So, should this be the case for every government mandate? The government requires that we wear seat belts. Should the government take over the companies that make parts for seat belts, or assemble them? After all they require us to wear them and if they didn't car manufacturers wouldn't have to intall them and thus could charge us less.
>So I've been giving this a little thought. If we grant that mandatory car >insurance is here, and it is, then it seems to me only right that insurance >should also be publicly run. Particularly considering that it could, and >absolutely should, be run at costs that are not significantly profitable but >also not at a loss. My thought is that while I'm not a big fan of more >government either, I'm more opposed to government mandates that force people >into supporting a particular private industry that is effectively >unregulated in terms of pricing. The end result there is a law to make >certain individuals rich off of the public. > >Since the public has decided, via their proxies in the government, that the >costs of individuals having insurance is a better choice than individuals in >accidents becoming a burden on the state, then it seems to me that the >public should also be required to manage and finance that insurance. There >should be no such thing as unfunded government mandates, and the funding >solution should not make the public slaves to building the wealth of a few >private individuals. > >I know this is the "socialized" approach to government, but doesn't it make >sense? It basically says, "we'd rather not, but if we have to then let's do >it right and fair." Does that really sound so off base? > >-Kevin > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Heald, Tim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 2:46 PM >Subject: RE: Public car insurance causes more accidents: study was(RE: PUB >LIC AUTO INSURANCE A BETTER DEAL: STUDY) > > >> I was only pointing out Larry's not giving the "whole picture" >> >> Personally I think forced insurance is wrong. >> >> Timothy Heald >> Information Systems Manager >> Overseas Security Advisory Council >> U.S. Department of State >> 571.345.2319 >> >> The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. >> Department of State or any affiliated organization(s). Nor have these >> opinions been approved or sanctioned by these organizations. This e-mail >is >> unclassified based on the definitions in E.O. 12958. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 3:25 PM >> To: CF-Community >> Subject: Re: Public car insurance causes more accidents: study was(RE: >> PUBLIC AUTO INSURANCE A BETTER DEAL: STUDY) >> >> >> Curious. I would have thought that you would be one to argue for personal >> responsibility instead of an organization descriminating to force >behavior. >> >> The public insurance doesn't cause more accidents. The bad drivers cause >the >> accidents. >> >> -Kevin >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Heald, Tim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 12:55 PM >> Subject: Public car insurance causes more accidents: study was(RE: PUBLIC >> AUTO INSURANCE A BETTER DEAL: STUDY) >> >> >> > >http://winnipeg.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=mb_autostudy20030904 >> > >> > Timothy Heald >> > Information Systems Manager >> > Overseas Security Advisory Council >> > U.S. Department of State >> > 571.345.2319 >> > >> > The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. >> > Department of State or any affiliated organization(s). Nor have these >> > opinions been approved or sanctioned by these organizations. This e-mail >> is >> > unclassified based on the definitions in E.O. 12958. >> > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 1:50 PM >> > To: CF-Community >> > Subject: PUBLIC AUTO INSURANCE A BETTER DEAL: STUDY >> > >> > >> > PUBLIC AUTO INSURANCE A BETTER DEAL: STUDY >> > A new study says public auto insurance schemes, such >> > as the one in Manitoba, provides better >> > coverage at lower prices compared to private >> > insurance schemes. >> > >> > FULL STORY >> > >http://winnipeg.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=mb_insurance20030911 >> > >> > Strike another one for government owned companies. >> > >> > larry >> > >> > >> > >> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
