I know I've been gone awhile,,,is this still the same clubdirt that I knew and loved from the past? Because the old clubdirt didn't throw around falsehoods so haphazardly,,,,
If your tire blows while you're driving and you run off the road and smash into a tree,,,or a deer runs infront of you and you swerve to avoid it, rolling your car, you better damn well believe you/your insurance is liable. That's the entire point of being made to cover at the least, liability insurance as a driver. Most accidents happen as a result of someones negligence,,,so you/your insurance is always on the hook. No fault ring a bell?
I know I've been gone awhile,,,is this still the same clubdirt that I knew and loved from the past? Because the old clubdirt didn't throw around falsehoods so haphazardly,,,,
If your tire blows while you're driving and you run off the road and smash into a tree,,,or a deer runs infront of you and you swerve to avoid it, rolling your car, you better damn well believe you/your insurance is liable. That's the entire point of being made to cover at the least, liability insurance as a driver. Most accidents happen as a result of someones negligence,,,so you/your insurance is always on the hook. No fault ring a bell?
I know I've been gone awhile,,,is this still the same clubdirt that I knew and loved from the past? Because the old clubdirt didn't throw around falsehoods so haphazardly,,,,
If your tire blows while you're driving and you run off the road and smash into a tree,,,or a deer runs infront of you and you swerve to avoid it, rolling your car, you better damn well believe you/your insurance is liable. That's the entire point of being made to cover at the least, liability insurance as a driver. Most accidents happen as a result of someones negligence,,,so you/your insurance is always on the hook. No fault ring a bell?
i don't know, i'm older and maybe slower.
there are different types of auto insurance.
the kind of that you are required to have, at least here, is called liability insurance. liability pays for damages to other people that you cause based on your own negligence. that's the one i'm talking about. there are other kinds of insurance that are more often discretionary.
what would be relevant in your example would be property damage insurance for myself if i get in an accident that is not someone else's fault. that insurance would cover damage to my own vehicle if a tire blows and no one else caused my crash. there is also uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage which covers me for my injuries and medical expenses if someone else causes an accident and i get injured but they either don't have enough of the liability insurance i mentioned above or are uninsured.
but the insurance i am referring to is the liability insurance which is only applicable if i am negligent and cause an accident that results in injury to another person. and a subset of that is property damage liability insurance which covers property damage that i cause to someone else's vehicle due to my negligence.
the government, at least here, doesn't care if i have insurance uninsured motorist coverage or property damage coverage to cover my own vehicle and myself. that's a risk i'm free to assume. they do care about the liability insurance because their position i don't have a right to drive and not have coverage for damage caused to other people or other property caused by my own negligence.
I know I've been gone awhile,,,is this still the same clubdirt that I knew and loved from the past? Because the old clubdirt didn't throw around falsehoods so haphazardly,,,,
If your tire blows while you're driving and you run off the road and smash into a tree,,,or a deer runs infront of you and you swerve to avoid it, rolling your car, you better damn well believe you/your insurance is liable. That's the entire point of being made to cover at the least, liability insurance as a driver. Most accidents happen as a result of someones negligence,,,so you/your insurance is always on the hook. No fault ring a bell?
i don't know, i'm older and maybe slower.
there are different types of auto insurance.
the kind of that you are required to have, at least here, is called liability insurance. liability pays for damages to other people that you cause based on your own negligence. that's the one i'm talking about. there are other kinds of insurance that are more often discretionary.
what would be relevant in your example would be property damage insurance for myself if i get in an accident that is not someone else's fault. that insurance would cover damage to my own vehicle if a tire blows and no one else caused my crash. there is also uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage which covers me for my injuries and medical expenses if someone else causes an accident and i get injured but they either don't have enough of the liability insurance i mentioned above or are uninsured.
but the insurance i am referring to is the liability insurance which is only applicable if i am negligent and cause an accident that results in injury to another person. and a subset of that is property damage liability insurance which covers property damage that i cause to someone else's vehicle due to my negligence.
the government, at least here, doesn't care if i have insurance uninsured motorist coverage or property damage coverage to cover my own vehicle and myself. that's a risk i'm free to assume. they do care about the liability insurance because their position i don't have a right to drive and not have coverage for damage caused to other people or other property caused by my own negligence.
in other words, at least in my state, if i am driving, my tire blows and i crash into a tree and damage my own vehicle and injure myself, the law does not require me to have any insurance that would cover that (with one exception, something called PIP/no fault insurance that covers my first $10,000 or so of medical bills but that's a different tissue).
on the other hand, if i'm driving and run a red light and crash into someone and that other person breaks their leg. the state doees require me to carry liability insurance which will go towards covering that other person's damages from that injury. i am not allowed to assume.disregard his risk.
in other words, at least in my state, if i am driving, my tire blows and i crash into a tree and damage my own vehicle and injure myself, the law does not require me to have any insurance that would cover that (with one exception, something called PIP/no fault insurance that covers my first $10,000 or so of medical bills but that's a different tissue).
on the other hand, if i'm driving and run a red light and crash into someone and that other person breaks their leg. the state doees require me to carry liability insurance which will go towards covering that other person's damages from that injury. i am not allowed to assume.disregard his risk.
ironically, that no fault insurance, which is required in many states, maybe all of them, and has been for a while, is kind of like obamacare. basically, it is required insurance for any vehicle owner. and it covers the frst $10,000 or so (with a deductible) of your medical bills for injuries to you, regardless of who is at fault. so, if someone hits you, if you hit someone else, if you just blow a tire or a tree falls in the road, no matter whose fault, this coverage automatically pays the first $10,000 of your medical bills. it' is basically medical insurance required by law. you can argue all day that you are a great drive,r but the lw requires you to buy it.
it's the obamacare of auto insurance. but the rightwingers don't seem to have a problem with it. maybe because it's not named after obama.
ironically, that no fault insurance, which is required in many states, maybe all of them, and has been for a while, is kind of like obamacare. basically, it is required insurance for any vehicle owner. and it covers the frst $10,000 or so (with a deductible) of your medical bills for injuries to you, regardless of who is at fault. so, if someone hits you, if you hit someone else, if you just blow a tire or a tree falls in the road, no matter whose fault, this coverage automatically pays the first $10,000 of your medical bills. it' is basically medical insurance required by law. you can argue all day that you are a great drive,r but the lw requires you to buy it.
it's the obamacare of auto insurance. but the rightwingers don't seem to have a problem with it. maybe because it's not named after obama.
yea AFAIK the states set minimum requirements for different parts of the insurance.
Here in PA, I am required to have liability insurance, to cover both bodily injury and property damage, and medical benefits coverage. Pennsylvanias minimum requirements are too low.
The "cadillac" plan would be collision, where you cover damage to your vehicle as well. This is what I have, the bank forces anyone with a lien to carry it, the same way mortgage issuers require homeowner insurance. And because I got in a bad accident and found out the hard way, I have maxed out underinsured and uninsured insurance as well. They can come in handy, especially because the state suggested minimums are so friggin low
Maybe you weren't making false claims,,,maybe my brain is just mushy and I misunderstood you. Sorry
yea AFAIK the states set minimum requirements for different parts of the insurance.
Here in PA, I am required to have liability insurance, to cover both bodily injury and property damage, and medical benefits coverage. Pennsylvanias minimum requirements are too low.
The "cadillac" plan would be collision, where you cover damage to your vehicle as well. This is what I have, the bank forces anyone with a lien to carry it, the same way mortgage issuers require homeowner insurance. And because I got in a bad accident and found out the hard way, I have maxed out underinsured and uninsured insurance as well. They can come in handy, especially because the state suggested minimums are so friggin low
Maybe you weren't making false claims,,,maybe my brain is just mushy and I misunderstood you. Sorry
I think most people carry auto insurance to protect their own vehicle-at least I do- and to cover any outlay that may be due because of my error- in essence protecting my assets-not foolproof, but effective in most cases-
The same for my health insurance- it's so that if something catastrophic happens- my assets are protected-
So what about people who have few assets to protect? I mean in reality- why do they care? If you have little or nothing- then little or nothing is at risk....
I think most people carry auto insurance to protect their own vehicle-at least I do- and to cover any outlay that may be due because of my error- in essence protecting my assets-not foolproof, but effective in most cases-
The same for my health insurance- it's so that if something catastrophic happens- my assets are protected-
So what about people who have few assets to protect? I mean in reality- why do they care? If you have little or nothing- then little or nothing is at risk....
yeah, i have uninsured motorist coverage too. all of my auto, home, etc is under one bill. all i can say is it's too much. it pains me to pay so much for insurance every month, but what are you going to do?
yeah, i have uninsured motorist coverage too. all of my auto, home, etc is under one bill. all i can say is it's too much. it pains me to pay so much for insurance every month, but what are you going to do?
I think most people carry auto insurance to protect their own vehicle-at least I do- and to cover any outlay that may be due because of my error- in essence protecting my assets-not foolproof, but effective in most cases-
The same for my health insurance- it's so that if something catastrophic happens- my assets are protected-
So what about people who have few assets to protect? I mean in reality- why do they care? If you have little or nothing- then little or nothing is at risk....
yeah, most people with assets would have auto insurance to protect them. the obamacare-type auto insurance laws requiring liability and maybe no faulty medical insurance coverages target those people who don't care if they cause an accident and get sued because they have nothing to collect.
I think most people carry auto insurance to protect their own vehicle-at least I do- and to cover any outlay that may be due because of my error- in essence protecting my assets-not foolproof, but effective in most cases-
The same for my health insurance- it's so that if something catastrophic happens- my assets are protected-
So what about people who have few assets to protect? I mean in reality- why do they care? If you have little or nothing- then little or nothing is at risk....
yeah, most people with assets would have auto insurance to protect them. the obamacare-type auto insurance laws requiring liability and maybe no faulty medical insurance coverages target those people who don't care if they cause an accident and get sued because they have nothing to collect.
A healthy 20 something could have gotten a reasonable health policy PRIOR to enactment of the ACA for around $200 or less- not great, but serviceable- with modest out of pocket expense-
So, why now would they choose the same for roughly the same cost (as I understand it) under duress- all the while causing those who had coverage to pay markedly increased premiums-
The logic just seems flawed to me...
They will opt out- take minimal payroll deductions to ensure no tax refund..thereby decreasing operating cash for the govt- and pay what?
My understanding is there is no "fine"- rather a deduction from refunds- the solution is simple-make sure you don't get a refund-
I'm probably oversimplifying parts of it- but that's how I see things at present-
A healthy 20 something could have gotten a reasonable health policy PRIOR to enactment of the ACA for around $200 or less- not great, but serviceable- with modest out of pocket expense-
So, why now would they choose the same for roughly the same cost (as I understand it) under duress- all the while causing those who had coverage to pay markedly increased premiums-
The logic just seems flawed to me...
They will opt out- take minimal payroll deductions to ensure no tax refund..thereby decreasing operating cash for the govt- and pay what?
My understanding is there is no "fine"- rather a deduction from refunds- the solution is simple-make sure you don't get a refund-
I'm probably oversimplifying parts of it- but that's how I see things at present-
I disagree that ppaca is designed to target those who don't care,,,because they have nothing. Those people will be getting fully subsidized "health" "insurance"
I disagree that ppaca is designed to target those who don't care,,,because they have nothing. Those people will be getting fully subsidized "health" "insurance"
A healthy 20 something somehow has an extra 200$ month they can afford to spend towards "health" "insurance"
200 x 12 mos. = 2400 per year
2400 per year x 50 years until needing to utilize sick care services = 120,000. That's with no increase in contribution as wages increase, no inflation to pad your stacks, and no compounding interest.
One could buy usgov tbills the "safest" "investment" going with their "healthcare" savings, and that 120k would easily eclipse HALF A MILLION DOLLARS
Now, how many people can assume to need to spend 500k in a lifetime of "health" services? Or eve 120k,,,,
A healthy 20 something somehow has an extra 200$ month they can afford to spend towards "health" "insurance"
200 x 12 mos. = 2400 per year
2400 per year x 50 years until needing to utilize sick care services = 120,000. That's with no increase in contribution as wages increase, no inflation to pad your stacks, and no compounding interest.
One could buy usgov tbills the "safest" "investment" going with their "healthcare" savings, and that 120k would easily eclipse HALF A MILLION DOLLARS
Now, how many people can assume to need to spend 500k in a lifetime of "health" services? Or eve 120k,,,,
I disagree that ppaca is designed to target those who don't care,,,because they have nothing. Those people will be getting fully subsidized "health" "insurance"
And from a practical standpoint- I'm not sure what makes what you describe different from Medicaid- other than everyone along the way getting a cut...agents, administrators of the plan, etc...thereby increasing the costs of an already unsustainable plan-
I disagree that ppaca is designed to target those who don't care,,,because they have nothing. Those people will be getting fully subsidized "health" "insurance"
And from a practical standpoint- I'm not sure what makes what you describe different from Medicaid- other than everyone along the way getting a cut...agents, administrators of the plan, etc...thereby increasing the costs of an already unsustainable plan-
A healthy 20 something somehow has an extra 200$ month they can afford to spend towards "health" "insurance"
200 x 12 mos. = 2400 per year
2400 per year x 50 years until needing to utilize sick care services = 120,000. That's with no increase in contribution as wages increase, no inflation to pad your stacks, and no compounding interest.
One could buy usgov tbills the "safest" "investment" going with their "healthcare" savings, and that 120k would easily eclipse HALF A MILLION DOLLARS
Now, how many people can assume to need to spend 500k in a lifetime of "health" services? Or eve 120k,,,,
Throw in the deductible and copays- and the person you described would be better off without- barring an accident or catastrophic illness...
End of life is where the meter really starts running- so who knows how much is "needed"- but the numbers don't add up for the guy that could have had a better policy for the same premium and chose not to before ACA-
A healthy 20 something somehow has an extra 200$ month they can afford to spend towards "health" "insurance"
200 x 12 mos. = 2400 per year
2400 per year x 50 years until needing to utilize sick care services = 120,000. That's with no increase in contribution as wages increase, no inflation to pad your stacks, and no compounding interest.
One could buy usgov tbills the "safest" "investment" going with their "healthcare" savings, and that 120k would easily eclipse HALF A MILLION DOLLARS
Now, how many people can assume to need to spend 500k in a lifetime of "health" services? Or eve 120k,,,,
Throw in the deductible and copays- and the person you described would be better off without- barring an accident or catastrophic illness...
End of life is where the meter really starts running- so who knows how much is "needed"- but the numbers don't add up for the guy that could have had a better policy for the same premium and chose not to before ACA-
I think most people carry auto insurance to protect their own vehicle-at least I do- and to cover any outlay that may be due because of my error- in essence protecting my assets-not foolproof, but effective in most cases-
The same for my health insurance- it's so that if something catastrophic happens- my assets are protected-
So what about people who have few assets to protect? I mean in reality- why do they care? If you have little or nothing- then little or nothing is at risk....
This group of people are the reasons that our insurance is so high to begin with.
I think most people carry auto insurance to protect their own vehicle-at least I do- and to cover any outlay that may be due because of my error- in essence protecting my assets-not foolproof, but effective in most cases-
The same for my health insurance- it's so that if something catastrophic happens- my assets are protected-
So what about people who have few assets to protect? I mean in reality- why do they care? If you have little or nothing- then little or nothing is at risk....
This group of people are the reasons that our insurance is so high to begin with.
A healthy 20 something somehow has an extra 200$ month they can afford to spend towards "health" "insurance"
200 x 12 mos. = 2400 per year
2400 per year x 50 years until needing to utilize sick care services = 120,000. That's with no increase in contribution as wages increase, no inflation to pad your stacks, and no compounding interest.
One could buy usgov tbills the "safest" "investment" going with their "healthcare" savings, and that 120k would easily eclipse HALF A MILLION DOLLARS
Now, how many people can assume to need to spend 500k in a lifetime of "health" services? Or eve 120k,,,,
That is presuming the cost would always be 2400, which according to the last 30 years, it would not. If insurance costs increase at the rate of the last 30 years, one would pay 54,000 by 2043.
Want to know what catastrophic insurance was before EMTALA (1982)?
$200 per year.
The other problem with your equation is that it presumes no health issue for that length of time. That runs contrary to statistics.
A healthy 20 something somehow has an extra 200$ month they can afford to spend towards "health" "insurance"
200 x 12 mos. = 2400 per year
2400 per year x 50 years until needing to utilize sick care services = 120,000. That's with no increase in contribution as wages increase, no inflation to pad your stacks, and no compounding interest.
One could buy usgov tbills the "safest" "investment" going with their "healthcare" savings, and that 120k would easily eclipse HALF A MILLION DOLLARS
Now, how many people can assume to need to spend 500k in a lifetime of "health" services? Or eve 120k,,,,
That is presuming the cost would always be 2400, which according to the last 30 years, it would not. If insurance costs increase at the rate of the last 30 years, one would pay 54,000 by 2043.
Want to know what catastrophic insurance was before EMTALA (1982)?
$200 per year.
The other problem with your equation is that it presumes no health issue for that length of time. That runs contrary to statistics.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.