Socialized medicine's inevitable death panels

[MrJonno]

I actually get private healthcare paid for by my work ,I don't pay anything directly for it but its a taxable benefit so costs me about £150 per year (costs the company £750) and I have to pay a maximum of £100 for any treatment per year (that's total not for each treatment). It's optional to take it and plenty of people in my office don't want to pay the £150

Presumably its that cheap because anything that is chronic or actually expensive the private healthcare company will just farm it off to the NHS, but even at £750 if paid for it myself I wouldn't bother .

The main reason I think the business pays for it is means you can choose your treatments to coincide with work hours , I of course entitled to effectively unlimited time off (paid) for health reasons but if I have private healthcare I would be expected to minimise it.

[subversive science]

I'm not sure if Seth has answered this in the past, but does he have car insurance? Most states in the US require drivers to be insured.

[piscator]

I'm not sure if Seth has answered this in the past, but does he have car insurance? Most states in the US require drivers to be insured.

Yep. And compulsory auto liability insurance lowers premiums for all policyholders.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers


inb4 "Driving is voluntary." - So is working for $$. So is eating. And they are all just about as functionally compulsory in the USA...

[Seth]

I'm not sure if Seth has answered this in the past, but does he have car insurance? Most states in the US require drivers to be insured.

Liability insurance is mandatory, but shouldn't be. Why should I insure the rest of society against my potential bad acts? If others think I'm a risk, let them insure themselves against whatever perils they deem necessary. Mandatory liability insurance is nothing more than a gigantic fraud perpetrated by insurance industry in cahoots with the liberal progressive morons in the legislature to enrich insurance companies.

In other words, it's just like Obamacare, a giant fraud on the public.

[Seth]

I'm not sure if Seth has answered this in the past, but does he have car insurance? Most states in the US require drivers to be insured.

Yep. And compulsory auto liability insurance lowers premiums for all policyholders.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers


inb4 "Driving is voluntary." - So is working for $$. So is eating. And they are all just about as functionally compulsory in the USA...

So what? You're just stating a fallacious appeal to common practice...again.

Walking down the sidewalk is optional. Why should I have to buy a liability policy to cover other pedestrians in the event that I stumble and knock them down and injure them? Or shove them down for that matter? If they think that's a peril they need coverage for, then they can contract with an insurance company to cover that peril, or any other peril they find unacceptably likely. If they choose not to insure against that peril, then they assume the risk of me stumbling and injuring them, at which point they can sue me for damages. If I happen to be insolvent and they can't collect, well, too bad for them, I guess they should have insured themselves against that peril. But the fact that they didn't isn't my problem and I object to them forcing me to insure them. Let them insure themselves and I'll insure myself if and as I deem reasonable and necessary.

[piscator]

I'm not sure if Seth has answered this in the past, but does he have car insurance? Most states in the US require drivers to be insured.

Yep. And compulsory auto liability insurance lowers premiums for all policyholders.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers


inb4 "Driving is voluntary." - So is working for $$. So is eating. And they are all just about as functionally compulsory in the USA...

So what? You're just stating a fallacious appeal to common practice...again.

Walking down the sidewalk is optional. Why should I have to buy a liability policy to cover other pedestrians in the event that I stumble and knock them down and injure them? Or shove them down for that matter? If they think that's a peril they need coverage for, then they can contract with an insurance company to cover that peril, or any other peril they find unacceptably likely. If they choose not to insure against that peril, then they assume the risk of me stumbling and injuring them, at which point they can sue me for damages. If I happen to be insolvent and they can't collect, well, too bad for them, I guess they should have insured themselves against that peril. But the fact that they didn't isn't my problem and I object to them forcing me to insure them. Let them insure themselves and I'll insure myself if and as I deem reasonable and necessary.

You're making a fallacious non sequitur. If you're going to drive - and driving's pretty much required to join American society outside Manhattan - you're compelled to carry liability insurance to protect the taxpayer as well as your fellow man.

So answer the question: Do you have auto liability insurance?

[MrJonno]

Evil marxist car insurance, it was well known in Das Kapital that Karl Marx said the revolution has to be prepared for by arming the proletariat with insurance for their motor vehicles

[subversive science]

Liability insurance is mandatory, but shouldn't be. Why should I insure the rest of society against my potential bad acts? If others think I'm a risk, let them insure themselves against whatever perils they deem necessary.

So you're saying that if you damage someone's property, you should not be held liable?

[macdoc]

He won't answer since he could not square that with the nonsense he spouts about AGW -

that CO2 emitters need to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions....selective lacunae

he still hasn't grasped the soci in society.

[Seth]

Liability insurance is mandatory, but shouldn't be. Why should I insure the rest of society against my potential bad acts? If others think I'm a risk, let them insure themselves against whatever perils they deem necessary.

So you're saying that if you damage someone's property, you should not be held liable?

Of course not. If I damage someone's property I SHOULD be held liable. And I can be. That's what tort law is all about. The point is that unless and until I do damage someone, why should I have to pay for an "insurance" policy that covers them, not me?

In my life I've paid thousands of dollars for liability coverage for my automobiles but I've never once damaged someone else's property and had a claim made against that policy. It's a complete waste of money.

As I said, if you believe that I or someone else poses a risk to you, then assess that risk and buy an insurance policy that will cover YOUR losses...if you want to. Don't try to force me to insure you.

[Seth]

I'm not sure if Seth has answered this in the past, but does he have car insurance? Most states in the US require drivers to be insured.

Yep. And compulsory auto liability insurance lowers premiums for all policyholders.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers


inb4 "Driving is voluntary." - So is working for $$. So is eating. And they are all just about as functionally compulsory in the USA...

So what? You're just stating a fallacious appeal to common practice...again.

Walking down the sidewalk is optional. Why should I have to buy a liability policy to cover other pedestrians in the event that I stumble and knock them down and injure them? Or shove them down for that matter? If they think that's a peril they need coverage for, then they can contract with an insurance company to cover that peril, or any other peril they find unacceptably likely. If they choose not to insure against that peril, then they assume the risk of me stumbling and injuring them, at which point they can sue me for damages. If I happen to be insolvent and they can't collect, well, too bad for them, I guess they should have insured themselves against that peril. But the fact that they didn't isn't my problem and I object to them forcing me to insure them. Let them insure themselves and I'll insure myself if and as I deem reasonable and necessary.

You're making a fallacious non sequitur. If you're going to drive - and driving's pretty much required to join American society outside Manhattan - you're compelled to carry liability insurance to protect the taxpayer as well as your fellow man.

So answer the question: Do you have auto liability insurance?

The question is whether being compelled to carry liability insurance is reasonable, rational, logical and fair. It's not, for the reasons mentioned above. Whether I carry it is not relevant to whether or not I should have to carry it.

[subversive science]

Liability insurance is mandatory, but shouldn't be. Why should I insure the rest of society against my potential bad acts? If others think I'm a risk, let them insure themselves against whatever perils they deem necessary.

So you're saying that if you damage someone's property, you should not be held liable?

Of course not. If I damage someone's property I SHOULD be held liable. And I can be. That's what tort law is all about. The point is that unless and until I do damage someone, why should I have to pay for an "insurance" policy that covers them, not me?

In my life I've paid thousands of dollars for liability coverage for my automobiles but I've never once damaged someone else's property and had a claim made against that policy. It's a complete waste of money.

As I said, if you believe that I or someone else poses a risk to you, then assess that risk and buy an insurance policy that will cover YOUR losses...if you want to. Don't try to force me to insure you.

And what happens if you can't cover a liability?

[Seth]

Liability insurance is mandatory, but shouldn't be. Why should I insure the rest of society against my potential bad acts? If others think I'm a risk, let them insure themselves against whatever perils they deem necessary.

So you're saying that if you damage someone's property, you should not be held liable?

Of course not. If I damage someone's property I SHOULD be held liable. And I can be. That's what tort law is all about. The point is that unless and until I do damage someone, why should I have to pay for an "insurance" policy that covers them, not me?

In my life I've paid thousands of dollars for liability coverage for my automobiles but I've never once damaged someone else's property and had a claim made against that policy. It's a complete waste of money.

As I said, if you believe that I or someone else poses a risk to you, then assess that risk and buy an insurance policy that will cover YOUR losses...if you want to. Don't try to force me to insure you.

And what happens if you can't cover a liability?

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

[subversive science]

Liability insurance is mandatory, but shouldn't be. Why should I insure the rest of society against my potential bad acts? If others think I'm a risk, let them insure themselves against whatever perils they deem necessary.

So you're saying that if you damage someone's property, you should not be held liable?

Of course not. If I damage someone's property I SHOULD be held liable. And I can be. That's what tort law is all about. The point is that unless and until I do damage someone, why should I have to pay for an "insurance" policy that covers them, not me?

In my life I've paid thousands of dollars for liability coverage for my automobiles but I've never once damaged someone else's property and had a claim made against that policy. It's a complete waste of money.

As I said, if you believe that I or someone else poses a risk to you, then assess that risk and buy an insurance policy that will cover YOUR losses...if you want to. Don't try to force me to insure you.

And what happens if you can't cover a liability?

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.

[macdoc]