State Induce Oppression

Jeremy E. Laughery | 8-18-2002 | Jeremy E. Laughery

[JeremyL]

This is a letter I wrote to the Department of Insurance several days ago. Please act on this information and get INVOLVED! -JEL

To Whom It May Concern:

Automobile insurance becomes an oppressive taxation when the State orders the compelled benefit onto the People. The benefit discussed here is "Reduced Automotive Liability". When insurance companies can raise rates based on a buyer's consumer credit rating, it is an act of discrimination as well as an act of tyranny and oppression because the State ordered the People to receive the benefit Without controlling the Corporation, writing the benefits/policies. Credit ratings have no relevance to "Reduced Automotive Liability" benefits. When the State orders compelled benefits onto the People, the benefits are no longer a consumer item to be bought; they must be controlled by the State and sold by the State. But, the State cannot engage in self- enrichment by selling policies to the People. However, the State can control how "Reduced Automotive Liability" benefits reach the People. Rights of the People are being abrogated by uncontrolled insurance companies all over Florida. The Peoples' Right to "Liberty" to engage in "Reduced Automotive Liability" benefits, without discrimination by various insurance companies, is the Right discussed here in this short letter to your agency. A formal letter will be mailed to your agency in the near future regarding this discussion. I respectfully request this agency investigate the long-term abuses caused by automobile insurance companies across Florida State.

Sincerely, Jeremy E. Laughery, Florida State Citizen

The Big Study

Insurance companies claim that use of credit reports for auto insurance rates is acceptable because the report reflects potential loss of the policy holder. The big study did not include every automotive insurance policy holder in the United States of America. Nor did the study prove that all Citizens with less than perfect credit actually have accidents. Since the big study could not hold true for every Citizen regardless of his or her status, the results must become that of not only statistics but that of a form of religion.

Constitutionality of Credit Reports and Auto Insurance

Religion is defined as “conscience and belief” which has no place in government, according to the Constitution for the several States. Use of credit reports for auto insurance rates is unconstitutional on its face. Federal law that permits insurance companies use credit reports, for the governing of rates, must be repealed at once. No form of government can respect any form of religion; it must be non-biased. As Federal law stands now, it is biased towards insurance companies’ use of credit scoring for rate governing, respecting a form of religion.

State Induced Oppression and Tyranny

When the State orders its Citizens engage in “Reduced Automotive Liability” benefits, the benefit policy becomes one that is oppressive. When the State orders its Citizens engage in “Reduced Automotive Liability” benefits by threat of incarceration, the benefit policy becomes an oppressive taxation induced by the State because the State can tax the gain experienced by Insurance Companies.

The Better Way

A Federal clean air tax is assessed at the gas pump for the convenience of the Federal government. Take a percentage of the clean air tax and mix it with a new tax called “Reduced Automotive Liability Fuel Tax”. The two cent tax would be indirect and constitutional and not oppressive.

The Key Thing Here

Everyone should be accountable for their actions as well as pay their own medical bills. All Citizens that wish to travel have agreed to put themselves into some level of danger. Automobiles are glorified machines used for transport.

The Author will post more on this subject later, please hang in there.

Thanks for reading, Jeremy E. Laughery

[JeremyL]

Please Note: The title should read
"State Induced Oppression" not "State Induce Oppression".

Please do not confuse "worship" with "religion" as religion applies to the constitution as "conscience and belief" which is subject to change from day-to-day.

JEL

[Sledge]

While I agree that the religious aspect is a bit of a stretch (other that the worship of money), there is serious financial harm being done to the people by the government mandated auto insurance.

Try living close to the edge (as most of us are) and add on a $400 a month bill that the government requires, and from which you get no benefit at all. The only benefit I have gotten out of auto insurance in the last 25 years was the ability to get a auto tag, which cost about $36. If I had invested the money instead of paying $1500 to $2000 a year for the pleasure of renewing my tag I would probably have over $100,000 sitting in the bank from that alone.

Auto insurance is a gamble. The insurance company is betting that they can rake in your money and never pay out, and you would be betting that you will need a payout, if you had a choice. The odds of the bet should be based only on factors that actually affect the possibility of a payout - your driving record and accidents.

Setting the rate based on whether or not you made last months payment is ludicrous. Basing the rate on age, sex or marital status is discriminatory. Allowing the insurance companies to charge usurious rates that lead to financial hardship and ruin is a breach of faith by the state agencies who are supposed to be working for us, not the insurance companies.

And the fact that the state requires us to buy this blivet is the worst blow of all.

[JeremyL]

The State can "tax" the gain experienced by the insurance companies.

Sure they do not insure that "We The People" don't get shafted. Also, the Federal Gov't can tax the State for the gain experienced.

We need people like you who are willing to get the word out!
We need a National Coalition for Controlled Insurance -NCCI.
Jeremy

[JeremyL]

"While I agree that the religious aspect is a bit of a stretch"

This is not a bit of a stretch. Don't confuse what you think is religion with what is supposed to be the real meaning of "Religion" as it applies to the Constitution for the several States written by the most brilliant People then. "Religion" has the same meaning now as it did then, "Conscience and Beliefs which are subject to change from day-to-day". Please, do not confuse "religion" with "worship" though both go hand-in-hand.

Jeremy

[ASDFGHJK]

choose your battles carefully. the reason states require insurance is that cars can cause a lot more damage than most people can afford to cover.

[JeremyL]

Yes, it is a bit of a battle. But, the State cannot allow the insurance companies raise rates based on discrimination (Credit Reports). I hope you have gotten the point of the letter and all else that followed. I hope you would have an opened mind when you re-read the article. I am FOR the People, I stand BY the People and my fight is because OF the People and their LIBERTY.

Jeremy Laughery

[ASDFGHJK]

You got me. I agree that credit reports are over-used and abused. It's the only kind of profiling that seems to be OK.

How about utility reconnect charges, bank NSF fees, and other 'penalties' that amount to usury against the poor?

[gcruse]

We need a moment of prayer, or other
positive thought, for the Establishment clause

Dear God,

Please keep your hands
in your own pockets.

Amen.

[JeremyL]

Hmmmm, the word 'Usury' seems to be a word used a lot in posts to this topic. Maybe we should look into the fact that the State is engaging in "Usury" by "using" insurance companies for self-enrichment.

Is the problem we are dealing with a problem 'of the state'
or is it a problem 'of the people'? Or is my question an oxy-moron?

Is the phrase 'We are the State, we are here to help' fluff or what?

Insurance should be handled locally and rates should be based on District activity (accidents, etc.). Do you agree?

Jeremy

[ASDFGHJK]

I agree that the risk premium a person pays ought to be in proportion to the risk he presents to his insuror, and that insurors ought to find a way to organize themselves to accomodate that 'courtesy' profitably.

I'm afraid the trend is moving in the opposite direction, however, to greater centralization and aggregate ways and means, in all human endeavors, save one.

[Sledge]

We need a moment of prayer

That should be:

Dear God,

Please keep their hands
in their own pockets.

Can I get an Amen?

[JeremyL]

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!

[nanny]

Yes, it is everywhere.

In Texas, you must carry liability insurance in order to get a driver's license or auto tags. Of course, we all know that each and every illegal alien in Texas carries liability insurance - don't we? This is exactly where the difficulty lies. There is an estimate that about 1/3 of the drivers on the road do not have liability insurance - so guess who is paying when they cause an accident.

I don't really approve of a state mandated insurance, however, I do feel there should be a way to insure that a person is going to be responsible for the damage caused by him/her and his/her automobile. Unfortunately, the government (any government) will never make the illegals responsible for themselves

[Husker24]

Well im 25 now and still pay hellacious insurance, so it isnt that far back.

[JeremyL]

I am afraid that insurance companies should not profit since the Federal and State Gov't can 'tax' that gain. Even if the Federal and State Gov't did not 'tax' the gain, I am afraid that insurance companies should be non-profit due our oppressive condition we 'all' insured experience today. Notice how the words 'tax' and 'usury' are used a lot in the posts. The real problem 'may' be 'usury' by 'taxation' or 'taxation' by 'usury'. Are we on a roll? Anyone like to add? Insurance should no longer be a commodity to buy if the State orders the People have it. Insurance should be a controlled 'system' owned by the People. "We The People" Right? It is our roads and highways "We The People" should be able to form a "National Coalition for Controlled Insurance" -NCCI. This is the only way the the People can insure that rates are 'not' Usury and insurance cannot be taxed because it will be non-profit. "We The People" must keep the "Moralless, Conscienceless, Characterless" entity (Corporation) in check.

Jeremy

[sarasmom]

The truth! You must actively decline un-insured motorist insurance in Florida. Florida, which mandates insurance for all drivers.But drivers are also required to insure with additional insurance, the same insurance laws that the state is not enforcing,ie penalty laws for uninsured motorists.

Which means only those who the state chooses to procecute for non-compliance with state mandated insurance requirements, really have to have insurance. But if you do not have insurance, the state may or may not, depending on its whim, prosecute you for not having insurance.But if you have insurance, required by the state, and let it lapse for 30 days, the state will revoke your driving licence.

Head spinning yet?

If you have no insurance, you are covered by un-insured motorist insurance from your victims policy.If you have insurance, and refuse to pay the additional costs of un-insured motorist costs, an un-insured motorist may sue you for an accident they caused.

Head continues to spin.Welcome to amerika.

[JeremyL]

One solution is an indirect gas tax of about 1 cent per gallon and 1 cent from the Federal clean air tax combined to create a Trust fund that is non-profit. The fund would help relieve the burden due to uninsured drivers causing accidents. Now, when an uninsured driver causes an accident he or she must face the reality of paying back what is spent out of the Trust fund. The Trust fund is accumulated with respect to the number of uninsured motorists and will top-off, lowering the gax tax respectively. This seems logic since insurance is kept in a Trust Fund that is controlled by the People.

Now, "We The People" have the power to control the insurance rates by this method, 'lowering' insurance rates all over. This will not solve the problem fully though. But, it is a start.

Agree?

Jeremy

[general_re]

Silly me. I thought you could just avoid all this by paying your bills on time, not living beyond your means, and generally keeping your credit clean in the first place.

but if that proves impossible for whatever reason, I don't suppose that it's worth pointing out that there are perfectly legal ways to drive a car without carrying liability insurance...

[JeremyL]

OH? Would you care to elaborate?

[JeremyL]

The premise of the argument is not about who's got bad credit if you will. But about the fact that insurance companies overun the People. Credit scores should never be an issue when a company decides if it wants to underwrite a traveler based on potential loss according to a 'Credit Score'.