Wow.... quite the little firestorm that I started here. Not sure if that was a good or a bad thing. But I will question what CBear responded with. Still working on the quote feature. Please excuse my ignorance.
"Please keep in mind that many people don't have insurance because they can't PAY for insurance. They can't afford it, just like healthcare insurance."
So does that mean that just because people "need" something, means that they have a "right" to it, if they can afford it or not? Does someone have the "right" to a job, a home, a car, healthcare etc, just because they say that they "need" it, and cannot afford it? This country was founded on the idea of capitalism the last time I checked. Which means that if you want something in america you have to work to be able to afford it. Using the claim that they cannot afford it, absolves them of their responsibility somehow? And the reason that I implyed that if unable to pay, the insured motorist should get their car is a logical one as well. If a driver chooses to be irresponsible and not have insurance, then chances are they will not be able to pay the court fines either. Why is it wrong for me to want to be compensated for the destruction of my property? Being poor in this country, just like being rich, should not absolve you of things you have done. No one pays my way through life, and I do not want to pay anyone elses way against my will. If someone has stolen from me, or destroyed my property, then I expect to be compensated in some way for that, whether the person is wealthy or not. Being poor (or rich for that matter) is no excuse for irresponsible behavior. Thank you for your time....
