The Health Care Law.

[Stephanie739]

I dont think you understand how liability works. If everything I own is worth $40K an I hit you in your $100K car or paralyzes you from the neck down, you are out of luck. You can only recoup up to my net worth from me or my insurance.. That $40K is all you will ever get no matter what it cost you. My insurance did not help you one bit. It saved me from losing my house though. Now I could insure my car for more an you then could sue for more but insurers frown on that. Now if I am flat broke that is where the state minimum insurance comes in. You can be sued for that no matter what.


There was also a comment about buying more medical to cover family in a crash. Family that lives with you is not covered under normal Auto medical. You have to pay extra to cover them at all.

If you only have the state minimum, and the damages you cause exceed your liability limit, the company or settlement via a lawsuit could require you to pay more either through liens on a home, payments, etc. This is why people with more assets to protect generally buy more insurance. You could exhaust the policy limit and still owe someone for additional damages for the rest of your life, though I doubt you would lose your primary home.

Auto insurance is state regulated. Different policies and legal requirements for different states. Medical coverage for passengers in my state is an option.

 

[hemet dennis]

Well. hemet,dennis, when I consider politics seldom do I consider the well-being of the top 10%. I assume they are fine. What I worry about are the families that live paycheck-to-paycheck. If you are only concerned with the top 10% then, by all means, vote republican. Always vote for whoever bests suits you, I won't fault you for that.

I don't see the health care law as politics and I don't worry about the top 10%. You just missed the point.
Where does the family that's living paycheck to paycheck get the money to pay for this new bill ?
When they say this law will lower insurance cost wont that help the 10% ?
The law will raise the cost to businesses so they will raise prices that will hurt the 10% the least.

Take a family of 4, what will their health insurance cost ? If they are poor it will cost them nothing and the government will pay it. So the taxpayers will along with higher prices on everything else. So the middle class will have less spending money and that will hurt business more and they may have to raise prices more. See where this is going ?

 

[chickened]

Exactley. Right now I pay more for my insurance policy because I carry "uninsured motorist" to cover the people who don't pay for auto insurance and drive anyway. I pay more because they don't want to pay. Not very fair. Be better if they payed and all of the premiums would lesson as the risk is spread around with more people in the pot.

Then making those that do not own a car pay auto insurance is OK? afterall they may drive and/or get in an accident and need covered.

 

[cupman]

I guess you just don't comprehend how much you are spending in overhead. If you take a look at this bill and your first reaction is to see the poor as a victim I really do not know what to say. Delusional as the website you linked us the other day. You are a victim of sensationalism.

To say you don't see the health care law as political? I just don't get you.

 

[Royd]

I don't see the health care law as politics and I don't worry about the top 10%. You just missed the point.
Where does the family that's living paycheck to paycheck get the money to pay for this new bill ?
When they say this law will lower insurance cost wont that help the 10% ?
The law will raise the cost to businesses so they will raise prices that will hurt the 10% the least.

Take a family of 4, what will their health insurance cost ? If they are poor it will cost them nothing and the government will pay it. So the taxpayers will along with higher prices on everything else. So the middle class will have less spending money and that will hurt business more and they may have to raise prices more. See where this is going ?

Not to mention doctors starting to make escape plans by the droves. If 1/4 of the older doctors bail and discourage young people from taking on mountains of debt and risk because there's no real reward, it's the Stone in the Pond effect. It'll be like the internet logjam when Obama gets voted out of office.

 

[chickened]

I am saying that if someone gets in an accident the person at fault should pay. Whether you have car insurance or not. If the person at fault chose to have car insurance he has to pay less out of pocket.
I do not know which statement contradicted the previous.

The person without insurance should be at fault because they should not be driving... again a law that rewards lawlessness.

 

[chickened]

Ok, Matthew, I get you more now. My only problem with your comment is the ability of the person to pay. You might be living good, enough money to do whatever you want... but not everybody who drives can say the same thing. If I crashed into a 2012 Chevy corvette tomorrow because I was distracted and messed up I could not pay for it. I would say most all of us aren't in the position to fork over 80 grand on a single-second error. Just because you feel you are responsible isn't enough. Are you suggesting our entire society is prepared to deal with an error that leaves them out 100 grand? No, and that is why we have insurance.

You can always ride the bus... or live within your means.

 

[chickened]

I know it is the poor and often those having trouble living within the boundaries of the legal system who are most often the uninsured. I always speak up for the poor as well as those who suffer under our inJustice system.

Does the definition of poor include those that can buy I-phones, video games, beer and cigarettes at 6.00 a pack? but not insurance as someone said 40.00 a month.

 

[cupman]

I don't really get this comment. Why would I ride the bus? I have a car and I pay my insurance. My comment was a response to saying auto insurance was unnecessary. I think you are trying hard to make a joke but lack the sense to do so.

 

[chickened]

if a person can't afford auto insurance, they should not drive around, obviously they cannot pay for damages if they hurt someone if they don't have insurance. How about this, instead of deadbeat, I will say this: "Selfish people that cannot afford auto insurance or to pay for the damages they cause other people but drive anyway because they feel entitled to endanger other people's lives and property without having any way to compensate them."

People who drive uninsured risk not only thier own wellbeing and property, they endanger my life and property, and they have no means to pay.... How is that okay?

Deadbeat is OK with me and apparently the backers of OC.