Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

State Induce Oppression
Jeremy E. Laughery | 8-18-2002 | Jeremy E. Laughery

Posted on 08/18/2002 5:05:52 PM PDT by JeremyL

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061 next last
To: general_re
Maybe we can start with the difference between a 'traveler' and a 'driver'. Is that how the argument starts out? A 'driver' is doing business and a 'traveler' is not.

I would be interested to know the rest.

Jeremy
41 posted on 08/18/2002 8:37:27 PM PDT by JeremyL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: JeremyL
I am afraid that insurance companies should not profit

I'm sorry. I think it's pointless to read beyond this line.
Best.

42 posted on 08/18/2002 8:47:06 PM PDT by ASDFGHJK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: ASDFGHJK
Why do you say that? I am here to protect the People. Are you an insurance agent or represent one?
43 posted on 08/18/2002 8:52:37 PM PDT by JeremyL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: JeremyL
Are you an insurance agent or represent one?

Absolutely not.

44 posted on 08/18/2002 9:01:49 PM PDT by ASDFGHJK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: JeremyL
Call your state Motor Vehicles department for details, but every state I know of actually requires proof of financial security, and not insurance per se. Most people carry liability insurance, because that's the easiest, cheapest way to do it, but there are other ways. Most states will allow you to post a bond for the minimum amount of liability coverage with Motor Vehicles as surety rather than carrying insurance.

Or, if you own many cars, call them and ask what you have to do to self-insure - lots of taxi and limousine companies self-insure their fleets. IIRC, what you basically do is use the value of the several cars you own as surety in case any one of them gets in an accident.

Proof of financial security is the key - that's what they require, really, not insurance. If the idea of paying insurance companies really bothers you, that is. And the best part is that, while it may be uncommon, it's perfectly legal, and you don't have to get all tinfoilish about it.

Of course, what you'll probably find is that posting a bond is expensive, whereas insurance is relatively cheap, but you do have legal options. ;)

45 posted on 08/18/2002 9:02:38 PM PDT by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Call your state Motor Vehicles department for details,

not possible in Mass., oh you can call but no one is going to answer. Besides, I really doubt you can legally drive a car without insurance in Mass. It's actually a "criminal" offense.

46 posted on 08/18/2002 10:57:15 PM PDT by JPJones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: JPJones
not possible in Mass., oh you can call but no one is going to answer.

LOL - I feel your pain. NY DMV isn't much friendlier, but I don't think I can do much to help you with that ;)

Besides, I really doubt you can legally drive a car without insurance in Mass.

Prepare to be amazed. Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 90, Sections 34a and 34d. Actually, take the link at the bottom of either of those pages back to the Chapter 90 table of contents and read sections 34a, 34b, 34c, and 34d.

Interesting, isn't it?

47 posted on 08/18/2002 11:15:13 PM PDT by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Sledge
While I agree that the religious aspect is a bit of a stretch

A "bit"? LOL.

You're not the least bit suspicious of a guy who signs up only to announce that He has Written a Letter and We Must All Act, while making it obvious that he's going to do everything in his power to ensure that all of his letters go straight into the circular file?

I can agree with the following (without hitching my wagon to a fruit loop like Jeremy L):

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.

Now, about this:

Basing the rate on age, sex or marital status is discriminatory.

The insurance companies have all sorts of stats that enable them to assign risk factors when they "gamble". I would normally say this is fine and dandy, except that if the state mandates purchasing the coverage they offer at the rates established by those factors, they are in fact subsidizing discrimination. It's something to look into.

On the other hand, you simply can't have only one side doing all the gambling, as you would have if the state ordered the insurance companies to provide coverage at a lower rate than they feel willprovide for all payouts and still leave them solvent. Then they will simply stop offering the insurance. This was a problem in New Jersey a few years ago, for all I know it still is.

48 posted on 08/19/2002 5:09:17 AM PDT by hellinahandcart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: JeremyL
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.

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.

There are many things you need, Jeremy, but please keep "dictionary" up near the top of your list.

49 posted on 08/19/2002 5:13:57 AM PDT by hellinahandcart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
...with bad credit.
50 posted on 08/19/2002 5:15:52 AM PDT by jammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: general_re
I AM amazed! < ks or bonds. Section 34D. The applicant for registration may, in lieu of procuring a motor vehicle liability bond or policy, deposit with the state treasurer cash in the amount of ten thousand dollars

So, if I'm reading most of 34d correctly, you could give the state treasurer ten-thousand in stocks, bonds, or cash, and collect the interest on the that. And if you don't get in any accidents your money is safe? What about tickets? This would seemingly make you immune to any points system.... (which is nice)

51 posted on 08/19/2002 8:16:12 AM PDT by JPJones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: JPJones
So, if I'm reading most of 34d correctly, you could give the state treasurer ten-thousand in stocks, bonds, or cash, and collect the interest on the that.

Well, $10K in cash or a bond, actually. Probably not stocks or bonds of the EE Treasury bond type. What you'd do for a bond is go to a duly-licensed surety company in MA, and get a bond from them by pledging something of value as collateral, such as stocks or whatever. Then you give that bond to the state. Or you can give them $10K in cash.

And if you don't get in any accidents your money is safe?

Correct. The best analogy is to think of it like a damage deposit when you rent an apartment. The state holds it in escrow for you, like a landlord does with a damage deposit, and if there is an accident, you agree that the state can take that money and use it to automatically settle any judgements against you, just like you agree that the landlord can take your damage deposit and automatically use it to fix any damages you cause to an apartment. And the state is required to pay interest on it while holding it, so if, when you deregister your car, there are no judgements against you, you get your money back plus interest.

What about tickets? This would seemingly make you immune to any points system.... (which is nice)

Correct. Insofar as insurance companies use your driving record to figure out your premiums, you no longer have to worry about points. However, Motor Vehicles will still track points for purposes of suspending or revoking your license, I'm sure.

Here's the rub, though - $10,000 is very low. I'm surprised by how low it is in MA - here in NY, you have to put up cash or a bond for the amount of the legal minimum of liability coverage, which is $50,000. If you get into a serious accident that you are found liable for, $10,000 won't even begin to cover your liabilities in terms of damage to property or persons.

But, the point is that there are options besides insurance. Most people aren't willing to put up $10,000 in cash ($50,000 here in NY), or they don't have that much in cash, or they're not willing to use their houses and such as collateral for a bond (or they don't know they can - very few people are aware that you can do this), so they get insurance instead. But there are options.

Best thing to do is get in touch with the surly reprobates at Mass. DMV and find out the precise details - this undoubtedly involves a mountain of paperwork, but it can be done ;)

52 posted on 08/19/2002 8:44:42 AM PDT by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
This idiocy is so glaring, anything of merit that might be in the screed has already run for the hills.

Amen!

53 posted on 08/19/2002 8:48:38 AM PDT by wattsmag2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jammer
Yup. I started to mention that.
54 posted on 08/19/2002 9:52:38 AM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: general_re
That is some very interesting info...thanks!
55 posted on 08/19/2002 11:19:54 AM PDT by JPJones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: sarasmom
Yes, my head is spinning.

We, too, have uninsured motorist, and I suppose we could decline it, but it would be folly to do so in this state, since there are so many here who thumb their noses at all our laws and the courts will do nothing to them.

56 posted on 08/19/2002 1:03:55 PM PDT by nanny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: JeremyL
I am all for anything that will help make people responsible for their own actions. Of course, I won't hold my breath while those causing the accidents pay back the trust fund.

But your idea sounds like a start.

57 posted on 08/19/2002 1:08:20 PM PDT by nanny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: nanny
I dont know about your state, but mine is "no-fault".Which means uninsured motorists insurance is redundant.
58 posted on 08/19/2002 5:00:39 PM PDT by sarasmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: sarasmom
The only 'no-fault' here is for those who refuse to carry insurance.
59 posted on 08/19/2002 6:38:04 PM PDT by nanny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: hellinahandcart
Why do you say that? Here I am trying to fight for your Rights and you lash against me like this! Whipe the cobbwebs from your eyes please.

I don't need a dictionary! Religion, as its meaning by Law and how it applies to the Constitution, will never end up in a dictionary; it will never be taught correctly in schools! What you think is Lawful may not be Legal. Agree?
60 posted on 08/19/2002 8:15:21 PM PDT by JeremyL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson