No he became rich by strong arming business into selling him inferior products carrying a strong brand so he could sell garbage at low price. See Levi's signature jeans and walmart only versions of electronics.
He gained a portion of his income doing what you say, but the real money was made later.
Insurance companies want claims and the fear of events occurring otherwise their product is useless.
It does not matter if it will ruin them. They will not buy it, end up broke and the victim will end up with nothing to recover. Thus again premiums go up and less people get insurance. This again drives insurance prices up and rinse and repeat.
Just so you know: Poor: 5. deficient or lacking in something specified
Because he has no property, his car is now totalled and he may well not even be employed. You cannot get blood from a stone. In my state uninsured drivers are at a far lower rate than 15%.
I do not see why costs would go down, nor do I see that as a goal even. I would rather everyone paid more if it meant problems like this were solved. The options are I pay more because I would be one of the last few insured, or we all pay a little more each to all be insured. You want to be a leech.
I mean poor drivers as in drivers of low skill not drivers of low economic status.
My point is that in your system it cannot work. Premiums would skyrocket as the drivers of lowest skill kept dropping out. Then the premiums would go up again, and again another layer of drivers would drop out.
No, the insurance money would make far more money by charging higher premiums and letting the criminals continue to cause havoc. Claims do not harm insurance companies, they are another justification to raise rates.
Why would they do anything else.
I hope in another 40 years, you might begin to see how reality works.
If the insurance cannot collect from said uninsured driver the premiums go up. This means less people get insurance and on and on. Eventually no one will bother with it.
I am not basing my responses on anything as juvenile as ideology, I am basing them on practicality.
Are you fucking stupid or just ignorant of history?
Are you dumb enough to think violent criminals have any money for insurance companies to collect? You want the victim to pay for incarceration? I bet you want women to pay for their own rape kits too.
Sounds like the solution to that is to remove the insurance profit. Fix it at some percentage like we do with utilities and make them pay anything above that back in lowered rates the following year.
It could in theory, but tends not to in practice be the case.
It is far more often the case that someone with $30k in escrow has far more money than that and can be sued for it. This also means that person will get some sort of coverage that kicks in only once his funds in escrow are exhausted.
So then I should be free to cover my property in radioactive waste? Even though I live next to a school and am now killing the students and poisoning the groundwater.
I should then also be free to only allow myself to be sued in a court that will never find against the property owner? Or to just refuse to ever go to a court that the victims select?
If you want insurance to cover only the buyer, it is an interesting idea but sadly not attainable. It perverts the economic incentives. It means that a poor driver can feel free to crash into others with no penalty. The victims insurance premiums go up and the poor driver is free to carry on in his behavior. Unless you want to use another system to punish poor drivers in conjunction with your idea it is just unworkable.
Health insurance is similar, if you allow people to go without they will. Then they will use the ER and those who do pay for healthcare will be paying the uninsureds costs. Far better to require everyone to carry coverage.
Your comments are nonsense. Self insuring is a thing that exists and you are not even educated enough on this subject to know that.
Without this law people will abdicate personal responsibility. Even with it they try to. This is why in my state if your insurance is cancelled you must return your license plates.
What makes you think people would act otherwise? Someone with a jalopy and no savings has no incentive to get insurance and no money for an injured party to collect.
If a person doesn't have insurance it does not mean he cannot pay for the problems if he causes the problems on the road. What if you don't want to give up your income to an insurance company, instead you have your savings that you can tap into in case of an emergency?
That is called self insuring and is legal in most jurisdictions you just have to put 50k+ into escrow. So you actually do have the money.
If you want to self insure go for it. What you really want is to not be responsible for yourself. You want to be able to have no insurance and no savings and screw over the people you harm. Your kind is why I have to also pay for uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage.
Private courts? Welcome to slavery. You will always be guilty and you will always be working to pay that insurance that now costs 100% of what you make.
No, the point is to punish those who drive without insurance. That really is it. Driving without insurance means you will not be able to pay for damage you cause.
No, it is because most people agree mandatory insurance is good. Personal responsibility is good. You should either have the cash on hand or insurance to cover damage you may cause.
Typical, lets ignore personal responsibility! No need for you to be able to pay for the damage you cause, no that is evil leftist personal responsibility.
Because why run software I don't like when I can run software I like?
Please do tell me how to turn on FFM, without buying another piece of software. These are the kinds of configuration options I am looking for. Middle click highlight paste is another and not just in the terminal.
Slashdot Mirror
No he became rich by strong arming business into selling him inferior products carrying a strong brand so he could sell garbage at low price. See Levi's signature jeans and walmart only versions of electronics.
He gained a portion of his income doing what you say, but the real money was made later.
Insurance companies want claims and the fear of events occurring otherwise their product is useless.
It does not matter if it will ruin them. They will not buy it, end up broke and the victim will end up with nothing to recover. Thus again premiums go up and less people get insurance. This again drives insurance prices up and rinse and repeat.
Just so you know:
Poor:
5. deficient or lacking in something specified
In this case it was driving they were poor at.
Because he has no property, his car is now totalled and he may well not even be employed. You cannot get blood from a stone. In my state uninsured drivers are at a far lower rate than 15%.
I do not see why costs would go down, nor do I see that as a goal even. I would rather everyone paid more if it meant problems like this were solved. The options are I pay more because I would be one of the last few insured, or we all pay a little more each to all be insured. You want to be a leech.
I mean poor drivers as in drivers of low skill not drivers of low economic status.
My point is that in your system it cannot work. Premiums would skyrocket as the drivers of lowest skill kept dropping out. Then the premiums would go up again, and again another layer of drivers would drop out.
No, the insurance money would make far more money by charging higher premiums and letting the criminals continue to cause havoc. Claims do not harm insurance companies, they are another justification to raise rates.
Why would they do anything else.
I hope in another 40 years, you might begin to see how reality works.
It is not irrelevant to if he pays me or not.
No insurance, means no point in suing as odds are there are no assets to collect. Then the premiums go up.
Why is that hard for you to understand?
You fail to understand what I said again.
If the insurance cannot collect from said uninsured driver the premiums go up. This means less people get insurance and on and on. Eventually no one will bother with it.
I am not basing my responses on anything as juvenile as ideology, I am basing them on practicality.
In my scenario I have no money and no property other than the now worthless polluted land. What should the victims do?
Why would I have insurance on my nuclear waste site?
Why would I not kill the private security force?
Why would I allow them on my land?
Nothing wrong with debtors prisons?
Are you fucking stupid or just ignorant of history?
Are you dumb enough to think violent criminals have any money for insurance companies to collect? You want the victim to pay for incarceration? I bet you want women to pay for their own rape kits too.
Hopefully, one day you will grow up.
Sounds like the solution to that is to remove the insurance profit. Fix it at some percentage like we do with utilities and make them pay anything above that back in lowered rates the following year.
Maybe in your dream land, but here in reality my car insurance only covers medical and damage I do to others.
It could in theory, but tends not to in practice be the case.
It is far more often the case that someone with $30k in escrow has far more money than that and can be sued for it. This also means that person will get some sort of coverage that kicks in only once his funds in escrow are exhausted.
So then I should be free to cover my property in radioactive waste? Even though I live next to a school and am now killing the students and poisoning the groundwater.
I should then also be free to only allow myself to be sued in a court that will never find against the property owner? Or to just refuse to ever go to a court that the victims select?
If you want insurance to cover only the buyer, it is an interesting idea but sadly not attainable. It perverts the economic incentives. It means that a poor driver can feel free to crash into others with no penalty. The victims insurance premiums go up and the poor driver is free to carry on in his behavior. Unless you want to use another system to punish poor drivers in conjunction with your idea it is just unworkable.
Health insurance is similar, if you allow people to go without they will. Then they will use the ER and those who do pay for healthcare will be paying the uninsureds costs. Far better to require everyone to carry coverage.
Your comments are nonsense. Self insuring is a thing that exists and you are not even educated enough on this subject to know that.
Without this law people will abdicate personal responsibility. Even with it they try to. This is why in my state if your insurance is cancelled you must return your license plates.
What makes you think people would act otherwise?
Someone with a jalopy and no savings has no incentive to get insurance and no money for an injured party to collect.
If a person doesn't have insurance it does not mean he cannot pay for the problems if he causes the problems on the road. What if you don't want to give up your income to an insurance company, instead you have your savings that you can tap into in case of an emergency?
That is called self insuring and is legal in most jurisdictions you just have to put 50k+ into escrow. So you actually do have the money.
If you want to self insure go for it. What you really want is to not be responsible for yourself. You want to be able to have no insurance and no savings and screw over the people you harm. Your kind is why I have to also pay for uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage.
Private courts? Welcome to slavery. You will always be guilty and you will always be working to pay that insurance that now costs 100% of what you make.
Welcome to debtors prisons reopening.
Why would violent criminals get insurance?
No, the point is to punish those who drive without insurance. That really is it. Driving without insurance means you will not be able to pay for damage you cause.
No, it is because most people agree mandatory insurance is good. Personal responsibility is good. You should either have the cash on hand or insurance to cover damage you may cause.
Typical, lets ignore personal responsibility! No need for you to be able to pay for the damage you cause, no that is evil leftist personal responsibility.
BeHold:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTLinux
Because why run software I don't like when I can run software I like?
Please do tell me how to turn on FFM, without buying another piece of software. These are the kinds of configuration options I am looking for. Middle click highlight paste is another and not just in the terminal.
Thanks, slashdot ruined your instructions but I got it. That was very helpful.
How did you get middle click paste to work through out the OS? Not just in the terminal.
I will check out MacTerm.
If you are just going to script, why bother with a GUI at all?