Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
SK in CV
Participant[quote=The-Shoveler]Assuming that 10K event happen maybe once every 20 years or so, I think that would be the better option,
I have coverage, but I have not been to the doctor for probably 15 years, (knock on wood).[/quote]
Sounds like someone who has never had to pay all the medical bills for a family of 4.
Participant[quote=The-Shoveler]Wow that is seriously unaffordable,
Really have not paid much attention to this, but 12K a year sounds excessive.I know a lot of Biz owners who get by on $35.00 a month catastrophic type insurance.
Basically you only go in if something catastrophic happens otherwise you pay out of pocket.
Hopefully that option will still be available, otherwise I guess the option is to opt out until you know something catastrophic happens.[/quote]Seems pretty similar to what I’ve had for the last few years. Four years ago I paid right about $1,000 a month for family coverage with a $2600 deductible and a similar co-pay.
$35 a month for insurance sounds like what I paid through my former employer for crappy dental and vision coverage. If it’s for medical coverage, it might work fine for a >30 single guy that can afford a sudden $10,000 medical bill. It’s not what most families of 4 would want.
Participant[quote=KIBU][quote=Allan from Fallbrook] Yes, we have a problem. What’s the solution? With details, please.[/quote]
Is this an “isolated” problem?[/quote]
It isn’t exactly isolated, but it is substantially different in different regions of the country. Murder by guns is a problem in San Diego. People get shot and killed every year. But it’s nothing like the problem in some big cities. The murder rate per capita in Chicago is like 5 times what it is in San Diego. Slightly worse than that in DC. LA is more than double SD, but only half of Chicago and DC.
Gives you an idea why some big city mayors are so strident in their desire to make changes. There is no easy solution that isn’t going to infringe on what some perceive as their rights.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
SK: And yet you have out-of-wedlock births in some black communities approaching 70%. How to explain the statistical significance of that?[/quote]Maybe they wanted to have babies. No chance they wanted to have babies with this guy, “knowing what they were getting into”.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=no_such_reality][quote=CA renter]Wow, watching that is definitely an Idiocracy moment!
He does NOT “love” women, and he certainly does NOT “love” his children. He loves sex, and expects everyone else to pay for it.[/quote]
No CAR, my gut tells me the women involved knew exactly what they were doing.[/quote]
NSR: Not to beat the personal responsibility drum too hard, but, yeah, I’d agree with you.
I’ve got friends in local law enforcement that tell me about how kids growing up in this environment learn very early about “the system”: how it works and how to work it.
Your tax dollars hard at work…[/quote]
You guys have to be f’ing kidding me. A woman WANTS to have a baby with a guy whose had multiple kids by multiple women and has no relationship with any of them? Because that’s what “knowing what they’re getting into” would mean.
I understand the whole “poor women have babies just to collect welfare” BS. But wanting to have a baby with a schmuck that you know will never be able to pay for any child rearing costs? Not a chance.
Participant[quote=spdrun]
If you intentionally shoot someone in the foot, no coverage.
If you shoot a burglar in the foot, he’s convicted of burglary in criminal court, yet files a civil suit against you: damn right that the insurance co should pay for legal costs and damages if he manages to con a jury into awarding him.
Difference between a car and a gun is that a car isn’t intended as a weapon. A gun is, but can be used for good as well as evil.[/quote]
You’re right. And there would be coverage. I was referring to the example given where someone intentionally shoots a friend in the foot to collect on insurance. Good catch.
Participant[quote=livinincali][quote=SK in CV]
If your car is stolen, no coverage (and probably no liability). If the gun is used by the insured in the commission of a crime, no coverage.[/quote]So basically gun liability insurance never pays. These 2 stipulations pretty much exclude every instance in which somebody would make a claim. Better hurry up and mandate it be required, because clearly that would be effective.[/quote]
Never is probably an exaggeration, but if the assertion was that gun owners should be required to have insurance covering every possible kind of damage done by a gun, then I suspect it would be pretty cost prohibitive. Standard homeowner policies and umbrella policies cover accidental gun discharge. I don’t know whether they require prior disclosure or listing, I’m guessing not, at least for liability purposes. I know there is also concealed carry coverage available, though it excludes criminal acts.
Participant[quote=livinincali]
What would be the requirements to get paid in a gun liability case. Does the weapon need to be recovered. Does the weapon need to have gun liability insurance on it. How many murders per year are committed by nice law abiding citizens that register their guns and pay gun liability insurance. What problems does mandatory insurance solve vs the ones it creates.Let’s take the Sandyhook case and apply what gun liability insurance would do. Presume Lanza’s mother is paying her liability insurance. Does the liability insurance pay for the victims of of Sandyhook. The weapons were stolen. Lanza killed his mother at which point it’s somewhat hard for her to be liable anymore. I would think the insurance company would fight pretty hard against paying off the claims and that’s a pretty clean example where you’ve recovered the weapons and know exactly what took place.[/quote]
Requirements to get paid in a gun liability case? Pretty much the same as in a car liability case. If your car is stolen, no coverage (and probably no liability). If the gun is used by the insured in the commission of a crime, no coverage. If you accidentally shoot someone in the foot, there’s coverage. If you intentionally shoot someone in the foot, no coverage.
Not being a gun owner, I don’t know for sure, but I suspect that gun liability insurance already exists, and is probably steeped with those kinds of exclusions and requirements. Maybe more.
Participant[quote=spdrun]Public exposure will likely mean trial in a civilian court if he gets extradited to the US, rather than rendition to G-d knows where or simple murder. Hopefully, he’ll get a jury that’s enlightened enough to practice the time-honored tradition of jury nullification.
This disclosure is VERY MUCH in the interest of the American people. For one minor thing, wholesale collection of phone call information includes legislators’ and justices’ information. I’d say that 75% of people have SOMETHING they want to hide. Enough can be deduced from phone call info (calls to drug treatment clinics, women who aren’t wives, etc) to make them ripe targets for blackmail. Then the security state becomes self-perpetuating.
If they don’t toe the NSA line and vote for more surveillance, they might end up fighting a scandal and forced to resign. This kind of thing breaks the separation of powers — remember that Congressional votes are generally very close, and that even 5-10% of Congresspeople being corrupted might have a tangible impact on US politics.
There’s also precedent. Look at the shenanigans that happened during the Hoover FBI era, what with technology being much less advanced. The amount of damaging info that can be gathered these days with modern tech scares the hell out of me.
Snowden is a true patriot, a brave man, and one hell of an American hero. Hope he walks scot-free and is able to travel first-class back to his own country, to which he did a great service.
As far as the people who forced this system on the American public without their knowledge or consent, I’d say that they were laying the groundwork for totalitarianism in the US. Exactly what the enemies of the US want to happen — the destruction of democracy from within. If that isn’t treason (a shooting offense last I checked), then it comes damn close. Hope they see their day in court.[/quote]
I agree with most of this, though I’m not sure about your conclusion in the 2nd to last paragraph. I don’t know if the guy is a hero. I think there’s a chance he’s a nut-job who has both exaggerated and fantasized about what he could do. That said, I’m glad he did it.
As to the bolded part….I’m not sure people really have the right to whine that shit was done without their knowledge or consent, when the information was readily available and they just weren’t paying attention. The press certainly has taken a few decades off in publicizing what was going on in Washington, but the (unfortunately very) small handful of us that have been watching closely aren’t the least bit surprised. Laws were discussed in detail, and passed with majority support in congress, with dire warnings that this would be the outcome. Many who criticized those laws were labeled as “soft on terrorism” or accused of “wanting the terrorists to win”. So? Who won? Us or the terrorists?
Participant[quote=livinincali][quote=ocrenter]
#1. Mandated gun liability insurance.
[/quote]If you put a little thought into this idea it might be the dumbest idea I’ve ever heard of. Just think though some of these thought experiments.
1) Does a single crackhead mother of a gangbanger son who’s been convicted of multiple crimes get a check for $2 million when her son gets killed?
2) Does a husband or wife get a reward of $2 million when they successfully get away with having their spouse killed.
3) Do you get a check for $100K when you accidentally get shot in the foot by your hunting buddy. Are you sure it was an accident, what if it was on purpose?
It would be good for for the insurance business. It’s probably also good for your real purpose in proposing the idea. In essence you want to charge enough for people to own a weapon so they’ll give up the ownership of that weapon. If I charge $2000 per year to drive a car I bet I fix a lot of the traffic problems.[/quote]
I’m not sure what kind of liability insurance would pay those claims, unless there is a concurrent change to current liability laws. But is your argument really that we shouldn’t require insurance because there would be insurance fraud?
Participant[quote=dumbrenter]
But CA renter, where is the evidence? Do you have a notarized copy indicating the intent of the moneyed class with respect to arms control?
SK has direct mind control line with Bloomberg, so he obviously needs to make no effort to back up his “assertions” about Bloomberg’s intent or provide any “conclusive evidence”.SK is right though that there is a lot of public pressure to bear arms and it is also channeled well in terms of numbers and resources by the lobby groups. A bunch of “little people” putting in their $35 is the only thing standing between the moneyed class and their objective of control.[/quote]
I’m not sure exactly where the sarcasm begins and ends here. Who are the little people putting in their $35? Is that the pro-gun lobby funded by gun manufacturers and right-wing groups like Crossroads GPS and the Koch brothers? Or is it the citizens of Newtown who saw the damage caused by guns first hand?
My point is, there is some big money moving hands on both sides of this issue, but by far the biggest chunks of money come in on the pro-gun side. My own feelings are pretty much in alignment with Allan’s, maybe with only a few tiny tweaks. But I certainly don’t see any evidence that there’s any kind of conspiracy among the monied or the government supporting either side of this issue. If there was, we’d see movement, at very least consistent with popular opinion. We haven’t. Actual movement (or lack thereof) has gone contrary to popular opinion, even though, according to the theory of “they want to take away our guns” it should go the other way.
Participant[quote=CA renter]
Your assertions about Bloomberg’s motives are pure speculation, as are my theories about his motives. It’s highly doubtful he, or any other “one percenter,” would ever confess their desires to disarm the masses so that they (and their cronies) could more easily engage in their quest to amass more power and wealth.
To be sure, if there is any person who best represents the interests of Wall Street, leading corporations, and “the rich,” Bloomberg would have to be at the top of the list.
Also, while I understand that Bloomberg is not the AG, he is certainly capable of putting a lot more pressure on the right people in govt to get some indictments rolling, wouldn’t you agree?
How about George Soros?
Here, you have two heavy-hitters from the 1% club and they both have strong ties to the world of finance and corporatism. Both are rabidly in favor of gun control, and are using their own money and connections to (very effectively) fund and push anti-gun legislation. That the legislation has not made it all the way through (yet) is only because there is so much public pressure to protect our right to bear arms.
One must wonder, though, if their own security teams are armed. Somehow, I get the feeling that they think being unarmed and defenseless is for “the little people.”[/quote]
I think it’s funny that every time an example is needed of a 1% with a leftward lean, George Soros is rolled out. I’m not sure how you figure that Bloomberg and Soros, two rich guys out of hundreds of really rich rich guys or a couple million 1%ers, gets twisted into “rich guys want gun control”. How about the other few hundred who have never uttered a peep? Is that really all there is? The “they” in “they are trying to take our guns” is Michael Bloomberg and George Soros?
How’s all that hard work going for them? No new gun laws at the federal level in a decade, not even watered down background checks that even most gun owners support.
Participant[quote=CA renter]According to this, 23% of women own guns, while 46% of men own guns. I’m willing to bet that the number for both is low (many won’t report it), and that the number for women is much higher in real life.[/quote]
I didn’t find a link in your comment, but I’m pretty sure I did find the survey. And if it’s the same one, it doesn’t say that 23% of women and 46% of men own guns. It’s the percentage of men and women who live in gun ownership homes. Very different.
According to this study…
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/31/politics/gun-ownership-declining/index.html
10% of women own guns.
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=FlyerInHi]Ocrenter touched on an important point.
There is definitely a gun culture in America. People arent using guns to defend shit.
They just want their toys.I have guns because of my peers. Wish I had bought many more guns because they are worth a lot money. But I’m pretty indifferent to the issue.
Some people feel very strongly about their toys. It’s a manly man cultural thing.
But really, who says that guns can’t be taxed and registered? We have right to property in America but if we don’t pay property taxes, the government will take our land.
Furthermore, when the framers of the constitution wrote it, the gun technology we have today did not exist. What’s the definition of a gun anyway?
There are many way to interpret the constitution.[/quote]
Wow. Talk about a load of hysterical nonsense. I’m female (and have been a victim of violent criminals, so not a manly-man thing), and am also a staunch defender of our right to own guns. I have used guns in self-defense, but this was never reported because they were never discharged, BTW, so those statistics don’t count in the data for guns used in self-defense — and this is very common. I have NEVER considered the ownership of guns to be anything like owning “toys” or some other kind of status symbol. Your perspective about gun owners is horribly warped.[/quote]
You are clearly the exception. 90% of gun owners are men. I don’t know if FlyerInHi’s description of gun owners represents a majority of gun owners, but I have little doubt that it is more representative than your own situation.
-
AuthorPosts
