Socialized medicine's inevitable death panels

[Seth]

Sucks to be them. I guess they should have insured themselves against that peril. Ever hear of "uninsured motorist coverage?"

Are you saying an individual is liable only if he or she can afford to cover the tab? Sounds a bit like Marxism to me.

No, an individual is always liable for wrongful conduct. Whether or not the plaintiff can collect damages is another thing entirely. That's why potential plaintiffs probably ought to assess the risk of being injured by another and decide whether or not they should contract with an insurer to cover that peril they face.

That's how insurance works, you see.

For example, I carry liability insurance as part of my renter's insurance which covers me if I forget to shovel the walk and someone slips and falls and sues me. Why should driving a car be any different? If I believe the risk that I will do something wrong and will expose me to liability is high enough then it's prudent for me to buy a liability policy. On the other hand, if I don't think that risk is significant, I can save the money and take my chances.

[Tero]

And if you ruinmy health in a car crash, i was just supposed to carry my own insurance? Suppose I was a pedestrian?

[subversive science]

Sucks to be them. I guess they should have insured themselves against that peril. Ever hear of "uninsured motorist coverage?"

Are you saying an individual is liable only if he or she can afford to cover the tab? Sounds a bit like Marxism to me.

No, an individual is always liable for wrongful conduct. Whether or not the plaintiff can collect damages is another thing entirely. That's why potential plaintiffs probably ought to assess the risk of being injured by another and decide whether or not they should contract with an insurer to cover that peril they face.

That's how insurance works, you see.

For example, I carry liability insurance as part of my renter's insurance which covers me if I forget to shovel the walk and someone slips and falls and sues me. Why should driving a car be any different? If I believe the risk that I will do something wrong and will expose me to liability is high enough then it's prudent for me to buy a liability policy. On the other hand, if I don't think that risk is significant, I can save the money and take my chances.

But, what you are suggesting by your previous posts is that the person who slips on ice should carry his or her own insurance for protection from YOUR liability stemming from not properly deicing the sidewalk.

[pErvinalia]

Sucks to be them. I guess they should have insured themselves against that peril. Ever hear of "uninsured motorist coverage?"

Are you saying an individual is liable only if he or she can afford to cover the tab? Sounds a bit like Marxism to me.

No, an individual is always liable for wrongful conduct. Whether or not the plaintiff can collect damages is another thing entirely. That's why potential plaintiffs probably ought to assess the risk of being injured by another and decide whether or not they should contract with an insurer to cover that peril they face.

That's how insurance works, you see.

The plaintiff should be allowed to enslave the person who is unable to pay for the damages. It's fair and right.

[Seth]

And if you ruinmy health in a car crash, i was just supposed to carry my own insurance? Suppose I was a pedestrian?

I was a pedestrian when I got run over by a drunk off-duty Coors beer truck driver who got tanked at the brewery before running over me and my car insurance paid my medical bills because I paid them for "uninsured motorist" coverage, which happened to include being injured by a motor vehicle while a pedestrian.

So yes, exactly.

[Seth]

Sucks to be them. I guess they should have insured themselves against that peril. Ever hear of "uninsured motorist coverage?"

Are you saying an individual is liable only if he or she can afford to cover the tab? Sounds a bit like Marxism to me.

No, an individual is always liable for wrongful conduct. Whether or not the plaintiff can collect damages is another thing entirely. That's why potential plaintiffs probably ought to assess the risk of being injured by another and decide whether or not they should contract with an insurer to cover that peril they face.

That's how insurance works, you see.

For example, I carry liability insurance as part of my renter's insurance which covers me if I forget to shovel the walk and someone slips and falls and sues me. Why should driving a car be any different? If I believe the risk that I will do something wrong and will expose me to liability is high enough then it's prudent for me to buy a liability policy. On the other hand, if I don't think that risk is significant, I can save the money and take my chances.

But, what you are suggesting by your previous posts is that the person who slips on ice should carry his or her own insurance for protection from YOUR liability stemming from not properly deicing the sidewalk.

Not quite. Why should I have liability for an icy sidewalk in the first place? I didn't make it snow, and somebody who comes onto my sidewalk does so (IMHO) at their own risk, and they ought to watch where they step. If they are concerned about breaking a hip falling down in the winter they should get a policy that covers that injury.

Insurance is about compensating the insured against the peril insured, not about who is liable for the injury. That's what civil court and tort law are for. A good insurance policy only cares that the insured did not cause the injury in order to defraud the company, at least when it comes to paying off on the covered peril.

You worried about slipping and falling on the ice...or anywhere else...then take out a slip-and-fall policy. Don't expect everyone else on the planet to take out a liability policy to help you out. Be responsible for your own life and safety.

If you think I acted negligently, then file a civil suit and prove it. But decide carefully, since loser pays...or should.

[piscator]

Why should I have liability for an icy sidewalk in the first place?

Because by the time my attorneys get through with you, you'll wish you had recognized your responsibility as a property owner...

Like most Libertardians, you seem to live in a fantasy land shrouded in fogs of ignorance. YOU incurred the possibility of liability when you freely and voluntarily chose to become a slumlord who neglects to clear his walks. You may not make water freeze, but you bought that sidewalk in the full and reasonable knowledge that water does freeze, and that ice is slick. Tort law everywhere recognizes your responsibility to clear your walks, and your negligence when you refuse to accept that responsibility.


Speaking of slips, it's called "Landlord insurance", a form of casualty insurance.
"Renter[']s insurance" covers your belongings from loss or damage while you rent from someone else.

[Seth]

Why should I have liability for an icy sidewalk in the first place?

Because by the time my attorneys get through with you, you'll wish you had recognized your responsibility as a property owner..

Stay off my property and you won't have a problem.

Like most Libertardians, you seem to live in a fantasy land shrouded in fogs of ignorance. YOU incurred the possibility of liability when you freely and voluntarily chose to become a slumlord who neglects to clear his walks.

Nice goalpost shift there. I wasn't talking about "slumlords" I was talking about my house and my sidewalk. If I don't want to shovel it I shouldn't have to. If you set foot on my property you do so on the condition that you are completely responsible for your health and safety and I don't owe you a duty of care other than to avoid setting deliberate traps to injure you. I don't shovel my walks precisely because it provides an invitation and an expectation that it will be ice-free, which I cannot and will not guarantee, so you can wade through the snow at your own risk or go away.

As for the slumlord, the same reasoning applies.

You may not make water freeze, but you bought that sidewalk in the full and reasonable knowledge that water does freeze, and that ice is slick.

And you use it knowing exactly the same thing. So why am I responsible for your stupidity? If you can't navigate icy sidewalks then don't. Or wear a pair of crampons and carry an ice axe. If it's private property you shouldn't be there in the first place without an invitation, and any invitation I extend requires that you accept personal responsibility for your own health and safety. If you don't want to accept responsibility, then don't set foot on my property.

As for cities, the notion that the adjoining property owner is liable for clearing a city-owned sidewalk is pure socialist bilge, as is the notion that I'm required to dedicate part of my property to public use by requiring me to pay for and install a sidewalk on MY property adjacent to the public street just so the city (meaning the taxpayers) doesn't have to pay for it or pay to maintain it. Fuck that. If the city owns it, the city's responsible for maintaining it and it's liable for injuries. If I own the property, stay the fuck off of it because I do NOT grant you an easement of any kind to walk across my property.

Tort law everywhere recognizes your responsibility to clear your walks, and your negligence when you refuse to accept that responsibility.

If that's what the law says, the law is a ass.

Speaking of slips, it's called "Landlord insurance", a form of casualty insurance.
"Renter[']s insurance" covers your belongings from loss or damage while you rent from someone else.

Yes, my landlord has liability insurance that covers him, but I also have liability insurance as a part of my renter's package to cover me if, for example, I forget to shovel the walk. I buy this voluntarily because I have assets I wish to protect against a negligence lawsuit. But if I didn't have any attachable assets, I might well eschew liability coverage and laugh in your lawyer's face when you try to sue me. Being "judgment proof" is a great thing, and there are ways to do it while still controlling substantial assets by using LLCs and trusts. And that's why YOU should insure yourself against MY negligent acts, because there's no guarantee you'll be able to collect even if you win a lawsuit.

But why I should be required by law to insure YOU...and everybody else, is simply beyond reason.

[subversive science]

A bit inconsistent. Which is it? This one?

For example, I carry liability insurance as part of my renter's insurance which covers me if I forget to shovel the walk and someone slips and falls and sues me.

...or this one?

You worried about slipping and falling on the ice...or anywhere else...then take out a slip-and-fall policy. Don't expect everyone else on the planet to take out a liability policy to help you out.

[Seth]

A bit inconsistent. Which is it? This one?

For example, I carry liability insurance as part of my renter's insurance which covers me if I forget to shovel the walk and someone slips and falls and sues me.

...or this one?

You worried about slipping and falling on the ice...or anywhere else...then take out a slip-and-fall policy. Don't expect everyone else on the planet to take out a liability policy to help you out.

It's not at all inconsistent. The thrust of this particular vein of discussion was regarding MANDATORY insurance, in this case mandatory liability insurance for motorists, which morphed into a more generalized discussion of liability. My problem with mandatory liability insurance is that it's the government forcing me to buy something that I may not want or need for the benefit of unidentified persons whom I may or may not harm somehow. It's not that the notion of liability insurance is a bad one (although it really is), it's the coercive element involved. I take umbrage at being threatened with the Mace of State so that I will spend my labor and property on behalf of others on the specious notion that I'm so much of an inherent threat to everyone else that I must insure all of society against my potential wrongdoing.

It's a moral, ethical and philosophical objection to being enslaved by government, not an argument that carrying liability insurance is not generally a good idea if you have assets you wish to protect.

Mandatory auto liability insurance is another one of those Progressive/socialist things that insurance companies jumped on because they make money providing largely unused coverage that nobody can go without...sort of like Obamacare.

The core idea behind auto liability insurance requirements is the notion that it's not "fair" for the victim of some person's negligence to have to go to court and prove the case to get compensation for an injury. It may not be fair, but it's far less fair to burden the vast majority of people who don't act negligently with having to by unnecessary and useless insurance to protect other people if they don't want to do so. As I said before, before mandatory liability insurance came along my insurer routinely offered "uninsured motorist" coverage that covered ME against malfeasance by someone who didn't have any insurance or assets. I could opt not to pay for that coverage if I wanted. Now I have to pay for a policy that protects everyone else, which I object to on principle.

[subversive science]

How are you enslaved? If you don't want health insurance, just pay the small penalty. That's better than car insurance, which is mandatory if you plan to drive a car in most states.

[Seth]

How are you enslaved? If you don't want health insurance, just pay the small penalty. That's better than car insurance, which is mandatory if you plan to drive a car in most states.

The "small penalty" gets bigger every year, but that's beside the point. Having to pay a single penny that I don't voluntarily agree to pay for insurance is morally and ethically wrong.

[subversive science]

Morals and ethics are relative.

[piscator]

A bit inconsistent. Which is it? This one?

For example, I carry liability insurance as part of my renter's insurance which covers me if I forget to shovel the walk and someone slips and falls and sues me.

...or this one?

You worried about slipping and falling on the ice...or anywhere else...then take out a slip-and-fall policy. Don't expect everyone else on the planet to take out a liability policy to help you out.

It's not at all inconsistent. The thrust of this particular vein of discussion was regarding MANDATORY insurance, in this case mandatory liability insurance for motorists, which morphed into a more generalized discussion of liability. My problem with mandatory liability insurance is that it's the government forcing me to buy something that I may not want or need for the benefit of unidentified persons whom I may or may not harm somehow.

Insurance is functionally mandatory for all of us members of the First World, one way or another.

[Seth]

Morals and ethics are relative.

That doesn't excuse one from having to show one's work when claiming a decision is moral or ethical. Simply proclaiming moral relativism is just evasion.