My son has a thriving interest in cars.
Last night his daily driver car (a car he uses to get back and forth to work) got it's driver side review mirror whacked by a vandal. No paint transfer and the mirror was all over the road.
He called me this morning and yelled at me. So I sat there realizing he wanted to punch something so it might as well have been Dad. That way he won't go postal at the junkyard while he's finding the mismatched Driver side review mirror and start hitting cars with a hammer.
About a month ago, he was merging into morning traffic and rearended another car that rearended another car. Funny thing was, I went to the scene of the accident and kept him calm with the Police officer found out the other two drivers didn't have proof of insurance. Come to find out neither Driver had insurance. So the preponderance of fault drops to those who weren't properly insured for the event.
My poli-thought is how silly the idea is that "we need required government run health care...because everyone is required to Driver's insurance." What a funny remark.
In my son's case these two other Drivers may have HAD to have had insurance but until something significant happened they didn't NEED it. So "required to have" and "needing" are two different things.
Plus I think the allegory fails that people are "required" to have auto insurance. They might be but I truly wonder how many drivers have insurance and how much lower our rates would be if they actually HAD it.
Why didn't we fix rising auto insurance rates by installing a Federal fine to anyone ticketed on a Federal highway system who does not have proof of insurance? I wonder how the chances differ between me getting get hit by an uninsured driver as opposed to having in illness and not having insurance. The second I can control, the first I can't.
We don't fix the things that need to be fixed. I'd like to see a federal fine applied to tax returns for lack of auto insurance when ticketed on the Federal Interstate highway system.
We should fix the things in our daily lives that really are threatening instead of grandstanding on issues that only pad someone's electorate.
Why not start at the state level and start applying a state fine when on state highways applied against the tax return? Excepting of course in Texas.
Same way with health care if the Repubs want to fix it then the states should enter into agreements that allow interstate health plan grouping. Then as more states sign on to the model, a small percentage of funds goes to help those who are truly unfortunate. If you have 7 kids, can walk, can drive (while affording auto insurance) and you exchange your WICA for Pepsi and Lays potato chips you aren't truly unfortunate.
Let's, as states, model this ideal Republicans say will work by encouraging interstate commerce of health insurance plans at the state level, let the states start this by passing laws. "We as North Dakotans will allow South Dakota insurance plans to sell in our state if South Dakota allows the same in a quid pro quo manner."
then when it doesn't work we vote all the Republicans out of office for selling us a theory. Same way with the current federal policy, if this doesn't work, the Democrats should never get back into power. If it does the Republicans should go away.
Personally, interstate commerce always trumps federal mandate. just sayin...
At least Californians think so.
Well said!!! Oh, and here in NJ there's a vandal going around knocking random people's side mirrors off too!!!
Posted by: Shore Girl | 05/03/2010 at 03:16 PM
I think it's a gang marking thing. I think my son would have preferred having the assailant pee on his tires instead.
Posted by: Jhery | 05/03/2010 at 08:12 PM