European Court of Justice rules on Insurance / Pensions

[Welsh cake]

I have a huge problem with that kind of fascism, Government should not be able to force you to buy something from any company.

Driving is a privilege not a right.

Boy racers are usually the first to find that out the hard way, those car spoiler accessorising twats.

[HeyItsZeus]

This is an outrage! Men deserve better everything!

[theVOID]

I know it is, and it does naught to change the fact that you can take on board the responsibilities required without the government forcing you to buy a product from a corporation, the likes of whom most probably lobbied for the scenario because it's a favourable circumstance in their benefit, one that benefits the insurance provider more so than the people whom are at risk of losing property - There is absolutely no need for the fascism when it comes to taking on the responsibilities - The system here in NZ is a prime example of that.

[Ashendant]

I know it is, and it does naught to change the fact that you can take on board the responsibilities required without the government forcing you to buy a product from a corporation, the likes of whom most probably lobbied for the scenario because it's a favourable circumstance in their benefit, one that benefits the insurance provider more so than the people whom are at risk of losing property - There is absolutely no need for the fascism when it comes to taking on the responsibilities - The system here in NZ is a prime example of that.

Well in Portugal you are forced to have insurance, but there are a bunch of what i think are stupid rules, like if the other guy is drunk and bashes against your vehicle the insurance companies don't pay...

[theVOID]

So the number one cause of car crashes isn't insurable?

I wonder how many government cocks the insurance companies had to suck to get that into law.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

We have two kinds of car insurance here in Australia: (1)Comprehensive and (2) Third Party

(1) Comprehensive is voluntary:Full comprehensive insures me against damage I may do to my car or to that of another person. One may have "third party property" which insures only the car you hit,not your own. Useful if one is driving a $500 clunker.

(2) Third party proper is compulsory and is paid as part of vehicle registration, to the Department of motor vehicles; is is government run. It covers injury to a third party,usually a passenger in either vehicle.The payout can be hundreds of thousands of dollars.


My basic position in the common good is more important than the good of any one individual.The exception to this rule is when I happen to be the individual. This position can be hard to maintain,since I also have the traditional Celtic resentment of all forms of authority. I tend to ignore laws with which I disagree if can get away with it or am willing to wear the penalty if caught. (EG I do NOT pick up my dog's shit)

[Violet]

So the number one cause of car crashes isn't insurable?

I wonder how many government cocks the insurance companies had to suck to get that into law.

Not so much "how many cocks" as "how many times". Once might get you a slightly favorable position, but keep doing it for a while and it'll become a bit of a habit as well as constantly improving their position towards you.

And really, depending on how receptive Portugal's government is (you wouldn't like them I think, aren't they socialists?): it might not even have taken that much.

[fr0d0]

The insurance companies will compensate low risk in other ways. That's what no claims bonuses do.

[Ashendant]

And really, depending on how receptive Portugal's government is (you wouldn't like them I think, aren't they socialists?): it might not even have taken that much.

That's right the socialist party is one of the right parties in my country the other is social democrats(aka capitalists) and everything else is a bunch of tiny communist parties