"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:09:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

What insurance does is create a target rich environment for
lawyers.
Between the two of them you are right, it is a huge drag on the
economy. We would actually be better off without any insurance at
all
but then people would have to plan for their own futures and
their own
problems,



It's not all about poor planning. Few people can afford to deal
with
catastrophic illnesses. Even millionaires have gone broke.

Most people want a lot more than catastrophic coverage. If that was
all we wanted it would be pretty cheap. My $3000 deductible is
"free"
from IBM (costs them less than $2k a year) but the PPO would cost
me
$12,000 a year plus their $2k and still be a $20 co pay.
The poor planning part is people who can't save up a few hundred a
year for routine checkups and minor care unless they have the
insurance company "save" it for them (with a 17% handling charge).
People are not talking about insurance here, they are talking about
a
medical bookie that collects the "vig" on every procedure and
treatment.
The classic is the drug plan. You know you are going to buy the
drug,
the insurance company knows you are going to buy the drug. How in
the
hell can it end up being cheaper letting them broker the
transaction?


They want a lot more than catastrophic coverage because they don't
want a small problem to turn into a big problem.


--
Nom=de=Plume


Why not just catastropic coverage only? The savings on insurance
cost would pay for a bunch of office visits. But they would rather
pay lots more for insurance and not have to budget for a doctors
checkup?



Try reading my sentence again. Do you really want to wait for that
ingrown hair to turn into gangrene?

--
Nom=de=Plume


Why not go to the doctor and pay the bill for that toenail. A lot
cheaper than paying some insurance company to pay the bill for you.
Just like auto insurance. A $250 deductible will cost you about $125 a
year more than a $500 deductible. Go 2-3 years without crashing the
car and you are ahead of the curve financially. A $2000 a year
deductible health insurance policy will cost you at least a $1000 less
than a $200 deductible. Pay for probably one office visit a month for
the savings.



That's all really fine, except when you can't pay the doctor for the
treatment. As to the rest, I agree that higher deductibles lower your
rates a bit, which is fine, if you can afford the $2000 a year or
whatever. Lots of people can't. Feel free to blame the poor if that's
where you're going.

--
Nom=de=Plume


If you can save a 1000 a year in insurance costs, would not be long
before you could pay that $2k deductible, and still be putting a $1000 a
year in the bank. But since most of the poor spend all the money they
get, not necessarily wisely, they will spend the $1k and not save it.

Uh huh. And, you get to decide what's wise and unwise spending. Say,
buying clothes for their child or putting food on the table other than
rice and beans. You're such a humanitarian Mr. McGoo.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Unwise spending is paying an extra $1000 a year for insurance when they are
only going to need to spend $300 of that to pay for most office visits that
are required. But you seem to have no reasoning ability.

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 16:40:15 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Decrease on car insurance? Where did you pull that factoid from?



From a simple google search. It's projected to RISE to about 17% in
2010.

--
Probably because medical payments will go up that much and that is
the
lions share of car insurance liability.

Rise "to 17%" of what?



Uninsured motorists.... next time, read the thread.

--
Nom=de=Plume


And if an uninsured motorist will only get his medical payed, and can
not sue for damages and pain and suffering, the rates woul drop a lot
more than 17%.

So, when someone is injured through no fault of his/her own, it's ok for
the person who did it to walk away without consequences. Yeah, the rates
would drop, perhaps a bit. But, as usual, you're an idiot citing idiotic
"facts" that don't have any basis in reality.
--
Nom=de=Plume


Yup, perfectly fair. I did require the responsible party to pay medical
bills. But the 40% of the drivers without insurance are not going to pay
anything anyway. And the other 20% with minimum insurance of about $40k
liability is not going to cover much anyway. Why should they get a big
payday for doing the samething a successful person did? Crash.

Fortunately, your draconian solution is never going to happen.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 13:57:50 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Women are generally superior to me ...

Typo or are you trying to tell us something ? ;-)

BTW I do agree women usually have more patience than men if that was
where you were going


Sigh... I think faster than I type. Heh... I'm sure there will be several
people here who will claim that this is definitive proof that I'm Harry.

It was...

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:09:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

What insurance does is create a target rich environment for
lawyers.
Between the two of them you are right, it is a huge drag on the
economy. We would actually be better off without any insurance
at all
but then people would have to plan for their own futures and
their own
problems,



It's not all about poor planning. Few people can afford to deal
with
catastrophic illnesses. Even millionaires have gone broke.

Most people want a lot more than catastrophic coverage. If that
was
all we wanted it would be pretty cheap. My $3000 deductible is
"free"
from IBM (costs them less than $2k a year) but the PPO would cost
me
$12,000 a year plus their $2k and still be a $20 co pay.
The poor planning part is people who can't save up a few hundred a
year for routine checkups and minor care unless they have the
insurance company "save" it for them (with a 17% handling charge).
People are not talking about insurance here, they are talking
about a
medical bookie that collects the "vig" on every procedure and
treatment.
The classic is the drug plan. You know you are going to buy the
drug,
the insurance company knows you are going to buy the drug. How in
the
hell can it end up being cheaper letting them broker the
transaction?


They want a lot more than catastrophic coverage because they don't
want a small problem to turn into a big problem.


--
Nom=de=Plume


Why not just catastropic coverage only? The savings on insurance
cost would pay for a bunch of office visits. But they would rather
pay lots more for insurance and not have to budget for a doctors
checkup?



Try reading my sentence again. Do you really want to wait for that
ingrown hair to turn into gangrene?

--
Nom=de=Plume


Why not go to the doctor and pay the bill for that toenail. A lot
cheaper than paying some insurance company to pay the bill for you.
Just like auto insurance. A $250 deductible will cost you about $125
a year more than a $500 deductible. Go 2-3 years without crashing the
car and you are ahead of the curve financially. A $2000 a year
deductible health insurance policy will cost you at least a $1000 less
than a $200 deductible. Pay for probably one office visit a month for
the savings.



That's all really fine, except when you can't pay the doctor for the
treatment. As to the rest, I agree that higher deductibles lower your
rates a bit, which is fine, if you can afford the $2000 a year or
whatever. Lots of people can't. Feel free to blame the poor if that's
where you're going.

--
Nom=de=Plume


If you can save a 1000 a year in insurance costs, would not be long
before you could pay that $2k deductible, and still be putting a $1000 a
year in the bank. But since most of the poor spend all the money they
get, not necessarily wisely, they will spend the $1k and not save it.

Uh huh. And, you get to decide what's wise and unwise spending. Say,
buying clothes for their child or putting food on the table other than
rice and beans. You're such a humanitarian Mr. McGoo.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Unwise spending is paying an extra $1000 a year for insurance when they
are only going to need to spend $300 of that to pay for most office visits
that are required. But you seem to have no reasoning ability.

Unwise spending is always unwise. Unfortunately, even you are not able to
predict the future.

Keep at it though... maybe you should talk to Nancy Reagan's psychic.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 15:02:52 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

So, when someone is injured through no fault of his/her own, it's ok for
the person who did it to walk away without consequences. Yeah, the rates
would drop, perhaps a bit. But, as usual, you're an idiot citing idiotic
"facts" that don't have any basis in reality.
--
Nom=de=Plume


Yup, perfectly fair. I did require the responsible party to pay medical
bills. But the 40% of the drivers without insurance are not going to pay
anything anyway. And the other 20% with minimum insurance of about $40k
liability is not going to cover much anyway. Why should they get a big
payday for doing the samething a successful person did? Crash.


People without car insurance who cause damage or injury should go to
jail. It is illegal in all 50 states and DC.
They will impound the car if you are caught without insurance here.-

We are letting violent criminals out of jail because of overcrowding and
costs. Even if they impound the car, they go buy another $50 clunker. But
they can sue and get $2-3 million settlement if a person with insurance and
assets hit them. Even though they should not be on the road.

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 15:02:52 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

So, when someone is injured through no fault of his/her own, it's ok
for
the person who did it to walk away without consequences. Yeah, the
rates
would drop, perhaps a bit. But, as usual, you're an idiot citing
idiotic
"facts" that don't have any basis in reality.
--
Nom=de=Plume


Yup, perfectly fair. I did require the responsible party to pay medical
bills. But the 40% of the drivers without insurance are not going to
pay
anything anyway. And the other 20% with minimum insurance of about $40k
liability is not going to cover much anyway. Why should they get a big
payday for doing the samething a successful person did? Crash.


People without car insurance who cause damage or injury should go to
jail. It is illegal in all 50 states and DC.
They will impound the car if you are caught without insurance here.-

We are letting violent criminals out of jail because of overcrowding and
costs. Even if they impound the car, they go buy another $50 clunker.
But they can sue and get $2-3 million settlement if a person with
insurance and assets hit them. Even though they should not be on the
road.

I'm betting that there are either zero or close to zero cases like that.
You're just making up bs to support your crazy position.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 16:35:46 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

People without car insurance who cause damage or injury should go to
jail. It is illegal in all 50 states and DC.
They will impound the car if you are caught without insurance here.-

We are letting violent criminals out of jail because of overcrowding and
costs. Even if they impound the car, they go buy another $50 clunker.
But
they can sue and get $2-3 million settlement if a person with insurance
and
assets hit them. Even though they should not be on the road.


What ever happened to being sentenced to "hard labor" and paying the
victim back form that meager salary? ;-)

Oh I forgot, the unions objected.
(actually a fact)



What?? Why would a union have anything to do with a personal injury suit? I
love it... "the unions" all of them?

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 18:26:47 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

What ever happened to being sentenced to "hard labor" and paying the
victim back form that meager salary? ;-)

Oh I forgot, the unions objected.
(actually a fact)



What?? Why would a union have anything to do with a personal injury suit?
I
love it... "the unions" all of them?

--

No the unions are why the state can't use convict labor for much of
anything, including working to pay restitution.
I was in the belly of the beast when I was a state electrical
inspector and I saw a lot of inmate work going on but it was, by law,
all inside the wire and only for DoC.
They couldn't even work for the park system or DoT in any capacity but
the most menial labor (cutting grass, weeding or digging ditches) in
spite of the fact that lots of skilled trades were in jail, mostly for
drugs


Firstly, that's completely untrue. Convicts can volunteer for all sorts of
jobs. Most would relish the opportunity. Secondly, you state "the unions" as
though they're homogeneous which they are not. Why would you want convicts
working for DoT? I think menial labor is probably about right. Finally, I
don't agree with the drug laws.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On 4/13/10 12:10 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 18:26:47 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

What ever happened to being sentenced to "hard labor" and paying the
victim back form that meager salary? ;-)

Oh I forgot, the unions objected.
(actually a fact)



What?? Why would a union have anything to do with a personal injury suit? I
love it... "the unions" all of them?

--

No the unions are why the state can't use convict labor for much of
anything, including working to pay restitution.
I was in the belly of the beast when I was a state electrical
inspector and I saw a lot of inmate work going on but it was, by law,
all inside the wire and only for DoC.
They couldn't even work for the park system or DoT in any capacity but
the most menial labor (cutting grass, weeding or digging ditches) in
spite of the fact that lots of skilled trades were in jail, mostly for
drugs


I see. You want to displace hard-working, law-abiding citizens with
convict laborers earning what, 13 cents an hour? Welcome to the gulag.

--
http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym

hk wrote:
On 4/13/10 12:10 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 18:26:47 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

What ever happened to being sentenced to "hard labor" and paying the
victim back form that meager salary? ;-)

Oh I forgot, the unions objected.
(actually a fact)



What?? Why would a union have anything to do with a personal injury
suit? I
love it... "the unions" all of them?

--

No the unions are why the state can't use convict labor for much of
anything, including working to pay restitution.
I was in the belly of the beast when I was a state electrical
inspector and I saw a lot of inmate work going on but it was, by law,
all inside the wire and only for DoC.
They couldn't even work for the park system or DoT in any capacity but
the most menial labor (cutting grass, weeding or digging ditches) in
spite of the fact that lots of skilled trades were in jail, mostly for
drugs


I see. You want to displace hard-working, law-abiding citizens with
convict laborers earning what, 13 cents an hour? Welcome to the gulag.

Oh please. You are talking about over paid union slackers here. Quit
trying to sugar coat their productivity usefullness.