Replies

There's a lot you don't get. I never said it didn't exist, I said you (post 72) couldn't make a blanket statements because the laws vary drastically from state to state. You said (post 74) you were comfortable making that blanket statement and went further to say that proof of financial capability was the "most the law can, or need, require". I showed (post 77) that indeed AZ required third party insurance. You came back 3 days later (post 81) and misrepresented ASRS 28-4007 without bothering to provide a supporting link. I (post 82) quite easily tracked down 28-4007 and found that it applied only to those with fleets of vehicles and those REQUIRED by other statutes (generally tied to chaffeur businesses) to provide proof of financial reliability. You then (post 86) back tracked to a completely different part of the discussion, one I'd already explained wasa joke. And now finally you're able, after much needless tooth pulling, to "recognize it is not a guarantee"... which is all I said in the first place.

Now you're scrambling for more, desperate to win something. I stand by my statement that their (insurance company representatives) job is to get as much money out of you as possible. Actually that's the job of EVERYBODY in business, that's called capitalism and I see no problem with it. There's no malice or condemnation in the statement. My job in the software company I work for is to help them get as much of your money as possible. The job of the waitresses at the Hooters my window overlooks is to get as much of the patrons' money as possible. If you have a job in a free market then your job description boils down to "get money from customers, get more customers, repeat". And our jobs as consumers is to give the business as little money as we can, that's the give and take of a free market. There's nothing ignorant, inciteful or lieing about it, and it's not a joke. And if you don't understand that it's time you picked up some Adam Smith and did some learning.