jj@alice.UUCP (01/24/86)
> From allegra!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!rjb Wed Dec 31 19:00:00 1969 > ... > How about seat belt user car insurance rates and non-user rates ? > Non-users would have a higher premium and in the case of liars > (those who claim to wear the belt but don't) I think we can determine > most of the time after the wreck who did and didn't. The liars would > be penalized (by an appropriate clause in their policy) so as not > to receive full benefits. > > There are non-drinkers and non-smokers life insurance rates, why can't > we make this valid discrimination about the use of safety equipment > and keep the Federales out of this one altogether ? > > Idealistically yours > > Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb} > > Precisely. That's what I mean by taking responsibility for one's own actions. I actually think that insurance companies should be not liable for injuries caused by non-wearing of seatbelts under normal conditions, and thats all there is to it. I also would argue that the seatbelt non-wearer should be single-handedly responsible for projection injuries, etc. ... P.S. Those not liking straw should not build with straw. -- TEDDY BEARS GET HUNGRY, THEY NEED THEIR MCVITIES TODAY! "Heaven please, send all mankind, Understanding, and peace of mind..." (ihnp4;allegra;research)!alice!jj
bs@faron.UUCP (Robert D. Silverman) (01/24/86)
> > From allegra!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!rjb Wed Dec 31 19:00:00 1969 > > ... > > How about seat belt user car insurance rates and non-user rates ? > > Non-users would have a higher premium and in the case of liars > > (those who claim to wear the belt but don't) I think we can determine > > most of the time after the wreck who did and didn't. The liars would > > be penalized (by an appropriate clause in their policy) so as not > > to receive full benefits. > > > > There are non-drinkers and non-smokers life insurance rates, why can't > > we make this valid discrimination about the use of safety equipment > > and keep the Federales out of this one altogether ? > > > > Idealistically yours > > > > Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb} > > > > > Precisely. That's what I mean by taking responsibility for one's > own actions. I actually think that insurance companies should > be not liable for injuries caused by non-wearing of seatbelts > under normal conditions, and thats all there is to it. I also > would argue that the seatbelt non-wearer should be single-handedly > responsible for projection injuries, etc. > > Sure. And insurance companies shouldn't pay medical benefits for someone with say a heart condition or lung cancer due to smoking. After all they knew the risk of smoking... Ditto for people with liver problems due to drinking, other problems due to obesity etc. etc. People who cause car accidents shouldn't get insurance benefits either. After all if someone makes a mistake or moving violation they know the risk involved and should not be entitled to benefits if something goes wrong... (sarcastic sneer:):) We do not live in a risk free society nor should we expect to. The purpose of insurance is to provide monetary compensation when the risks we take do not work out. Everyone takes risks at some time or another and in some form or another. One's insurance rates may be higher because someone else doesn't wear a seatbelt but that someone else may not take risks that you do. It all generally balances out and I don't believe that one can do perfect cost accounting on all forms of risk. Thus the general idea is that we all pay collectively for a large variety of risks.