Stupid Pilot Tricks - Insurance Co. Trying to Back Out

zatatime

Ditto Texas.

Big John

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 17:33:52 GMT, zatatime
wrote:

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 10:27:14 -0700, AES/newspost
wrote:

My impression is that in Europe auto insurance coverage goes with the
car, not the driver. If so, good idea.

New Jersey has this type of insurance as well.

z

Probably in many states you can. It costs me $21 per $1000 in value for my
airplane. It costs
me $28 per $1000 in value for my car.



"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...

"C Kingsbury" wrote in message
ink.net...

Yes, and in New Jersey you can probably insure a $50,000 Cessna for less
than a $50,000 Lexus, with higher liability limits to boot.

The fact that the NJ auto insurance follows the car has no bearing on the
fact that the insurance situation up there is a citole. The problem is
that
the legislature is full of personal injury lawyers and the insurance
system is
the screwiest half-assed no-fault ever seen which pretty much encourages
everybody to go to court. Most companies won't write coverage there if
they can avoid it which means that a third of the state's drivers are in
an
equally corruptly administered uninsured drivers pool.

My insurance dropped to 25% of what it was before when I moved from NJ
to VA. My insurance company always insured both me (in other people's
cars)
and my car (when other people drive) in both states.

"AES/newspost" wrote in message
...
In article t,
"Mike Rapoport" wrote:

Why should they pay a claim if they are not required to?

Fair question -- but from a broader social point of view, if an
expensive object (like an airplane) that has some small but significant
change of causing massive damage to innocent third parties is going to
be exist and be operated at all, maybe (or for sure, IMHO) it should be
impossible for it to operate, or even exist, without at least liability
coverage for damage to others.

So maybe a legislative requirement on any company providing any kind of
aviation related insurance should be that all their policies must always
contain third-party liability coverage -- insurance on a plane should be
required to include liability coverage for others no matter who operates
it (even if it's stolen); insurance on a pilot should include liability
coverage for others, no matter what plane he operates (or in what
condition).

My impression is that in Europe auto insurance coverage goes with the
car, not the driver. If so, good idea.

Our governor just vetoed drivers license for undocumented immigrants on
grounds of inadequate insurance provisions: also a good idea,
independent of views on whether undocumented immigrants should be given
drivers licenses at all.

Yeah, that's what we need, more government intervention. They do such a
good job when they interfere with the market.

What you are saying makes sense to me - insure everything. Europe is
great - I can't wait for the government in the US to finally convert totally
to socialism. It will be such a huge step forward for us.

Hi NG,

So maybe a legislative requirement on any company providing any kind
of aviation related insurance should be that all their policies must
always contain third-party liability coverage -- insurance on a plane
should be required to include liability coverage for others no matter
who operates it (even if it's stolen); insurance on a pilot should
include liability coverage for others, no matter what plane he
operates (or in what condition).

My impression is that in Europe auto insurance coverage goes with the
car, not the driver. If so, good idea.

Yes, that's the case in Germany. To register a car you are required to
have an insurance that will cover any damage to others caused with this
car, no matter how reckless the driver or whatever the circumstances.
They will afterwards try to reclaim the damage from the driver or
whoever they see not complying with requirements. Could also be the
person who registered the car, if he didn't take proper precautions to
prevent unauthorized use for example. But whoever suffers damage from
this car will receive compensation.

Definitely a good idea.

regards,
Friedrich

--
for personal email please remove "entfernen" from my adress

"Richard Hertz" no one@no one.com wrote in message
et...

"AES/newspost" wrote in message
...
In article t,
"Mike Rapoport" wrote:

....snip...

My impression is that in Europe auto insurance coverage goes with the
car, not the driver. If so, good idea.

Our governor just vetoed drivers license for undocumented immigrants on
grounds of inadequate insurance provisions: also a good idea,
independent of views on whether undocumented immigrants should be given
drivers licenses at all.

Yeah, that's what we need, more government intervention. They do such a
good job when they interfere with the market.

What you are saying makes sense to me - insure everything. Europe is
great - I can't wait for the government in the US to finally convert
totally
to socialism. It will be such a huge step forward for us.



If insurance is such a "socialist" concept, why do we use it at all?

There are many brands of "socialism", some within dictatorships..... but
many within democracies, something that seems to escape a lot of us.

The definitions range everything from:
"The set of beliefs which states that all people are equal...." which I am
sure you would not dispute, to:
"the...[economy]...is owned collectively or by a centralized government that
plans and controls it...."

Under some of the definitions, "of the people, by the people, for the
people", can sound like a pretty "socialist" concept, especially when I have
to assume that the constitution did not intend to leave anyone out, did
it??... and the real interpretation must be: "of ALL the people, by ALL the
people, for ALL the people".


It means that citizens help other citizens, sharing their skill and good
fortune with the less able (ie: "the people"). In most civilized circles
that is considered a "good" thing.

Perhaps a return to those concepts WOULD be "a huge step forward".

The pure "market" is not so perfect, either, producting its own set of
problems. It continues to concentrate wealth, and spread the gap between
rich and poor.... If that continues, (and right now there is no indication
that it will not), the ultimate result will be civil revolution... just a
matter of whether it is reached in fifteen years, or a hundred and fifteen.

Unless, of course, the "government" clamps down on the revolutionaries with
military might, in which case we have something akin to feudalism or
dictatorship, as in any number of countries you could point at recently, or
even today.

The founding Fathers wrote in some stuff to prevent that. I hope it is
still holding up???

--
*** A great civilization is not conquered from without until it
has destroyed itself from within. ***
- Ariel Durant 1898-1981

snip

It means that citizens help other citizens, sharing their skill and good
fortune with the less able (ie: "the people"). In most civilized circles
that is considered a "good" thing.

Yes, it is generally considered a "good thing", but forcing that
"sharing of skill and good fortune" is anathema to many people. Most
people realize that it's in their self interest to share some, but they
would like to exert control on the extent of the sharing. When
government goes and shares YOUR wealth beyond what you would do on your
own, there are some sour grapes.

Perhaps a return to those concepts WOULD be "a huge step forward".

The pure "market" is not so perfect, either, producting its own set of
problems. It continues to concentrate wealth, and spread the gap between
rich and poor.... If that continues, (and right now there is no indication
that it will not), the ultimate result will be civil revolution... just a
matter of whether it is reached in fifteen years, or a hundred and fifteen.

I am flabbergasted every time that I hear the argument that "the market
system concentrates wealth", implying that there is a zero sum game
called "the market" where some people are the winners and everyone else
loses. The market system is the only system where all the participants,
under normal circumstances, benefit from their engagement in commerce
more than before their engagement. The exchange itself CREATES value,
and we go beyond that zero sum. Does the market create the opportunity
for some individuals to become extremely wealthy? Sure - but it's NOT
because of skin off of anyone else's back. So we have a bunch of people
that benefited from their engagement in the market now more wealthy than
before, and some that also benefited from their engagement in the market
to a greater extent, sometimes becoming very wealthy. What is
inherently wrong with that? There might be a large gap, but the fact
remains that those at the bottom are still better off than before. In a
well regulated market (which bars monopoly and dishonesty), the overall
effect is that everyone is better off.

The best feature of the market economy and freedom is that rich and poor
do not remain in either of those classes for very long. There is
economic mobility that sees people creating value and becoming richer
and rich people that become complacent and become poorer. This is why a
revolution is NOT inevitable, as you suggest. Why have a revolution
that makes us all equal, but equally miserable, when I could work a
while, start a business, and bring myself and my family to riches?


Unless, of course, the "government" clamps down on the revolutionaries with
military might, in which case we have something akin to feudalism or
dictatorship, as in any number of countries you could point at recently, or
even today.

Whoa, hold on there. There is no need for revolution. This is a
democratic country - those "revolutionaries" could simply run for
office. Luckily their ideas are so far removed from the values of most
Americans that they won't stand a chance in hell getting elected. We
know what has made this country great, and it's not government control
of the economy!


The founding Fathers wrote in some stuff to prevent that. I hope it is
still holding up???

Yes, the founding fathers wrote in some pretty neat stuff about
governing this nation, protecting freedom of speech, while at the same
time protecting EVERYONE's life and liberty. That excludes
"revolutionaries" that wish to impose their will on others by means
other than democratic election. The government does not have the
authority to "clamp down on revolutionaries with military might" under
our constitution unless they are breaking the law. So the Communist
Party USA can operates as freely as it wants, so long as they are not
breaking any laws. Laws that are checked by our judicial branch and
that must be constitutional. Although it is constantly under
bombardment, the constitution is still holding up.

How well would it hold up under socialism/communism? I assert that it
couldn't.

-Aviv

"Aviv Hod" wrote in message
...
[...] The market system is the only system where all the participants,
under normal circumstances, benefit from their engagement in commerce more
than before their engagement. The exchange itself CREATES value, and we
go beyond that zero sum. Does the market create the opportunity for some
individuals to become extremely wealthy? Sure - but it's NOT because of
skin off of anyone else's back.

Your description sounds great. I wish that's how things really worked. The
truth is that the wealthy use their wealth to protect their wealth, even to
increase it, while at the same time to prevent the poor from getting
wealthy.

Does every wealthy person behave this way? No. But plenty do, and enough
do that it's a serious problem. Only in a first grade schoolchild's fantasy
is it true that everyone has equal opportunity, and any random poor person
can become wealthy through simple hard work and perseverence.

See Kevin Phillips "Wealth and Democracy", as a starting point.

Pete

If you look at who is wealthy in the US you will notice that the list is
constantly changing and that most of them made their own way. This doesn't
support the notion that the wealthy are locked in and the poor are locked
out. I don't think that anyone would say the playing field is level anymore
than it is level in athletics or looks. It is not a perfect system by any
means but it seems to be better than any other system.

The "poor" around here are the ones who don't work or don't show up for work
during hunting season or when there is a foot of powder at the ski resort.
They are the ones who have four children by age 25. They are the ones who
have jet skis, snowmobiles, atvs and other leisure items that they don't
really "need" but purchased on credit anyway. Their work habits preclude
their incomes rising and their spending and lifestyle habits preclude
retaining any of what they do earn. I don't see any wealthy people
preventing them from succeeding.

Mike
MU-2


"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Aviv Hod" wrote in message
...
[...] The market system is the only system where all the participants,
under normal circumstances, benefit from their engagement in commerce
more than before their engagement. The exchange itself CREATES value,
and we go beyond that zero sum. Does the market create the opportunity
for some individuals to become extremely wealthy? Sure - but it's NOT
because of skin off of anyone else's back.

Your description sounds great. I wish that's how things really worked.
The truth is that the wealthy use their wealth to protect their wealth,
even to increase it, while at the same time to prevent the poor from
getting wealthy.

Does every wealthy person behave this way? No. But plenty do, and enough
do that it's a serious problem. Only in a first grade schoolchild's
fantasy is it true that everyone has equal opportunity, and any random
poor person can become wealthy through simple hard work and perseverence.

See Kevin Phillips "Wealth and Democracy", as a starting point.

Pete

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
nk.net...
If you look at who is wealthy in the US you will notice that the list is
constantly changing and that most of them made their own way.

Don't take my comments personally. Just because you're rich, that doesn't
mean I think you personally are driving this country to ruin.

If you look at the wealthiest and most powerful in our country, they all
came from wealth. The idea that "the list is constantly changing" is
laughable. The *order* of the people on the list does change, but the
people who are on that list doesn't change very much at all.

[...] It is not a perfect system by any means but it seems to be better
than any other system.

That is certainly debatable, but I won't bother...I've already done too much
off-topic here.

The "poor" around here are the ones who don't work or don't show up for
work during hunting season or when there is a foot of powder at the ski
resort.

Ahh, yes...must be nice to live somewhere that doesn't have truly
poverty-stricken people. Suffice to say, there are plenty of urban areas in
the US where the poor are a lot worse off than the ones near your mountain
getaway, and for most of whom all they did wrong was to be born into the
wrong economic class.

There certainly are lazy people around, and they often wind up poor (but
there's lots of lazy rich people too). But to assert that if you are poor,
you are obviously lazy is just plain ignorant.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
nk.net...
If you look at who is wealthy in the US you will notice that the list is
constantly changing and that most of them made their own way.

Don't take my comments personally. Just because you're rich, that doesn't
mean I think you personally are driving this country to ruin.

If you look at the wealthiest and most powerful in our country, they all
came from wealth. The idea that "the list is constantly changing" is
laughable. The *order* of the people on the list does change, but the
people who are on that list doesn't change very much at all.

[...] It is not a perfect system by any means but it seems to be better
than any other system.

That is certainly debatable, but I won't bother...I've already done too
much off-topic here.

The "poor" around here are the ones who don't work or don't show up for
work during hunting season or when there is a foot of powder at the ski
resort.

Ahh, yes...must be nice to live somewhere that doesn't have truly
poverty-stricken people. Suffice to say, there are plenty of urban areas
in the US where the poor are a lot worse off than the ones near your
mountain getaway, and for most of whom all they did wrong was to be born
into the wrong economic class.

There certainly are lazy people around, and they often wind up poor (but
there's lots of lazy rich people too). But to assert that if you are
poor, you are obviously lazy is just plain ignorant.

I am not saying poor people are lazy, or even those that I was describing
are lazy. Some are and some aren't. Hunting and skiing are harder than
most jobs. These people aren't lazy, they are just making decisions that
limit their financial success. I wouldn't even go so far as to say thay
they are making poor choices. All I am saying is that the choices that they
have made have put them in a different situation than people with the same
skills who made different choices.

An aquaintance of mine's wife is African-American, grew up in rural Alabama
to uneducated parents in a shack with no electricity or any plumbing. She
is now a vice president of a Fortune 100 company. I grew up in an
upper-middle class area, went to public schools, went to a state university
that was paid for through student loans and a job and went on to be
relatively successful. Did my aquaintance's wife overcome more obstacles
than I did? Certainly. But the fact is that she made it because of the
chioces she made and the inate intelligence she started with..

I know a lot of high school educated people from very modest backgrounds who
are fairly successful. The only difference that I can see between them and
those I described previously is that they made, and continue to make,
different choices. The lifestyle choices that will deliver better long term
financial outcomes are well known but people continue to make the opposite
choices. That is their right and their choice but the outcome is theirs as
well. It would be interesting to know what the outcomes of those who make
the same choices are. How many people who, by choice, did not finish high
school, had two or more children by age 25, use credit to buy un-needed
consumable items end up successful regardless of their background? How many
who made the opposite choices ended up in poverty? I believe that the
answer would show that the choices we make have more bearing on where we end
up than what we start with.

Mike
MU-2