Here in CR we have a government insurance monoploly.. Insurance (all liability and hospital care for occupants) is included with your license plate renewal every year, this costs me 70,000 colones for the car and 85,000 for the motorcycle (or $121 car- $146 motorcycle), That is what happens when good government does good things. The insurance pays regardless if the driver is legal or not. We have the same makes and models as you do (minus Chevy) and all parts cost 25-50% MORE as all are imported. Go Figure.
On Jul 26, 9:33 am, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > The irony of this thread, is that Holly supports the politicians who > advocate these kinds of laws, (e.g.; the Democrat Party!!) yet bitches about > it when it effects his own brood. > > Irony? Or Ignorance? > > You be the judge!!! > > On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Keith In Tampa > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > You are exactly correct Perp, at least here in Florida. The SR-22, as well > > as the insurance penalty, is required only if you don't turn in your tags > > after being uninsured. This had to have been the case with Holly's son, and > > I wasn't going to berate the point. > > > I actually agree with Holly on this issue, the law, even though well > > intentioned, is a bad law, and benefits the insurance companies, thereby > > hurting those individuals of lower socio-economic status. > > > Kind of like the bankruptcy laws now.....I think it is a bit over $1000.00 > > in filing fees now in federal court to file for protection..... > > > The family law cases that I see frequently, have those who are dealing with > > Florida's Department of Children, literally jumping through hoops, that no > > middle class individual could accomplish, much less an individual without a > > vehicle. By example, some of these individuals are required to take a bus, > > (of course the State furnishes them bus passes) across town, that would > > entail a day's travel, to attend some class at night that is thirty miles > > from their home. I posed this question to a Court not too long ago, that > > of all the individuals sitting in the courtroom, all with juris-doctorates, > > none of the individuals could accomplish the case plan that had been laid > > out by the Department of Children and Families for a black woman with no > > vehicle and who worked approximately 30 hours a week in a fast food > > restaurant with three kids to support. > > > Like I said last night, there are countless examples of bad laws that prey > > upon the poor and downtrodden. These insurance laws are but one example. > > > On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Perplexed > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > >> What difference does that make? > >> ------------ > >> Umm...a huge one. Read your state's law. Only drivers and those who > >> own cars are required to have insurance. If someone doesn't own a car > >> and doesn't have insurance, they can't be penalized for going without > >> it for a time period. > > >>http://dor.mo.gov/mvdl/drivers/insurinfo.htm > > >> I would check into it. It doesn't appear that it's legal for them to > >> punish him if he wasn't driving during that time period and didn't own > >> a car. They can stiff him for 3 years with those SR22 rates on this > >> if he doesn't fight it. > > >> On Jul 26, 9:45 am, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > Perp, > > >> > What difference does that make? He is not being punished for not > >> > driving, he is being "punished" for not buying car insurance for 6 > >> > consequetive months. In fact he was NOT driving for most of those 6 > >> > months as he had been in a bad accident and was in a wheelchair for > >> > much of the time. > > >> > On Jul 25, 11:34 pm, Perplexed <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > How did his insurance company know he was driving for the months he > >> > > was driving your car? Can he not just say "I wasn't driving"? > > >> > > On Jul 26, 12:15 am, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > > Perp, > > >> > > > Nope, his driving record is perfectly clean. Only thing he did > >> "wrong" > >> > > > is to not have car insurance for 6 consecutive months as he was > >> > > > driving a car owned, registered and insured by me. I could be wrong > >> > > > about him actually having to file an SR-22 but the RATES he will > >> have > >> > > > to pay are the same as a driver that has had to. That was my point, > >> > > > having to pay the same rates as one who did have a bad driving > >> record. > > >> > > > On Jul 25, 10:46 pm, Perplexed <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > > > That's weird. Here you have to do something wrong to have to file > >> an > >> > > > > SR22 (like a DUI or uninsured accident). I'd check with your BMV. > > >> > > > > On Jul 24, 2:41 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > > >> > > > > > Little incident happened today that makes me furious and I'll be > >> > > > > > damned if I can think of any excuse/justification other than > >> plain old > >> > > > > > fashioned greed on the part of insurance companies. > >> > > > > > My oldest son is just now recovering from an extended period of > >> > > > > > unemployment bad enough that he had to return a new Jag that he > >> could > >> > > > > > no longer afford. I loaned him an old 4-wheel drive I kept for > >> fishing > >> > > > > > trips. I, of course ,had it licensed and insured in my own name. > >> > > > > > He recently started a decent job and was going to buy a used > >> Malibu I > >> > > > > > loaned him the money to buy. He called the insurance agent he'd > >> had > >> > > > > > for years to check on the insurance rate for it and was told he > >> would > >> > > > > > have to file what is called an SR-22 and would have to pay high > >> risk > >> > > > > > rates, the same as if he'd had multiple chargeable accidents, > >> moving > >> > > > > > violations and/or even a DUI! Why, he quite reasonably asked. He > >> was > >> > > > > > told it was because he had not had auto insurance for more than > >> 6 > >> > > > > > consecutive months. That's it! > >> > > > > > He had been driving with the same driver's license, had received > >> no > >> > > > > > tickets, no accidents, no nothing. So far as his actions as a > >> safe > >> > > > > > driver were concerned nothing whatsoever had changed. Why would > >> > > > > > someone who did not own a car have auto insurance? > >> > > > > > Conveniently, for the insurance companies, it is state law in > >> Missouri > >> > > > > > than one MUST have auto insurance. You can't even get your car > >> > > > > > licensed w/o showing proof of insurance and getting caught > >> driving w/o > >> > > > > > adequate insurance is a minimum of a $500.00 fine and the threat > >> of > >> > > > > > having your driver's license suspended. > > >> > > > > > Looks to me like a simple case of the insurance industry saying > >> "well, > >> > > > > > we are fucking you just because we can and there's not a damned > >> thing > >> > > > > > you can do about it". How many people in today's economy are > >> getting > >> > > > > > royally screwed like this I have to wonder?- Hide quoted text - > > >> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > >> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
