -tarian world view.

They should be illegal.

[ghoulslime]

ubs wrote

They should be illegal.

They are obscenely immoral for sure!

[Davin]

Brick wrote

Routine risk = ordinary misfortune = high-probability, low-cost event.
See post #40 of this thread.

So you still don't know what the words mean... how sad. How do you get from "routine risk" to "ordinary misfortune" when (even in the word definitions you provided), "misfortune" is not a part of any of the definitions?

Brick wrote

See? Was that so hard?

The question was never asked. I'm still trying to resolve your problems with understanding of the words "routine" and "risk". Which is proving to be a huge task, it took only four minutes for several eight to ten year olds to get it. Do you actually have a learning disability?

Brick wrote

Of course car accidents happen everyday- that's not the point. Insurance companies want to know the odds of an individual being in a car accident, not the odds of one happening at all, anywhere.

Yes, the they want to quantify the routine risk of a car accident. They don't cover routine car crashes, they cover the routine risk of car crashes. I feel like you're finally learning something.

[Stargazer]

ubs wrote

Private prisons are slavery and inspite of the name, they are not private. They are subcontractors for the state.

I hold that slavery is not compatible with a LIBER -tarian world view.

They should be illegal.

Sorry. It seems insurance is MUCH more interesting.

[Brick]

Davin wrote

So you still don't know what the words mean... how sad. How do you get from "routine risk" to "ordinary misfortune" when (even in the word definitions you provided), "misfortune" is not a part of any of the definitions?

The question was never asked. I'm still trying to resolve your problems with understanding of the words "routine" and "risk". Which is proving to be a huge task, it took only four minutes for several eight to ten year olds to get it. Do you actually have a learning disability?

Yes, the they want to quantify the routine risk of a car accident. They don't cover routine car crashes, they cover the routine risk of car crashes. I feel like you're finally learning something.

Why you insist on nitpicking things to death is a mystery to me. I asked you clearly several times whether you had a copay for your asthma medicine and you finally deigned to answer.

I have also explained several times what "routine" means (often, ordinary, common, etc) and what "risk" means (consequence, misfortune, bad outcome) and what the phrase "routine risk" means in the context of insurance. It appears your vast verbal prowess does not entail the concept of synonyms.

If you think you can better explain the purpose of insurance (providing protection for high-cost, low probability events), have at it.

[ILOVEJESUS]

Stargazer wrote

Sorry. It seems insurance is MUCH more interesting.

Interesting like a sore arsehole.

[Davin]

Brick wrote

Why you insist on nitpicking things to death is a mystery to me. I asked you clearly several times whether you had a copay for your asthma medicine and you finally deigned to answer.

No, you didn't ask me, you assumed I did. Of course I could very well be wrong that you didn't ask me, perhaps you could provide a link the post where you did ask me. If you stop nitpicking things, then I will. I actually prefer less formal discussions, but with all the straw manning and misrepresenting you do, I don't have much of a choice if I want to maintain some semblance of having a rational conversation.

Brick wrote

I have also explained several times what "routine" means (often, ordinary, common, etc) and what "risk" means (consequence, misfortune, bad outcome) and what the phrase "routine risk" means in the context of insurance. It appears your vast verbal prowess does not entail the concept of synonyms.

"Misfortune" is not a synonym of "risk" (and neither are any of the other words you said it means). It's not, it would be way too drastic a change in meaning. It could mean, "the chance of misfortune." But it can't just be swapped for "misfortune" because it leaves off the part about chance and changes it to a surety. You cited the definition that I (and every other English speaking person I've ever met), agree with, so why try to use words that are not synonyms of it and try to pass them off as synonyms?

Brick wrote

If you think you can better explain the purpose of insurance (providing protection for high-cost, low probability events), have at it.

Why? There are already many specific definitions. "Protection" is not the right word, because that implies that the events won't happen if you have insurance.

Straight from googles mouth: A practice by which a company provides a guarantee of compensation for specified loss, damage, illness, or death in return for payment...

My insurance companies cover rare, high cost events as well as routine risks and they also cover preventative care (because it costs less in the long run to take care of most things before they become emergencies).

[Davin]

Davin wrote

No, you didn't ask me, you assumed I did. Of course I could very well be wrong that you didn't ask me, perhaps you could provide a link the post where you did ask me.

I'll save you the time, Brick, I'll correct myself: http://ravingatheists.com/forum/show...961#post659961

[psychodiva]

This could have gone in a numbr of threads but I chose this one- rather randomly- so if it is wrong then please move it

laughed my head off at this lovely take on the idiot Rand

Folks like Congressman Paul Ryan and Texas Governor Rick Perry, Speaker of the House John Boehner, not to mention certain Tea Party types who repeatedly paraphrase Rand’s silly nonsense about taxes being the same as a government mugging citizens at gunpoint – not that most said Tea Party types have actually read John Galt’s endless excruciating sixty page long monologue on the virtue of being a self-centered bastard flavored bastard with bastard filling and little bastard sprinkles on top at the end of Atlas Shrugged (How do I know they haven’t read it? Simple, they haven’t jammed knitting needles through their eyes).

I’m not saying your can’t, or shouldn’t, read and even enjoy Ayn Rand if that’s your thing. Hell some people actually like tofu, Justin Bieber, and the Ewok Christmas Special. Me? Given a choice I’d rather be forced to sit with a hemorrhoidal badger in my lap through every single George W. Bush and/or Al Gore speech ever recorded than to have to read either Atlas Shrugged, or please God no Anthem, ever again.

Here’s the thing: learning macroeconomics from reading Atlas Shrugged is like learning psychology from Battlefield Earth.

[Kinich Ahau]

Very entertaining, thanks.

[lostsheep]

Great link psychodiva! I loved this part in particular:

Now here’s the really ironic part, Rand’s biggest fans in government are, without exception, full frontal whole hog Jesus freaks.
Of course, that’s not particularly surprising given that Creationists by definition peek out through their blinders to selectively cherry pick little bits and pieces in order to support their fantasy while ignoring anything that inconveniently contradicts their worldview. Like say the fact that Ayn Rand was an atheist to a degree that makes PZ Myers and the folks over at Pharyngula look like born again snake handling Pentecostals.

[Eternal]

Really enjoyed a couple of his articles, definitely one I will look at occasionally. Thanks.