Doesn't matter it didn't fix anything it just made the situation worse. The odds of getting hit by somebody who doesn't have insurance is much higher today, before the law made it mandatory.
Probably because the law is such that just like Arkansas it's cheaper not to have insurance and just pay the ticket if you get caught, even if you get stopped 3 times in one year and ticketed for no insurance it's cheaper than insurance premiums. There is NO incentive to follow the law if you're not inclined to do so yourself. Personally I'm of the opinion that it should be a $5K fine and 1 year in jail for driving without basic insurance. On the other hand, I believe mandatory health insurance is preposterous because well, obviously if I'm that sick a hospital can't refuse to treat me, and me being sick doesn't harm someone else, not ordinarily anyway.. They are just two entirely different propositions.
Maybe if we placed more emphasis in having safe drivers who actually know how to drive, rather than having a requirement for getting a license be having insurance there would be less accidents to worry about. How about all stupid, ineffective laws be removed from the books, and the government spend more time attacking the fraud, waste, and abuse of lobbying/bribing public officials problems, and if we have to have a law make the fines reflect the individuals income so they are definitely a deterrent and/or a punishment that carries some weight, instead of a license fee for recklessness?
If someone gets in a wreck that is of their own fault, they should be forced to pay for damages, insurance or not. If they don't have insurance or cant pay cash, their license is withheld until full restitution is paid. If they drive without a license, then they go to jail. If you don't want to be in a situation where someone maybe can't pay, then you as an individual buy car insurance voluntarily. That is right. That is just. The only reason why car insurance is mandatory is because lobbyists paid officials to pass the legislation they wrote. The same as Obamacare. The same as every law. Do any of the older boys remember if liability insurance was even around before mandatory car insurance? When ones thinks about it, full coverage is the only car insurance that should exist, and voluntary if someone wants it.
LOL yeah right. I think we all know that those who drive around with no insurance do so because they have no assets and thus collecting from them in the case of an accident would be impossible and B they don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*). Take their license ? Hell, they probably didn't have one to begin with, and if we start jailing people who drive without a license, or jails are going to get awful full, awful fast.
I don't like "what if" laws. If you allow them, you create an environment of books of law so thick not even lawyers know everything. Case in point, where we are at. I'm more a supporter of helping working poor than the left could ever be with their pseudo compassion. You clean out the prison system of non violent drug offenders, and then you free up the county jails by sending those who should be in prison to said prison. Now you have space in county jail for people to spend a week or so for not having a license. The great majority of working poor who still have vehicles, have vehicles that could be covered in 6 month blocks for $150. They can either voluntary get insurance just in case, make damn sure they drive good and don't cause an accident, or they can lose their license until they pay for damages done.
An EASIER system is just to say you can't register your vehicle if you don't have insurance. Now there you have a choice, you can drive your vehicle without registering it, or you can get insurance. Then yes, you can go to jail for driving an unlicensed vehicle. The ONLY real difference between us is that you prefer to let people take the risk of getting into an accident with no insurance, I claim that the risk isn't theirs to take. I mean let's admit that a person who can't afford $150 every 6 months for insurance damn sure would never be able to repay a $100K debt from an accident they caused, and in the meantime what does the family who suffered the $100K in debt because of the accident do? To me that is the difference between auto insurance and health insurance. Auto insurance is covering another person's risk, health insurance is covering your own risk. It would only be comparable if the government insisted that you keep full coverage auto insurance, which to my knowledge no state does.
Anyone with a job can afford $150 every 6 months if they so choose. That comes down to money management skills, something I argue should be taught in schools. Nothing affects everyone, guaranteed, outside of reading and writing, like that of money. Yet, no one even argues for this in either party. Both want an easily suckered population. The difference between you and I is the fact you think government is against the super wealthy, and I know government is a tool of the super wealthy. You are arguing for the auto insurance industry without even realizing it.
Right. Basically, the GOP, as well as the democrats, think independents are made up of centrists, when actually the base of both parties are actually centrists who lean slightly either direction. Independents are actually people who are far more left or right than the actual 2 parties. This is a crushing blow for the GOP. Because now all they have are social issues, as they are a mirror image when it comes to economics. The small government republicans have been abandoned for the social conservative wing, and the GOP is losing their butts on social issues, which means social conservatives are getting nothing out of the party. There is really zero reasons for the GOP to exist at this point. A new party could excite the American public made up of a mixture of libertarian and paleocon ideals, but that would take paleocons dropping their lust of Christian based legislation socially(the part of libertarianism most like), as well as libertarians waking up to the fact the great majority do not want free trade and uncontrolled immigration(the part of paleoconservatism most Americans like), and I don't know if either can come to grips with that.
There is right wing thinking in a nutshell. Don't dare require me to buy health insurance because I should have no obligation to pay my share of the health care tab. But to require hospitals to treat me if I get sick. I don't care how much it costs, or who gets the bill, as long as it is someone else!
LOL I've been called a right winger 3 times today and a left winger twice. Proving there is no such thing and it is all a matter of perspective. Sorry that abstract thought confuses so many on here but at no point did I say or even infer that a person should not any obligation to pay their share of their health care costs.
It only proves you're a right-leaning moderate if the stats hold true throughout the year. Welcome to the club! On Saturdays we have cookies.
Talk about divide and conquer when your standard bearer wrote off half the population he just balkanized the entire Republican Party. A balkanized party having a civil war with itself good luck.
Yes. YOU understand the difference between auto and health insurance. Low Information Voters cannot. They take their talking points from their Messiah, they repeat them, almost as if they too had their own teleprompter. They feel really cool about doing it, too. They're big schtick is that they're hoping to get "free" health insurance, so that must be a natural human right, but they're not going to get free auto insurance, so that must simply be Evil Big Business taking their money. They're easily led, easily confused, the Low Information Voter is. How else could it vote for Obama?
Yes, the Low Information Voter always believes, because he's been told to, that someone else has an obligation to carry a stranger's medical bills. Naturally, of course, nobody has any such obligation. Also a person's share of their medical care tab is expressed by the bills their doctors send them. If they're smart, they have insurance. If not, they're paying cash. Whatever, the reality is still that their medical bills are theirs, someone else's medical bills are not theirs. Life must be so complicated for the Low Information Voter, everything belongs to someone else, so thus everyone else must be responsible for the care and feeding of the LIV. That's worked so well in Cuba and North Korea, hasn't it?
here's low information for you: [video=youtube;1P5CSgJyxu4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1P5CSgJyxu4[/video]
"Low Information Voter" covers a lot of territory and both sides of the ideological fence. To assume otherwise is ignorant and/or ideologically biased.
Notice the capital letters? Low Information Voters refers specifically and ONLY to the people stupid enough to vote for Obama and other DemocRATs. The other handy word to know is "Stupids", again, capitalized, to mean a specific group of traitors that voted for King Obama and DemocRATS. There are other stupid people, sure. People who voted McCain into the Senate, or for (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) McConnell, or for any of the other RINOs infesting the House and Senate. But Low Information Voters, aka the Stupids, is a term reserved for the enormously ignorant, emotionally driven IDIOTS that vote RAT. Are you now clear on what terms mean what, in the real world?
your delusions are amusing here's low information for you: [video=youtube;1P5CSgJyxu4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1P5CSgJyxu4[/video]
