Pay-By-The-Mile Auto Insurance

[lxskllr]

With GPS? That's a great idea. Clone the device in the car, hook the clone up in front of your house, and disable the onboard unit. I drive 1 mile per week; to go to Christian church of course ;^)

[RRK]

I'm all for allowing the insurance companies to offer it as an option but mandatory institution I am against. It would certainly raise the cost of all you can eat rates. Would shipping rates be increased? Cab fares? I also don't understand why the insurers would offer these programs if they were truly going to cut their rates significantly over all. Also, it would reduce the amount of jobs available by reducing the take home based on distance. The more mobile a society is the lower the unemployment and the more specialized workers can be.

Also, they may not be able to monitor your location but they can monitor your speed and the time of day that you drive.

[justintempler]

Where is this mandatory coming from? You guys are creating boogeymen that aren't there.

As I understand it some insurance company in Texas has been trying to break into the California market and this is their way to break into the market. Imagine that, increased competition. Let's hurry up and outlaw any innovation and keep everything just the way it is right now.

[VBSnus]

I create nothing. I did not do my own research, just responded to what sgreger said.

Maybe that was my mistake?

[RRK]

Where is this mandatory coming from? You guys are creating boogeymen that aren't there.

This was part of the conversation above. I didn't say they were doing it I just said what I would support and what I am against.

[sgreger1]

Justin,

If you had cared to read anything we wrote, you would have noted that I said this would be a great program to opt in on and I would save a lot of money in it. RRK responded that why would they be doing this if it somehow saved you money, and noted that if it is mandatory than this would be a bad idea (keyword IF). I noted that California tends to favor the mandatory thing so wouldn't surprise me if that was the case. Just like how liberals claimed that the health care bill would not mandate that everyone buy insurance, it seems to be how thigns are looking.


Like a good liberal, you like to disregard anything we say as somehow tied to glenn beck (in the past it was Rush Limbaugh), and claim it is a conspiracy theory. All we were saying is that often times, especially in California, things like this are what leads to more and more gov intervention to collect money.

Like first it was red light cameras, then after that they decide to up it to unmarked cameras that clock you for your speed and send you a ticket. Its borderline criminal.

Although it sounds like a conspiracy theory, our state is broke and it would not surprise me if they someday used this to stoop to the level of using the GPS to issue tickets of other kinds.


Perhaps you are naive or just havn't paid attention, but everyone is looking for new ways to squeez out money. And having lived in CA most of my life, I wouldn't put anything past them.

[Ainkor]

This is one of those things that I him-and-haw about.

There is no such thing as a free lunch, even when it comes to government.

I agree with universal health care, i even agree with income redistribution to a certain extent and I could even buy the need for a insurance fee by miles and tax by miles, it is logical. The more you use something, the more you pay.

Now, before anyone gets in my grill about being a socialist or something, keep in mind that we are already socialists.

Here is my favorite joke of all time:

A man asks a very prominent women if she would sleep with someone for a million dollars. She thinks for a second and says sure.

He then asks her if she would sleep with someone for twenty dollars. She scoffs and tells him "Of course not, do you think I'm a whore or something?"

He replies, "We've already established that, we are just haggling over price now".

So what is socialist about the great ol' U. S. of A.? Here is a list of 5 for you:

1. The military

2. Social Security

3. Roads

4. Police Force

5. Education (k-12 for sure!)

Each and everyone of these items is funded by taking money from the everyone (well, most everyone, depending on income and such) and using it for the good of EVERYONE.

That is the definition of socialism. We are socialist, to some degree. But like the whore, we are just haggling over price now.

You can argue over how effective the programs are, and that is where I feel the focus should be on.

Will this reduce greenhouse gases (globalwarminglol), I haven't a clue but it will certainly curb driving, and that's not such a bad thing.

[RRK]

1. The military

2. Social Security

3. Roads

4. Police Force

5. Education (k-12 for sure!)

Of those only the Military and Social Security are federal and Social Security is an endangered species.

[texasmade]

1. The military

2. Social Security

3. Roads

4. Police Force

5. Education (k-12 for sure!)

Social Security is an endangered species.

like americans?

[RRK]

like americans?

:?:

[texasmade]

if people keep buyin in to the hype and believing everything they hear then they dont deserve to be called americans

[sgreger1]

So what is socialist about the great ol' U. S. of A.? Here is a list of 5 for you:

1. The military

2. Social Security

3. Roads

4. Police Force

5. Education (k-12 for sure!)

Each and everyone of these items is funded by taking money from the everyone (well, most everyone, depending on income and such) and using it for the good of EVERYONE.

That is the definition of socialism. We are socialist, to some degree. But like the whore, we are just haggling over price now.

The federal government was empowered (by the states) to operate certain things that would help us all. These were pretty clearly defined in the constitution, and in some matters everyone has agreed they are necessary.


The military - Every system, whether socialist, communist, capitalist, fascist, or anything inbetween has a standing army. Doesnt necessarily mean its socialist.

America has always tried to find the proper balance between rugged individualism (free market capitalism) and socialism.

I am the same way, I dont mind paying for people who are unemployed for a certain amount of time, I dont mind us paying for a military, police, fire dept etc.

But the feds running the
schools
healthcare
car companies?

We have to stay in the middle, nt too socialist, not too capitalist, but I see a trend of us moving too far in one direction.


Just because we have a certain amount of things that are socialist doesnt mean we should use that as an argument to make everything else socialist. We have many parts of our nation that are capitalist, doens't mean we should ONLY be capitalist. We have to find the balance, not too much of either. It's a delicate balancing act and that its why it is so hard for everyone to come to agreement on.


We need to make more moeny than we tax and distribute around. In a recession, making money and encouraging growth in small businesses etc is how to fix it, not create new ways to tax or spend more taxpayer money on things.

[daruckis]

Justin,

If you had cared to read anything we wrote, you would have noted that I said this would be a great program to opt in on and I would save a lot of money in it. RRK responded that why would they be doing this if it somehow saved you money, and noted that if it is mandatory than this would be a bad idea (keyword IF). I noted that California tends to favor the mandatory thing so wouldn't surprise me if that was the case. Just like how liberals claimed that the health care bill would not mandate that everyone buy insurance, it seems to be how thigns are looking.


Like a good liberal, you like to disregard anything we say as somehow tied to glenn beck (in the past it was Rush Limbaugh), and claim it is a conspiracy theory. All we were saying is that often times, especially in California, things like this are what leads to more and more gov intervention to collect money.

Like first it was red light cameras, then after that they decide to up it to unmarked cameras that clock you for your speed and send you a ticket. Its borderline criminal.

Although it sounds like a conspiracy theory, our state is broke and it would not surprise me if they someday used this to stoop to the level of using the GPS to issue tickets of other kinds.


Perhaps you are naive or just havn't paid attention, but everyone is looking for new ways to squeez out money. And having lived in CA most of my life, I wouldn't put anything past them.

haha. i stopped reading this thread at CA being broke. i live in michigan, man. MICHIGAN! the only place poorer than my state is ****ing haiti!

[sgreger1]

Lol, ruckis we're definately gunning for the title here in CA.

[Judge Faust]

I think the plan is to mandate it for all CA residents to help reduce smog and traffic collisions. Wouldnt be effective unless everyone wa doing it I would imagine.

Nonsense. The Department of Insurance regulates insurance companies, pure and simple. It could care less about pollution and traffic accidents. The Commissioner issues guidelines all the time - you cannot rationally extrapolate a major political decision from a summary of a single guideline.

2) It may lead to even more taxes in the future since now they have the GPS in your car, who's to say they won't start issuing speeding tickets based on the speed they clock you at on your GPS. Wouldn't even have to pay a cop to catch you.

Whoa, not so fast, friend. GPS? You need a GPS in order to measure miles driven? I don't know about you, but I'm confident that the rest of us already have odometers for that...

And even if, for some bizarre reason, every vehicle had a GPS installed, how do we go from that to the government having constant access to all of them? And then taking that access and employing it for routine traffic citations?

You seem unreasonably paranoid. Out of curiosity, do you cover your head with aluminum foil when heading outdoors? You know, to prevent the evil government from scanning your thoughts? :wink: