Posted on 05/19/2015 6:18:09 AM PDT by Attention Surplus Disorder
I believe people have a right to take risks if they so chose, provided those "risks" are not obviously suicidal.
Rent Seeking seems to be a universal characteristic for people who get themselves in a position to do so, and they often turn to government to enforce their lucrative positions.
Wearing your seatbelt is a fool-proof way of avoiding one.
Think about what you are writing.
The insurance companies are the best at knowing statistics, they try to avoid things that cost them money. Their statistics obviously show that seatbelts reduce injuries, reduced injuries saves them money.
Maybe we should be smart enough to also believe the statistics and help save our arses.
Except as it would seem, for insurance principals, or the lack thereof, which we then all have to pay. Note particularly, illegal aliens.
Wearing a seat belt is a good idea, but the state should not be in the business of forcing people to comply with good ideas.
Not by intention you stated the most logical reason to use a seatbelt, “who have a vested interest in minimizing damage claims”.
I still don’t agree that they should fine you for not wearing one, but a better way might be if the insurance companies had a contract clause saying “if you are not wearing seatbelt and have an accident and have any injury, they don’t pay”. Sort of like if you leave your keys in your car and it gets stolen, they don’t pay.
This would be the proper way to achieve what they want, but do you know why they don't do it that way? Because it would offend people. They want the state to be the bad guy, so they don't have to.
By getting the State to hold the whip, they can be the innocent bystander who has nothing to do with this policy that just happens to protect their interests.
Insurance is also a mandate. Wanna charge me a lil higher rate? Go ahead, my freedom means everything.
Once we let (or should I say, now that we’ve let) government into every aspect of our lives, they tell us what light bulbs to use, warshing machines (yes in the South we place an R in warsh), what water heater, air conditioner, gasoline, firearms, milk, septic...on and on and on.
Is there anything that the gubbamint does not regulate and or tax? I guess your breath.
That's the other aspect of this. The whip hand helps with compliance.
On top of that, having a law which requires it convinces more people to do it, because the law has a normalizing effect on behavior.
By the time the world is safe enough for women/insurance companys it will not be fit for ANY MAN.
True.
I do not dispute that wearing a seatbelt is a good idea. It increases our safety and reduces injuries. Of that there can be no doubt, but that is not the central issue in this matter. The Central issue is whether or not we are free, or wards of the state.
If we are free, then we have a right to put ourselves at risk if we so chose. The state has no right to constrain us. Especially not if their true purpose is to act as the enforcement arm of a private company.
There is all sorts of things wrong with this idea, not the least of which is the incestuous relationship between private interests and government force. This has the odor of Nazism about it.
I have always worn my belt, you can drive much faster in the mountains that way.
We do not, or ought not have to pay insurance principles. We can chose, or ought to be able to chose, whether to pay them or not.
No argument with your conclusion on blame, but I suspect it goes deeper. When the insurance companies go to State Insurance Board and ask for an OK to insert the “use it or we don’t pay” clause, the State Boards are worried about the public (who vote) thinking they are giving the insurance companies an uneven break and probably want to tie such “use it or we don’t pay” clause into a driver discount for using seatbelt.
The insurance dice rolling probably says that such driver discount will cost them more in the long run and they consider your point about them not wanting the bad press for making us wear seatbelt, that’s what gubmit’s for.
And one with which I vehemently disagree. The government has no business forcing us to buy insurance.
Adam Smith first noted the tendency of private interests in getting governments to do their dirty work.
I am against it, but I might as well be trying to bail the ocean with a tea cup. Most of the public tacitly accepts it. Philosophers they are not.
I hear ya, but gotta remember this. If you injure someone in an accident, it is your responsibility to bring that person(s) back to a whole state. In other words, if your at fault, you should make it right.
If on the other hand, you can show you have the financial means to do so “without” insurance...then no, you should not be forced to purchase insurance.
Used to live in Margate.................
And so let others pay our bills when we get hurt?
I would agree as long as those risks don’t involve other people.................
The Central issue is whether or not we are free, or wards of the state.
Could not have said it better!
Over all its the damn beauacrats that have been give the power (or responsibility) to come up with every incremental rule they can imagine.
In the instance of car insurance, they incrementally negotiate between us and the insurance companies, theoretically on our behalf, but what results is zero common sense.
I would like to see this simplified into a check list of options we check off when buying Comp/Collision car insurance (Liability insurance SHOULD be mandatory), to which the insurance company says OK this is how much “we” will charge you, but you still are free to shop around. That way supply and demand will give a better deal.
Another poster ragged on about the gubmit forcing us to have insurance. They don’t really mandate you have liability insurance, just that you get no car tag without it, which makes good common sense. The gubmit does not mandate we have Comp/Collision insurance, the loan company says “no insurance covering our investment, no loan”, which again makes good common sense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.