The American Spectator

John| 4.17.09 @ 6:41AM

Personally, I would have no objection to the author driving on the same roads as the rest of us while having no insurance, provided as he can post a bond equal to the potential damage claim that he may incure should he be responsible for an accident.
Mr. Peters fails to acknowledge that the reason insurance became required was, in part anyway, people driving without insurance who could not pay for the damage they caused.
Driving is not a right. There are costs associated with operating a car on the public highway. If a person can not afford those costs, they should take public transportation or walk.

bruce karlson| 4.17.09 @ 6:47AM

SS fraud cost is the burden on employment of 2 x 7.65% much more job killing and obnoxious. As to insurance, those with assets to protect should have it, those without do not need it. Ergo, it is another wealth transfer from the "have nots" to the "haves".

Jackeline the cars expert| 4.17.09 @ 7:20AM

Once you have a car, it's a must to have an insurance. That's why we have to search for insurance offering cheap premiums but with good coverage to avoid paying much especially when you're not an accident prone driver.

Melvin| 4.17.09 @ 7:31AM

There is one point that we all can probably agree on, well maybe two. We do need vehicle insurance because we live in a litigious environment.
Point Two the insurance companies and the ambulance chasing lawyers are taking advantage, therefore driving the cost of insurance through the roof.
How many times have we gotten that notice in the mail that our vehicle insurance rates are going up, and that is with no accidents or claims.
Some of us have received outright cancellations with no explanation.
With any insurance there will be no relief until we get Tort reform, or another term, loser pays. Until that happens the trial lawyers and the insurance companies are perfectly content to keep things just they way they are.
Bottom line if we want insurance reform, first we have to get law suit reform.

John Navratil| 4.17.09 @ 8:36AM

Spot on!

I love the invective spewed at Peters for simply claiming not to have an obligation to indemnify every other driver he sees. It is what passes for thought these days, I suppose.

Given that there are an infinite number of ways that we can damage our fellow citizens, what other actions should we insure against? For example, I can throw a wild pitch in a baseball game and hit you in the head. I can back my car over your dog. I can injure or kill you bird hunting (think Dick Cheney). I can ski into you. I can go to work with a cold. Just yesterday, in Houston, a man backed over his two-year-old son and killed him (who gets to collect here?)

In all other insurance relations, one voluntarily buys insurance to manage risk for ones self. Here we are compelled to purchase insurance (or to post a bond) in order to ensure there is something to collect against. Naturally, this hits the poor the hardest, but strangely there is not a peep from the usual suspects.

No one argues that driving is a right and society compels a level of responsibility before joining the ranks on the road. A driver's license is one such obligation. A better solution, in my opinion, is a "one bite at the apple" plan. You get out there and hit someone and don't make them whole and you lose your driving privileges. Drive without privileges and go to jail.

Consider what happens today when your state mandated minimums can't cover the damage to the Bentley you just totalled. The Bentley driver has to claim on his own policy against underinsured motorists and you get to keep driving. Should we mandate state minimums large enough to cover the maximum damage we can do? Just drive through the plate glass of that Bentley dealer's showroom and see what a bill you can collect.

(Be very quiet, and don't tell anyone, but you can fly your own airplane without insurance.)

Ralph Nader| 4.17.09 @ 8:38AM

Where can I get “David Mathews” insurance, something to protect my impressionable mind from his attempts at slings and barbs?

I would pay handsomely for such coverage. Any tips?

fred| 4.17.09 @ 8:46AM

In Arizona, approximately 50% of all drivers are uninsured. It's obvious who the majority of those uninsured motorists are....illegal immigrants. Why buy insurance when you have no assets to be sued for to cover damages.
A dear friend of ours was killed by a drunk driver-illegal immigrant. All that happened to him was he was sent back to Nogales Mexico ( 60 miles away).
Uninsured motorists coverage is worthless. It will not cover your vehicle, only injuries sustained in the accident.
I know many anecdotal stories of hit-and-run accidents . They all point to illegal immigration.

Marco Boyce| 4.17.09 @ 8:47AM

"David Mathews" is ignoring an obvious point here.

Have you considered that if we didn't have so many trial lawyers itching to pull the "I'll sue em for ya" trigger on frivolous transgressions, then we wouldn't have this battle royal mindset of distrust among fellow citizens for fear of lawsuit? I.e. a benign 5 mph fender-bender, results in "whiplash", results in a succesful lawsuit, results in a vacation for the lawyer.

If anything, we'd probably have lower insurance rates. Which I think everyone can agree, is better for all.

Speaking of frivolous. Davie-boy, don't you think your schtick is getting a bit tired? At least attempt a modicum of humor with your slander...if you can. Loser.

fred| 4.17.09 @ 8:51AM

I travel in Mexico frequently. If you, an American, have an accident in Mexico without insurance you will go to jail. You will stay in jail until all the proper bribes and fines are paid.
This is also true if you are caught working illegally in Mexico.
However, Mexicans coming across ( on a day trip , legally) into Arizona, are not required to buy temporary insurance. If you are in an accident with them you have no recourse to sue them for damages.

Steve| 4.17.09 @ 8:53AM

It is moronic opinions like this that give Conservatives and Conservatism a bad name. In the name of "freedom" you will drive around without insurance. Its all good till you run into my car and damage it and injure me. Who is going to pay for the repairs, the medical bills, the lost time from work, etc., etc.? There is a reason they call it an "accident." No sane individual runs into another car on purpose. Count yourself blessed that you never ran into another person and injured them while you were exercising your so called "freedom." There would be no need for mandatory insurace laws if free people had a sense of shared responsibility for their neighbours welfare and saw it as simply part of responsible automobeile usage. The drive for constant regulation come because of the knowledge that individuals and corporate entities abuse their freedom for personal gain or simply because they are "ignorant." If everyone took it upon themselves to use an automobile responsibly, including insuring themselves against the possiblity of an accident, there would be no need for regulations. The same is true for a whole host of regulations and entitlements. If we took it upon ourselves to adequately care for the poor, the aged or the creation, a large part of the impetus for regulations and entitlements would be gone. When we push idiotic attitudes like this, we serve up a continuous supply of hanging curve balls for liberals to hit out of the park. It is not unlike the dirty factory, or expolitive employer and a whole host of generally bad behaviour that gives rise to the desire to bring about "corrective" regulations. Its idiots like this who get into accidents without carrying insurance who give rise to the drive to regulate this activity. You are your own worst enemy and you got what you deserved for your bad behaviour and even worse, your irresponsibility has foisted on the rest of us these insurance regulation. Thank you very much...idiot

fred| 4.17.09 @ 8:54AM

You, d. Mathews, are not worthy of a reply.
However, my wife is from Tlaquepaque Mexico. My six children have citizenship in America as well as Mexico.

Curly Smith| 4.17.09 @ 9:01AM

"the weekly fraud payment to Social Insecurity amounting to 7.65 percent"

No, you're paying 15.3%. Why do people always fall for the old canard that the employer pays half? It's your money, it's your gross wages and benefits. Companies don't pay taxes, consumers pay the taxes, and companies don't pay Social Security taxes, the employees do. It's just another scam, like withholding, designed to make you think you're paying less in taxes than you really are. Oh, and by the way, the money you get back from your income taxes isn't from "the government", it's your money.

Marco Boyce| 4.17.09 @ 9:03AM

Davie-boy,
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dmathew1/page935/
Nice pictures. 16,000 of em! Wow, lots of time on your hands I presume.
So I see you were at Honeymoon Island State Park. Do you live near there? My grandmother's old condo is on the island behind the state park. It really is a fabulous place.

jerryofva| 4.17.09 @ 9:21AM

Mr. Peters:

If you still live in Virginia you still don't have to have insurance. All you need to do is post a bond and you don't have to buy your insurance.

Robert Rosencrans| 4.17.09 @ 9:26AM

You could make the same financial argument for government, i.e., since we are all forced to have it, the costs can be set by the insurers, or in the case of government, the politicians.

John Navratil| 4.17.09 @ 9:41AM

Well now I know I am stupid. I was too stupid to know that before. But that was before the sublimely erudite beacon of wisdom that is Mathews shone on my benighted brain. God bless him!

But what is Mr. Mathews to do when some judgement-proof individual damages him with something other than an automobile? Does he have insurance for that? Or does he demand others maintain a stash of cash for him to wallow in? I'm sure he knows and I pray he tells us.

BTW - I had never heard the term "tea bagging" before yesterday. I'm sure it isn't something that anyone I know does. Perhaps Mr. Mathews can tell us about its tasty pleasures. Once again, I pray enlightenment.

John Navratil| 4.17.09 @ 9:41AM

Well now I know I am stupid. I was too stupid to know that before. But that was before the sublimely erudite beacon of wisdom that is Mathews shone on my benighted brain. God bless him!

But what is Mr. Mathews to do when some judgement-proof individual damages him with something other than an automobile? Does he have insurance for that? Or does he demand others maintain a stash of cash for him to wallow in? I'm sure he knows and I pray he tells us.

BTW - I had never heard the term "tea bagging" before yesterday. I'm sure it isn't something that anyone I know does. Perhaps Mr. Mathews can tell us about its tasty pleasures. Once again, I pray enlightenment.

Tim| 4.17.09 @ 10:18AM

"God, conservatives are nothing if not absolutely insane. "

God? What do you know about God? It's just another swear word to you.

Paul from SA| 4.17.09 @ 10:52AM

Eric, Mr. Car Guy, this time I disagree with you.

Auto insurance must be mandatory.

Driving is a privilege; one must have driver's training, a driver's license, a legal (inspected) vehicle, AND insurance to cover the costs of an accident. You simply cannot sue somebody to recoup the monetary loss.

Lack of health or property insurance doesn't hurt anybody directly.

Yes, I have been subsidizing bad drivers all my life. Although I have never been involved in an accident in over 33 years of driving, I do believe I've been overcharged for being such a good and careful driver. Insurance rates should be calculated differently, and should include how many miles you drive.

I was lucky; during my youth, I avoided many mishaps...., I had friends lose their lives and cause much destruction and injury to others (while drunk or on Qualudes). But no more. One must be defensive and avoid being hit by the young crazies and illegals.

Auto insurance is affordable, incredibly competitive and easily transferrable to different locations and cars, unlike health insurance. There is a direct correlation between good and safe driving and insurance costs. Health insurance is totally different.

In Texas, most uninsured drivers are illegal immigrants who probably don't know how to drive.

dcc| 4.17.09 @ 10:53AM

I'd bet the author will change his tune when he gets hit by an uninsured driver.

Marc Jeric| 4.17.09 @ 10:55AM

I see that many normal people keep responding to the ignorant missives by that functional moron D. Mathews. Please, people - ignore him! That name-calling a**hole should be redacted out by the AS editor. Let him join the Abu Hussein's ACORN brownshirts so they together can steal more elections and upgrade statistically the coming 2010 census.

DougN| 4.17.09 @ 10:58AM

David calls Eric Peters a "stupid idiot" and declares that Mr. Peters is an "idiot and a fool."

Whew!

It's one thing for someone engaging in a buffoonish rant to call someone an idiot, but to modify that epithet with the adjective "stupid" crosses the line, I think. I suppose David wants to drive his point home by making us aware of the distinction between stupid idiots, average-intellect idiots, and brilliant idiots, but it's too much, really.

Likewise, I suppose there are distinctions between an idiot and a fool, but I confess ignorance.

Marc Jeric| 4.17.09 @ 11:03AM

The writer above is correct - it's the lawsuits where the loser pays nothing that triples our car insurance rates. The US is the only such civilized country: Japan, Germany, and Great Britain have together some 33,000 lawyers; here we have 1,100,000. Why? In those countries those who lose frivolous lawsuits must pay the costs of the court and of the defendent - direct and indirect. Now that would eliminate at least one million trial lawyer hyenas and ambulance chasers, thus providing this country with that many cheap laborers at $8/hour while reducing any need for illegal Mexican Indians to cross the border for work.

Greg| 4.17.09 @ 11:42AM

Moronic is too kind a term for this guy. I'll bet we would hear the bird singing a different song if he was hit by an uninsured driver and had no recourse after he was permanently disabled. Or maybe if one of his children was. Or parents.

John Navratil| 4.17.09 @ 12:03PM

Does it really matter if you pay to indemnify someone else or pay to insure yourself? In the current system we pay both in the form of liability insurance and the relatively inexpensive uninsured/underinsured coverage which, in Texas, you would be a fool not to have. Insure yourself and don't worry about whether the other guy has insurance. Let your insurance company go after those assets (if any). Then insure your estate from your liability so no one comes after yours. It's not much different from what we have now except it's voluntary.

In the ideal world everyone is financially responsible. In reality it isn't the case. No amount of legislative ink will keep the person who has little more than nothing from driving without insurance. Similarly those with assets will voluntarily carry insurance to protect them. As has been said, no one is out to kill anyone which is why they are called accidents. The poor with state mandated minimums are still just a capable of doing more damage than they can cover. So we throw them in jail for driving without insurance even if they have caused no damage. I'd much prefer that actions be taken as a consequence of a bad behavior than in anticipation of it.

Kevin| 4.17.09 @ 12:33PM

The author is an idiot! This is simply more anti-authoritative rhetoric similar to a three-year-old who throws a temper tantrum because he cannot have it his way.

It's getting to the point that many people think that anything imposed on them is a personal assault. I'm sick of it!

I bet southern slave holders thought their freedoms were being infringed upon also; should we have just continued that horrific way? Hell no! How do you think the slaves felt about it?

Or

How about the industrialists who felt assaulted by child labor laws? “It isn’t fair, I should be able to work children like dogs, they are my property after all.” Does that sit well with anyone?

There are some rules for some good reasons! All you people out there who want it your way, STOP BEING SO SELFISH AND GROW UP!

2Anglico| 4.17.09 @ 12:43PM

Mr. Peters, I can only speak to Florida law for certain but I know most other states are similar. In Florida you must prove "financial responsibility". You may do this by 1. Purchasing insurance or 2. Posting a bond with the state. YOUR choice.
As to the "protection" aspects, many people with insurance are still underinsured. They buy $50,000 of liability coverage but if they miss a stop sign and hit a kid on a bike.... how much is enough?

2Anglico| 4.17.09 @ 12:44PM

Mr. Peters, I can only speak to Florida law for certain but I know most other states are similar. In Florida you must prove "financial responsibility". You may do this by 1. Purchasing insurance or 2. Posting a bond with the state. YOUR choice.
As to the "protection" aspects, many people with insurance are still underinsured. They buy $50,000 of liability coverage but if they miss a stop sign and hit a kid on a bike.... how much is enough?

jeff boulton| 4.17.09 @ 12:45PM

The real crime is that if you ever do file a claim your rates are raised or you are cancelled. Really you are paying for the right to borrow money from the insurance company "*if* you have an accident.

Robert Brennan| 4.17.09 @ 1:29PM

Obviously Eric Peters has never been hit by somebody who didn't have insurance.

Robert Brennan| 4.17.09 @ 1:29PM

Obviously Eric Peters has never been hit by somebody who didn't have insurance.

Joe| 4.17.09 @ 2:42PM

Eric, I understand your point. However, you still did not explain how my car would get fix/paid for if someone hit me and was in the wrong with no insurance. This has happen twice to me already.

Joe| 4.17.09 @ 2:45PM

By the way, bad analogy Kevin.

Kevin| 4.17.09 @ 3:41PM

Joe,

Admittedly, it was probably a bad analogy. However, hopefully my point was not lost. There is currently a tone in much of American writing that is egotistical and selfish. A lot of folks are talking about getting what is theirs. There seems to be no sense of community or responsibility to other human beings! The author implies that insurance protection is unfair to him because he should have the choice to participate or not. He is getting “corn-holed,” and does think he has any responsibility for anyone else but himself. Look, I hate insurance, taxes, and a host of other things imposed on me, but if folks won’t do the right thing, some rules and systems have to be put in place to insure that the right thing will be done.

L. Ross| 4.17.09 @ 4:51PM

The interesting thing here is that no one acknowledges just how dangerous driving is. I can't speak for everyone, but I have been rear-ended a few times in stop and go traffic, I have been rear-ended at a stoplight twice, my cousin was killed in a wreck, my own driving record isn't spotless. Of the activities we participate in on a daily basis, driving is one of the most dangerous. Think of how many serious accidents you saw last year. Now Eric Peters thinks that having an insurance requirement is a bad idea? Don't get me wrong, I do strongly support insurance companies competing for my business, but just think how many people wouldn't buy insurance if not forced. Most likely, the ones with the least to lose, and the least time on the road, and the least ability to make people whole after an accident. I'm sorry, but this idea needs some serious rework.

Paul from SA| 4.17.09 @ 6:53PM

This will become a bigger issue as the baby boomers get older, and no doubt the Democrats will soon be getting involved. Driving your own vehicle allows a person too much freedom and liberty for the liberals to tolerate. Liberals will want to 'help' by forcing us to use public transportation, thus bypassing the need for insurance (or gas).

jones| 4.17.09 @ 9:34PM

From the inept syntax to the inane ideas expressed, this article is so far below the standards of TAS that I can't imagine how it made into print. And "corn-holing"? You must not recognize it as a vulgarity for the most perverse sex act the mind can conjure up.

Lil Steve| 4.17.09 @ 9:36PM

Move to NH. We can still drive around without insurance & shop to save money.
I really wish there was a rebate given or a huge premium discount for no accidents within a certian time frame.
Unfortunatly the libbies are all moving into NH from Mass & want the same stuff they got there.

macdaddy| 4.18.09 @ 1:25AM

The only thing wrong with Mr. Peters' reasoning is the math. There were 6 million car accidents reported to the cops in 2007. There were 1.7 million injuries associated with those accidents. There were 40,000 deaths. The most dangerous of our everyday activities is to get into an automobile. The people who are most likely to get into an accident are least likely to be able to pay for it. Mandatory insurance helps protect me from other drivers. Now, if Obama would be so kind as to pick up the tab...

Mike| 4.18.09 @ 7:41AM

In Dallas, TX, get stopped by police without proof of insurance and watch your car get towed away. It's been great. Our public transportation coffers are growing, our air quality is improving, gas prices are falling, and traffic congestion is easing. Long live mandatory insurance laws...with teeth!

Pecos Pete| 4.18.09 @ 9:38AM

My only car wreck was not my fault. Actually, my car was parked in a parking lot. No one in my car. Lady driver hit my car and totaled it, and hers. She was injured. She sued me. My insurance company fought like hell, and won. Case closed.

fred| 4.18.09 @ 4:12PM

It boils down to this....If you don't have any assets why get car insurance.

fred| 4.18.09 @ 4:14PM

If you're an illegal immigrant.....all you do is make a return trip to the border.
Arizona is not only the kidnapping capital of the USA it is also home of 50% uninsured drivers.

Donald Sammis| 4.18.09 @ 7:58PM

I loaned my car to a responsible adult relative. He was in a fender bender and was "at fault". Florida is a no-fault state, a concept I still cannot get my arms around. Outcome of this situation: driver's (my relative) out of state insurance, not a player. Victims claims (other car) paid by my insurance. I guess I was at fault in this no-fault state. Damage to my car, paid by my insurace, less deductable. Sounds like a game of musical chairs.

Pete Knittle| 4.19.09 @ 3:03AM

I think Liberty is great! But, there is also responsiblity in life. I agree with earlier statements, driving is not a right. Libertainism is a great theory. It is not practical in many cases. I am still suffering the affects of a drunk driver running a stop sign. His liberty has affected mine for the rest of my life. He should have had insurance to own up to his responsibilities. Life is not perfect. That I can accept. What is unacceptable is a society that does not demand some accountability.

SiliconDoc| 4.19.09 @ 10:38AM

No doubt freedom is going, going, going, gone, and the communist collective is nearly complete.
The government demands the insurance, and the citizen is forever under the power of the state, as one person pointed out an inunsured driver is incarcerated even without an accident.
We're getting to a point where we go way overboard, and put people in jail for being part of the borg collective, the communist total power and control minority report crime predictions of the future that are bound to happen based upon a popular mindset conception of "the numbers".
Welcome to the new world order, and there are a thousand whining victims to make sure you are punished for the future crimes you never committed - and if you don't pay ahead of time, you will get locked up.
That's how it works now. Just try to deny a search or seizure based upon "reasonable suspicion" - which now of course includes you not following the nazi dictates of insurance carrying even if you've injured or harmed noone.
You will be punished, smile and say you love big brother as the rat cage door is opened and your face is being eaten off by the state collective.
I mean face it, more is coming, carbon tax n trade, your shoes or you don't ride in an airplane, you're all suspects and the govrnment will strip search you - your toothpaste and suntan lotion is a threat to all, hand it over or be stripped and detained, you are GUILTY.
Smile, big brother is just making sure you aren't a terrorist who hates everyone and everything, a sociopath who only cares for number zero, YOU.
Bow in ever extended total submission and pay ahead of time, for the priveledge to survive.
It's the new mentality, to say one remembers when insurance wasn't mandatory as if it is a bygone era is indeed fear inducing - the collective has taken over.
Resistence is now futile. Submit, or else.

bobc| 4.19.09 @ 10:47AM

Thousands of US citizens have been killed by illegal alien's driving drunk...they have no insurance.....even when they have had a minor car wreck where no one is hurt...they still have no insurance....the citizens has to rely on their own insurance to get their car fixed.

In Ky. every year when we get our tags, and yes, pay more taxes on the vehicle....we have to show an up to date proof of insurance....why isn't it this way in all States?

Of course illegals never get a proper license I suppose.

Insurance is just a way to stop those that are ready to sue over everything, from breaking our own bank.
I feel insurance premiums on anything, would not be so high, if we didn't have so many that run to a lawyers office all the time.

Bill| 4.19.09 @ 12:43PM

I agree with mandatory insurance laws. I don't think the author of the post understands the concept of insurance. He stresses that he never needed his insurance. That is good, and it is also the way insurance is supposed to work. You can't get a loan without proving you have collateral or the ability to pay it back, you can't get a job without convincing someone you are dependable enough and have the requisite skills, you cannot set up a corporation properly and secure the protection of the corporate form unless you can show it is properly capitalized, which often means proving the company has insurance. It is no surprise and very reasonable that you cannot get behind the wheel of a two ton vehicle that can achieve speeds of 100 miles per hour without showing you have insurance. You know what else would be reasonable and consitutional? A state requiring that people insure their fire arms before being allowed to posses fire arms (remember that the second amendment only applies to the federal government).

Country Boy| 4.19.09 @ 7:38PM

I only did a quick scan of the article and the posts.
Obviouslly, all motor vehicles need insurance. But some of the problems, as some posts noted, is not the drivers, but the lawyers and the courts. - outrageous Personal Injury damages awards, etc.

But it is still more than that. I know an Insurance agent who's daughter got into a auto accident involving an large commercial truck. Hazardous waste was spilled. The bill to her insurance company was higher than her coverage.

If we want a perfect world, we have to pay for it.

PolishKnight| 4.20.09 @ 12:26PM

The author is giving car insurance a bad rap. Yes, the industry is in cohoots with the police, for example, by giving the police radar guns to give tickets to otherwise safe motorists to justify jacking up their rates but, in theory, the insurance industry is SAVING ALL motorists money. Allow me to explain.

Individual, privately bonded motorists such as the author are like prey for trial lawyers such as John Edwards who would love to go after their home and other asssets if they were get involved in a fender bender that isn't even their own fault. Even though the insurance industry often settles outrageous cases out of court, they surely have a formula to pay off such claims at a minimum loss that would take individuals several times more dollars in legal fees to get out the door. I know of private homeowners without legal liability insurance who have been sued by dog bite ambulance chasers that took $10 to get off their back.

While I'm at it, consider medical insurance. Even though these companies have their own private interests they are holding up the conversion to single payer Canadian style healthcare. Check out leftists moaning about it here:

www.healthcare-now.org/2009/04/top-ten-enemies-of-single-payer

If you think that private car insurance is expensive, imagine how much it would cost if it were "free" and run by the DMV. You'd be paying twice, and later 5 times as much as Al Gore would use it to drive (pardon the pun) people out of their cars and onto bikes and busses to save the earth (he'd fly in his private jet to oversee the conversion.)

KLTuttle| 4.20.09 @ 2:29PM

John, relax, you are covered by uninsured motorist insurance that is required even though uninsured motorists are prohibited by law. My uninsured motorists insurance now exceeds the cost of full coverage when I was 21 and refused to pay off the only times uninsured motorists caused damage to my cars. It's a scam. Insurance guys pay Congressmen/en to pass laws requiring us to pay them large sums for so called insurance we may not be able to collect for a claim. Insurance Companies, one form or another, have always been our most profitable companies. By always I mean in my entire adult lifetime.
Think about it. It is how we the taxpayer funds political campaigns when none of us will check the 3 dollar gift to campaigns box on our tax return. I am sure somebocy pays for those campaigns. I am sure that anyone who contributes a hundred thousand and is rewarded with a million dollar tax savings or contract to do something profitably, is not in your estimation, the person paying for his campaign contribution.

Jeff| 4.20.09 @ 2:46PM

WRONG ANSWER!!!!!!!!!
What the uninsured motorist is doing is transferring his/her risk to the insured motorist without paying for it.In effect STEALING the security of the insured motorist by forcing his risk upon eveyone else without compensation.
You are not a conservative you are a risk transfer thief stealing the risk transfer that the insured pays for.

Doug Welty| 4.20.09 @ 6:50PM

Here in Virginia, no insurance is required. Just pay the uninsured motor vehicle fee of $500 and you're good to go. Just don't hurt anybody.

See http://www.dmv.state.va.us/webdoc/citizen/vehicles/uninsured_fee.asp for details.

And we like it that way.

Frank| 5.1.09 @ 12:23AM

You moron insurance supporting fool. You think that when you pass a law requiring me to buy insurance that I will? Screw that, if I get caught I might go to jail for a while and you can foot a $100 a day tab to house and feed me and pay for my day in court too. Until they pass a law imposing the deatch penalty on those of us who say "I won't do what you tell me" you are just fools! Yes, buy insurance to protect yourself but guess what, your not protected and you'll die when it's your time just like me. I won't do what you tell me! I won't. Catch me if you can so I can tell you what to kiss and get free room and board on your buck buddy!

Eliza| 5.7.09 @ 1:10AM

its a horrible truth that i've known.
but it does not happen everywhere.
Our site is easy to use and our goal is to show you how much you can save on your car insurance. Not only will you save your money, but you will save your time too. Our online car insurance quote takes a few minutes and then we provide rates from multiple insurance companies.You can finish online through CarInsurance.com or licensed agents in our professional sales center are available to help you purchase your car insurance policy. In some states, you are directed to one of our trusted partners for a rate in your area.
for more info visit the link below
Eliza
Car Insurance

Deep Thinker| 5.20.09 @ 6:39PM

I wish you would consider some other alternative ideas such as:
What about encouraging the American people to become investor's by allowing the option of opening a private (or public) guaranteed Insurance Fund Account in which the person deposits $100-150 per month or similiar amounts subject to having their license suspended. The could save up this money for retirement or the like and if they don't have accidents then they keep their money until retirement or like. The primary reason this does not exis is because insurance companies control the legislatures.

Bill Jenkins| 6.11.09 @ 1:43AM

Greedy lawyers rarely go after people who have no money. Being poor and uninsured will keep you out of the crosshairs of dirtbags like that for life. That's how those greedy f-cks work.

dennis| 6.23.09 @ 8:41AM

will keep you out of the crosshairs of dirtbags like that for life. That's how those greedy f-cks work.

Mackenzie| 7.10.09 @ 7:46AM

Great post on car insurance scam. Every motorist on the road needs car insurance. To get car insurance quotes, rates, coverage, services and more information check this review site. Car insurance review site provides the information about all insurance companies and policies.

eBusiness Gov| 9.5.09 @ 5:37AM

Very informative post for scam on insurance. You just open our mind about this case.

Wholesale Lingerie| 9.6.09 @ 9:00PM

sexy lingerie lingerie

Wedding Dresses| 9.10.09 @ 2:24AM

I just bought this bag from whichWedding Dresses
Designer Wedding Gowns
located in New York city, it’s wonderful.

Fun TV Entertainment| 9.30.09 @ 11:22PM

Thanks for your car insurance scam info's.

groupshoes| 10.24.09 @ 2:21AM

Nice airtical, i would like to tell all of my friends about it. By the way, i would like to introduce everyone of you a very nice website, it offers cheap air max trainers for men and women. Such as Air max 1, air max 2, air max 90, nike air max 2009+, air max 2010 new, nike air max TN, nike air ltd trainers, air max 95. Dunk SB shoes, nike shox shoes. You can find almost all the nike series there, in huge collection and varies colorways. They have Latest style and classic style. Though their price are low, don't worry about it's quality. They are realll ones!!! I have bought from them for so many times, and very satisfied with the their goods and service. Come on, you'll love it.