Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-26-2007, 10:57 AM
 
Location: North Cackelacky....in the hills.
19,567 posts, read 21,866,888 times
Reputation: 2519

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by fishmonger View Post
Not necessarily. How would it be "fair" for a middle class family living in suburban Pennsylvania, or some mundane area generally free from disasters of any sort, to pay the same insurance rate as a wealthy person who has the money to move from that suburban Pennsylvania area to a "fabulous locale with scintillating views" on the slope of Mt. St. Helens? People who are wealthier (and therefore more mobile) have more responsibility with regards to where they choose to live, as their "choice" is more of an actual "choice."
Because whether you have more money shouldn't be the deciding factor as to how much you pay....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-26-2007, 11:03 AM
 
Location: Your mind
2,935 posts, read 4,999,209 times
Reputation: 604
For private services, you're right, but having more money is definitely a deciding factor as to how much control you have over your choice of location.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2007, 11:05 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,096,009 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by oz in SC View Post
By this I mean should those of us who happen to live near the ocean in a hurricane prone area be made to pay more than those of you who don't?

It seems 'unfair' to charge more just because of my zipcode.

Shouldn't everyone pay the same no matter their locale or the number of claims?

Having your home protected against damage would seem to be a basic right,what is more basci than the right to having a safe shelter?

I would think we all agree that those of us who happen to live in dangerous regions(Take Malibu as a modern example) shouldn't be FORCED to pay more,the cost should be spread around to all.
Um.. surely this is a joke.. You expect someone who lives in a farm to pay the same as those who live in earthquake, or hurricane prone regions?

Wait.. this might be good.. Since my jaguar is an expensive car.. and a high theft vehicle.. it does seem unfair that I pay more insurance then those driving a 1994 ford taurus.. I could start to like this idea..

Those with heart conditions.. yeah, it seems so unfair that they pay more then those healthy children.. Let spread the cost out evenly.. Next thing you'll see national home insurance program proposals..

Life isnt fair.. you dont like paying to live in a hurricane area.. MOVE!! Your not forced to pay more..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2007, 11:08 AM
 
Location: North Cackelacky....in the hills.
19,567 posts, read 21,866,888 times
Reputation: 2519
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Um.. surely this is a joke.. You expect someone who lives in a farm to pay the same as those who live in earthquake, or hurricane prone regions?

Life isnt fair.. you dont like paying to live in a hurricane area.. MOVE!! Your not forced to pay more..
A joke?
No, it was simply expanding upon the ideas being put forward as applied to universal health insurance....

Next up might be auto insurance.....in this society driving is pretty much a right and the idea of some being denied that right through high insurance costs is inhuman....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2007, 11:23 AM
 
Location: Your mind
2,935 posts, read 4,999,209 times
Reputation: 604
A nationwide mass transit system would be better, especially considering the environmental issues that we're currently facing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2007, 11:26 AM
 
Location: North Cackelacky....in the hills.
19,567 posts, read 21,866,888 times
Reputation: 2519
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishmonger View Post
A nationwide mass transit system would be better, especially considering the environmental issues that we're currently facing.
We had that,it was known as the railway.
I cannot see what nationwide mass transit system would work today,do you?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2007, 11:29 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,096,009 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by oz in SC View Post
A joke?
No, it was simply expanding upon the ideas being put forward as applied to universal health insurance....

Next up might be auto insurance.....in this society driving is pretty much a right and the idea of some being denied that right through high insurance costs is inhuman....
Well heck.. isnt life insurance a right? I mean why should some people be cremated because they cant afford to be burried properly? I think Hillary should propose a $10,000 death credit so family members can properly burry their family members without putting a burdon upon the family because they didnt buy life insurance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2007, 11:31 AM
 
Location: Your mind
2,935 posts, read 4,999,209 times
Reputation: 604
Quote:
We had that,it was known as the railway.
I cannot see what nationwide mass transit system would work today,do you?
I mean better than helping pay for everyone in America to have a car, or more than one car, which would probably lead to increased congestion, crappier air, more global warming, etc., so it could hurt the people it was intended to help since poor people tend to live in locales with less healthy air as it is. By "nationwide" I implied connecting all the cities with railroads, which might not be a good idea, although it would be a good idea to fund mass transit enough to make sure significant needs for transportation are met wherever they exist (connecting rural areas to cities, good transit systems for cities, etc.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2007, 12:14 PM
 
Location: Land of Thought and Flow
8,323 posts, read 15,167,662 times
Reputation: 4957
People chose to have expensive houses in disaster-prone areas. I have no problem putting an extra $20 a year because of the chance of hurricane - I don't need flood insurance for a second story apartment... if it floods out, everyone's screwed. My mother pays for flood insurance because she chose to live near the beach.

People chose the type of vehicle they want to drive. My car is not expensive or a theft-risk vehicle, so my insurance isn't too bad. However, I don't actually need insurance anymore since I paid it off.

People do not chose to have health problems. Whether you'd like to hear that or not is your matter. People don't wake up and say "I think I'll buy a 2007 Cancer and park it on the mouth of a fault line."


Another way to look at it:

You don't have home-insurance and some disaster happens. Because you didn't have insurance, whose loss is it? Yours

You don't have car insurance and you hit a tree. Because you didn't have insurance, whose loss is it? Yours.

If you hit a person without having insurance, their insurance (if they have it) should take care of it (mine will) and they are not at a loss. However, the insurance company will go after you. Whose loss? Yours

You don't have health insurance, so when you develop a cough and can't afford the $100 upfront to see a doctor, you get to go around with a cough. What happens if that "cough" was Tuberculosis or worse? Everyone who was around you has been affected.

I see a difference. Then again, I don't put health on the same level as a car or house.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2007, 12:23 PM
 
Location: North Cackelacky....in the hills.
19,567 posts, read 21,866,888 times
Reputation: 2519
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Well heck.. isnt life insurance a right? I mean why should some people be cremated because they cant afford to be burried properly? I think Hillary should propose a $10,000 death credit so family members can properly burry their family members without putting a burdon upon the family because they didnt buy life insurance.
YES!!!

Just imagine how easy our lives will be when everything is a 'right' given to us by the government.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:55 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top