Feeling kinda disheartened

[thewise1]

I guess it comes down to this - do you still dispute that mandatory insurance caused rates to increase, especially considering the study cite that was provided?

[lew]

Originally Posted by Grouch

3 Key areas.

energy
taxes
immigration


In all of these Romney on the conservative side of the issue while McCain was not.

You would think that a Ron Paul sack rider would be a little more up today on the issues. But you didn't know shit about what a spoiler is either so it doesn't surprise me that you know absolutely shit about the other candidates.

On taxes, McCain is MORE conservative than Romney.

On immigration, Romney didn't mind hiring illegal immigrants to cut his grass.


And on energy, again, Romney and McCain are not that much different.

[Grouch]

You mean this statement?

According to this link, Only New Hampshire and Wisconsin don't have compulsory liability insurance now. According to the cost of auto insurance section that I linked above, New Hampshire is the 22nd most expensive (least expensive) state, and Wisconsin is the 45th most expensive (least expensive) state in terms of auto insurance.

You either misunderstood what the information in the link below said, or you're too stupid to figure out what you typed about was incorrect. So I fixed it for you in bold.

_Insurance.htm

That said, of the 2 states without mandatory insurance (as said by you), 1 state is in the middle of the pack. And 1 state has 5 states that require insurance still cheaper than it.

Originally Posted by thewise1

I guess it comes down to this - do you still dispute that mandatory insurance caused rates to increase, especially considering the study cite that was provided?

What I see is that 2 stats as evidence that mandatory insurance causes rates to go up with neither of the state is cheapest in the nation is nor proof that mandating insurance causes rates to go up or that illuminating will cause rates to go down.

[Thorgrim]

I don't like "studies" from .org

They are 99% of the time done by people who made the conclusion "mandates are bad, lets go find information to make this conclusion valid" and are very poor ways of arriving at information

I see from the rankings site, that PA is 21st..sounds about right...around 800 a year, adjusted for inflation that's what my relatives have been paying for since the 80s when it was enacted, and also when it was expanded and amended...its been pretty solid and no one has any complaints...

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by Grouch

You mean this statement?



You either misunderstood what the information in the link below said, or you're too stupid to figure out what you typed about was incorrect. So I fixed it for you in bold.

_Insurance.htm

That said, of the 2 states without mandatory insurance (as said by you), 1 state is in the middle of the pack. And 1 state has 5 states that require insurance still cheaper than it.




What I see is that 2 stats as evidence that mandatory insurance causes rates to go up with neither of the state is cheapest in the nation is nor proof that mandating insurance causes rates to go up or that illuminating will cause rates to go down.

Wow

You think that when NH is listed as 22 in that list, with 1 being most expensive, that it's the 22nd LEAST expensive?

and illuminating it?

Are we speaking the same language here, bro?

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I don't like "studies" from .org

They are 99% of the time done by people who made the conclusion "mandates are bad, lets go find information to make this conclusion valid" and are very poor ways of arriving at information

I see from the rankings site, that PA is 21st..sounds about right...around 800 a year, adjusted for inflation that's what my relatives have been paying for since the 80s when it was enacted, and also when it was expanded and amended...its been pretty solid and no one has any complaints...

You don't like "studies" that suggest your views are wrong. This has always been true.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by thewise1

You don't like "studies" that suggest your views are wrong. This has always been true.

They decided anyone but their view is wrong before they even did any research

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

They decided anyone but their view is wrong before they even did any research

You realize you're doing right now exactly what you hated when people did to you at the other place, right?

[Grouch]

Originally Posted by lew

On taxes, McCain is MORE conservative than Romney.

Not in his current rhetoric he's not.

Originally Posted by lew

On immigration, Romney didn't mind hiring illegal immigrants to cut his grass.

You should fact check that, he hired a company to cut is grass, that company hired illegals.

But thats irrelivant because you're just looking for another hot issue to cry about without knowing any real facts or stances by anyone other than Paul.

And on energy, again, Romney and McCain are not that much different. [/quote]

Yet McCain apposes drilling in ANWAR, wants to tax another .50 a gallon on gas, McCain has flip flopped on Nuclear power and voted for enthanol and to defund solar

Yeah you may want to rethink that.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by Grouch

Not in his current rhetoric he's not.



You should fact check that, he hired a company to cut is grass, that company hired illegals.

But thats irrelivant because you're just looking for another hot issue to cry about without knowing any real facts or stances by anyone other than Paul.

And on energy, again, Romney and McCain are not that much different.

Yet McCain apposes drilling in ANWAR, wants to tax another .50 a gallon on gas, McCain has flip flopped on Nuclear power and voted for enthanol and to defund solar

Yeah you may want to rethink that.[/quote]
All you've got is the RP schtick

[Grouch]

Originally Posted by thewise1

Yet McCain apposes drilling in ANWAR, wants to tax another .50 a gallon on gas, McCain has flip flopped on Nuclear power and voted for enthanol and to defund solar

Yeah you may want to rethink that.

All you've got is the RP schtick

If the shoe fits, lew has shown himself to be wholly ignorant of the issues outside of what RP has to say about them.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by Grouch

If the shoe fits, lew has shown himself to be wholly ignorant of the issues outside of what RP has to say about them.

I still haven't seen you address our earlier conversation, and that leads me to believe that you're the one who is wholly ignorant of the issue (at least, the one we were discussing).

[Grouch]

Originally Posted by thewise1

I still haven't seen you address our earlier conversation, and that leads me to believe that you're the one who is wholly ignorant of the issue (at least, the one we were discussing).

What conversation? I'm formulating a reply to you last post right now.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by Grouch

What conversation? I'm formulating a reply to you last post right now.

The car insurance conversation, and if so then

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by thewise1

You realize you're doing right now exactly what you hated when people did to you at the other place, right?

I never pulled out think tank studies as gospel truths

I used to pull out non-partisan research from the GAO that said Welfare (food stamps and TANF) was only 1% of the budget, and people would scream that was outrageous and troll and troll and troll

In their world, 80% of the budget goes towards food stamps for bums

In real and post 9/11 OT, it was so e-cool to be a Republican parrot until 2004

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I never pulled out think tank studies as gospel truths

I used to pull out non-partisan research from the GAO that said Welfare (food stamps and TANF) was only 1% of the budget, and people would scream that was outrageous and troll and troll and troll

In their world, 80% of the budget goes towards food stamps for bums

In real and post 9/11 OT, it was so e-cool to be a Republican parrot until 2004

Yeah you never posted thinktank studies about gun control

If you say so buddy

[lew]

Originally Posted by Grouch

Not in his current rhetoric he's not.



You should fact check that, he hired a company to cut is grass, that company hired illegals.

But thats irrelivant because you're just looking for another hot issue to cry about without knowing any real facts or stances by anyone other than Paul.

And on energy, again, Romney and McCain are not that much different.

Yet McCain apposes drilling in ANWAR, wants to tax another .50 a gallon on gas, McCain has flip flopped on Nuclear power and voted for enthanol and to defund solar

Yeah you may want to rethink that.

Why do you keep bringing up Ron Paul? Is that all you can say?


No shit he hired a company that employed illegals. Great newsflash there. He KNEW the company was using illegals and didn't do anything about it. Yeah, he's great on immigration

Interesting for you to criticize McCain for flip flopping on nuclear power when Romney has flip flopped on EVERY SINGLE ISSUE.

[Grouch]

Originally Posted by thewise1

You think that when NH is listed as 22 in that list, with 1 being most expensive, that it's the 22nd LEAST expensive?

Eh, my bad I shouldn’t had said that. It’s the 22 MOST Expensive. Only to further show that not having mandatory insurance doesn’t necessarily lower costs

Neither of the 2 states without mandatory insurance can say they have the cheapest rates.

[Grouch]

Originally Posted by lew

Why do you keep bringing up Ron Paul? Is that all you can say?

Nothing more needed when you've shown to know nothing about the other candidates

Originally Posted by lew

No shit he hired a company that employed illegals. Great newsflash there. He KNEW the company was using illegals and didn't do anything about it. Yeah, he's great on immigration

You want to prove that?

Originally Posted by lew

Interesting for you to criticize McCain for flip flopping on nuclear power when Romney has flip flopped on EVERY SINGLE ISSUE.

At least Romney can say he's have a definite personal attitude change. McCain has never said such a thing.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by Grouch

Eh, my bad I shouldn’t had said that. It’s the 22 MOST Expensive. Only to further show that not having mandatory insurance doesn’t necessarily lower costs

Neither of the 2 states without mandatory insurance can say they have the cheapest rates.

Now that we've established that we're at least speaking the same language (I don't mean that in a condescending way, just you have to have that baseline agreement there for it to have any point at all), you're right, they aren't the cheapest states in the union.

Now, let's examine some other mitigating factors.

1) California, for instance, has a low income insurance program. For people who make under $20k/year, the state offers a subsidized insurance program that brings down their average significantly. I don't have time to research them all, but I believe you will find this to be true in at least some of the other really expensive states.
2) Geographical location (territory) also plays a large part in pricing. If you take that into account like the study I cited did, then you will find that it is indeed cheaper in areas without compulsory insurance.