?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Help me, Obi-Wan

« previous entry | next entry »
Jun. 20th, 2005 | 08:26 pm

I need a really good traffic lawyer in Austin, TX.


P.S. - Also, convince me that private insurance is anything other than a fraud ultimately supported by public funds.

Link | Leave a comment | Share

Comments {11}

ThomasRhymer

(no subject)

from: thomasrhymer
date: Jun. 21st, 2005 01:49 am (UTC)
Link

I don't think the industry as a whole is a fraud, although parts of it are, and I've been working in insurance since 1995. I'll organize my thoughts and get back to you.

In the meantime, what happened?

Reply | Thread

Triple Entendre

(no subject)

from: triple_entendre
date: Jun. 21st, 2005 06:08 pm (UTC)
Link

I do like the parts of the industry that actually make things safer.

I worked (in IT) for a homeowners insurance company for a bit.

They were honest individuals, but it didn't take much to see that the business (and the industry) profited only by overcharging and especially by overinsuring -- selling people coverage and features and fees they didn't need.

Homeowners insurance industry rates, at least, are set by actuarial handwaving followed (or preceded) by legislative handwaving. I'm not convinced there's anyone who knows what the actual cost or value involved is.

Nothing new happened, just an old ticket.

Reply | Parent | Thread

(no subject)

from: witchety
date: Jun. 21st, 2005 02:05 am (UTC)
Link

what did happen? I hope all is okay... hugs, Ingrid

Reply | Thread

Triple Entendre

(no subject)

from: triple_entendre
date: Jun. 21st, 2005 06:10 pm (UTC)
Link

an old ticket and a warrant, no new developments. just need to get it fixed.

Reply | Parent | Thread

Chef Monkey

It's about who takes responsibility for whose mistakes...

from: chefmonkey
date: Jun. 21st, 2005 03:16 am (UTC)
Link

I think we had this conversation a long while back, and basically determined that we just can't agree, but that doesn't seem to stop me...

In general, the state wants to make sure, before you begin operating a piece of heavy machinery that can easily do hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of tangible damage, that your finances are sufficient to pay for any plausible amount of damage you can cause. In the simple (albeit rare) case, this involves demonstrating that you have, and are likely to continue to have, sufficient liquid assets to cover any such damage. This is a very real option, and one that allows you to legally drive without insurance.

Alternately, if you can't prove that you have several hundreds of thousands of dollars that you can use to make amends if you cause such damage, they allow you to secure insurance from a third party who can provide such assurances. That third party generally needs to charge you enough money to cover whatever they end up paying out -- basically, the cost that you incur if you have an accident times the probability that you'll have such an accident -- plus enough overhead to cover administering the funds.

Any decent insurance company will be a mutual company, meaning that they don't make a profit (or, more accurately: any profits they make are distributed back to "members" -- the people they insure). If you choose such an insurance company, then you're guaranteed that what you're paying is exactly such an amount: enough money to cover whatever they end up paying out plus enough overhead to cover administering the funds. (By way of example, we usually get semi-annual repayments from our insurance company to reimburse any profit they may have accidentally made). In the final equation, it actually does end up being pretty equitable.

The only other viable systems would either involve requiring the damaged parties to pay for your mistakes (which is unfair on its face) or having the state itself do so (which seems to spread the burden of the damage caused by those who drive around to parties who choose not to). Can you propose a better way of paying for the damage that results from such inevitable accidents? Crossing ones fingers and hoping they don't happen doesn't actually work all that well, from what I've seen in the past.

Reply | Thread

Looky Looky

Re: It's about who takes responsibility for whose mistakes...

from: yangenigma
date: Jun. 21st, 2005 07:21 am (UTC)
Link

That third party generally needs to charge you enough money to cover whatever they end up paying out -- basically, the cost that you incur if you have an accident times the probability that you'll have such an accident -- plus enough overhead to cover administering the funds.

This was new information to me - but I'm glad to know the reasoning behind it. Thanks!

Reply | Parent | Thread

Triple Entendre

Re: It's about who takes responsibility for whose mistakes...

from: triple_entendre
date: Jun. 21st, 2005 06:43 pm (UTC)
Link

well, from what you're saying, I've never encountered any 'decent' insurance company. I didn't know what 'mutual' meant, so maybe that means I've never been part of a mutual insurance plan.

What I see is the system that perhaps should otherwise work they way you describe being distorted and perverted by the flow of money, in direct proportion to the amounts involved. Hmm, a gravitational theory of money?

The insurance industries in practice are motivated to keep the money, and so push things back into those 'other viable systems' you mention in your last paragraph.

I also suspect that the industry is sustained by a larger pattern of periodic insurance-company failures, buyouts, bankruptcies, and governmental bailouts.

don't even get me started on 'reinsurance'. the mutuals probably buy into that, and at that level it's all a crock.

p.s. here's a site i just googled... it does look like it shows more 'mutual' companies in the 'good' column.

Reply | Parent | Thread

caliedoscope

(no subject)

from: caliedoscope
date: Jun. 21st, 2005 11:49 am (UTC)
Link

When I worked in the insurance industry, my boss told me that insurance is the only form of gambling that is not only legal in all fifty States, but also the only one that is compulsory in most of them.

It is also, in most cases, the only gamble you *want* to lose: to pay and pay and pay, and never need the coverage purchased through those payments. (This of course excludes life insurance annuity policies.)

Regarding vehicular insurance, the lack of it has in the past kept my road rage in check - there are plenty of idiots that would have gotten a taste of my fender if I was driving with the required liability coverage.

Hope no one was hurt.

Cally

Reply | Thread

=

(no subject)

from: marconiplein
date: Jun. 21st, 2005 03:12 pm (UTC)
Link

1.) is your car in one piece?

2.) did you pull that "i don't have to let you search my car" thing again? (bravo if you did.)

i'm just trying to figure out what kind of legal thing this is.

Reply | Thread

Triple Entendre

(no subject)

from: triple_entendre
date: Jun. 21st, 2005 05:39 pm (UTC)
Link

yes, i quit driving months ago, i just want to get the tickets and warrants cleared up. -- didn't mean to worry anyone.

Reply | Parent | Thread

Traffic Warrants

from: tamimoto
date: Jun. 22nd, 2005 03:40 am (UTC)
Link

Heya Sweetie!

Please take care of the warrants. Most policing agencies have "warrant sweeps" in the first and third fiscal quarters. Your name may or may not pop up on their take down sheets, but it's not worth the risk.

*HUGS*

Reply | Parent | Thread