Thank's T-Town News!!
Dear Editor: During the “Take Back Our Highways" campaign I encountered the following scene when I arrived to pick my husband up from work in Coosa County.
Five state troopers were sitting at the entrance to a manufacturing plant checking licenses and insurance. People at this plant work for very low wages. The vast majority of them work for health insurance coverage and take home very little every week. Car insurance simply isn’t in their budgets.
Now, someone is bound to say, “Well, they shouldn’t be driving then." But that is a simpleton’s view of the situation. If they aren’t able to drive, then they aren’t able to work, and if they aren’t able to work, then they wind up on the taxpayers’ tab. Which would you rather them do?
How can a state government require residents to buy something they cannot afford? Oh yeah, the insurance companies own the government. That’s fascism. What has happened to America that we allow this kind of harassment and extortion of the working poor? When did it become OK for police to demand our papers? This isn’t Russia or East Germany ... it’s America ... but I no longer recognize it.
4 comments:
OUR gov't has been selling our rights away for about 95 years,to the highest bidder.Dupont,Monsanto,Insurance,they all have lined POLITICIANS pockets with money,they turn around and collect from US,WE THE PEOPLE!!!!!
I suggested to a community group this morning that, since there was no decent public transit, insurance requirements should be subsidize. Another person interjected that repairs should be subsidized.
It's a cruel catch-22--no mass transit, no raise, auto operation costs up, family needs to eat, so driver verrrry carefully.
--A quote in a cartoon I saw today brought something to mind:
"When gas prices reach $5 a gallon, it should include car insurance"
---Perhaps pay-at-the-pump auto insurance would be a better option,
because EVERY licensed driver would, (pardon the pun), automatically be insured.
And . . the more one drives, uses gasoline, the more insurance "payments" that person would make.
---One big problem under the present system;
Even if you are complynig w/ the law and carrying the minimum required liability coverance, (sometimes at high cost EVEN FOR 'good' drivers),
you're still out in the cold IF the other, (at-fault), driver is NOT insured.
Whereas, w/ a pay-at-the-pump system, your would be able to receive compensation for damages to your vehicle/property and medical expenses, regardless.
Found this article by googling:
"pay at the pump insurance" +advatages
Pay-at-the-Pump Auto Insurance
http://ideas.repec.org/p/rff/dpaper/dp-98-13-rev.html
CORRECTION (typos):
Google search-terms should have been listed as:
"pay at the pump insurance" +advantages
NOT:
"pay at the pump insurance" +advatages
I had omitted typing in the letter 'n'.
Also:
"your would be able to receive. . ."
should be
"you would be able to receive . . ."
Post a Comment