DiscussMormonism.com

I just got done examining a patient who had his foot completely cut off. He came down south to enjoy riding his motorcycle in the cooler months. A welfare queen ran a red light while texting and hit him at 40mph with her 5 children in the car. It destroyed four of his vertebra and severed his foot completely. He can't drive a truck for a living anymore. He was in bed for 2 years. And he's scratching out a living on disability. Of course the welfare queen was driving without car insurance. She walked away with a ticket for running the red light and nothing more. He had over $500k in medical bills. His uninsured motorist protection maxed out at $100k. I thought law said if you drive without insurance you go to jail. Why is it that not enforced?

Throw the 32 million uninsured drivers into jail! Put their kids into foster care! Small government! Low taxes! Freedom!

Looking up your state law, it requires drivers maintain insurance coverage for up to 15,000 for bodily injury to a single person. So if she maintained insurance, it wouldn't have begun to cover the medical bills. The penalty for failing to maintain the insurance requirement is a fine of $100 for the first offense and possible car impoundment.

An interesting thing here is that because an *ahem* "welfare queen* hit this person, you seem sympathetic to his plight despite him being a undeserving leech on society who has refused to work hard enough to furnish his own medical expenses.

What if instead of it being a "welfare queen" hitting him, it was instead colon cancer - the welfare queen of the lower intestines?

Another interesting question raised here is: If, as ACA opponents have maintained, it is somehow unconstitutional to penalize those declining to buy medical insurance by levying a mandated fee upon them, why is it not unconstitutional to penalize people for not insuring their cars? In both cases, the uninsured wind up costing both the government and the prudently insured more money than if everyone prudently bought insurance.

um...civil case.

subgenius wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 15, 2020 12:43 am

um...civil case.

So what?! It still remains true that the willfully uninsured inevitably place an undue burden on the rest of society.

subgenius wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 15, 2020 12:43 am

um...civil case.

As his attorney told him, you cannot squeeze blood from a turnip. If you're poor on paper you're pretty much immune from any civil case.

why is it not unconstitutional to penalize people for not insuring their cars?

I'm going to have to tend to agree with you here. Car insurance is a joke in a way because you have to buy it. The fact that people don't in urban areas like this is part of what drives the cost up for those that do And what is more astonishing to me is that those who are driving with no insurance and often times on a suspended license are the most aggressive and rude drivers out there. I'd be keeping my head low and treading very lightly if I knew one traffic stop would see me arrested for something else.

EAllusion wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 14, 2020 11:11 pm

Looking up your state law, it requires drivers maintain insurance coverage for up to 15,000 for bodily injury to a single person. So if she maintained insurance, it wouldn't have begun to cover the medical bills. The penalty for failing to maintain the insurance requirement is a fine of $100 for the first offense and possible car impoundment.

What does possible car impoundment mean? Does that mean it's up to the officer whether he wants to impound the car or not? Who decides which cars get impounded and which people get a pass? Shouldn't it be the same penalty for everyone?

What if you don't pay the ticket? Does the DA pick and choose who he would arrest and take to jail who he let's slide?