Minimum requirements now are 10 grand collision and 10 grand medical. There was a large difference in my insurance when I moved policies from Kentucky to Florida. Same company, same coverage just a difference based on uninsured motorists.

The fact at least 1 in 4 cars is being driven illegally and not even a token effort is made to stop it is pitiful. If it wasn't costing everyone else money I wouldn't care.

Funny, my motorcycle costs more than my car, the coverage is more comprehensive, I use it 90% of the time and it's 4 times cheaper than my SUV.

Such a dumb fuck you are

You are so ignorant. All you have to do is show proof of Financial Responsibility Financial Responsibility (Insurance) Requirements for Vehicle Registration (FFVR 18)

Scroll down the page idiot:


What Are the Types of Financial Responsibility?

Motor vehicle liability insurance policy.
Cash deposit of $35,000 with DMV.
DMV-issued self-insurance certificate.
Surety bond for $35,000 from a company licensed to do business in California.

Go ahead and twist it; the point is no one must PURCHASE auto insurance; no one is required by law to have homeowners insurance. ONLY health insurance is mandatory.

If you have assets you would be foolish to insure at auto liability state mandated minimums unless you want to chance having to live in a cardboard box after the lawyers and courts get done with you ...

What the fuck do Obamacare or auto insurance costs have to do with net neutrally escapes me.

as per usual, you have no idea what you are talking about and still can't read good.

insurance is a form of financial responsibility, not vice versa. proof of financial responsibility is required, not proof of insurance.

Here is the problem with what you are saying which you choose to ignore. Forcing people to buy health insurance saves states money. When people don't have health insurance they go to the hospital emergency room when they need treatment. These people don't pay those bills because they can't afford insurance so they can't afford getting charged $2,500 for an emergency room visit (if they are lucky).

The hospital then gets paid back by the state using your tax dollars and mine. The "fiscally responsible" thing to do is force everyone to buy health insurance because in the long run it's cheaper than paying for all the people whom use the emergency room as their free doctor's visit.

I own a house and am required to have home owners insurance, and I own a car and am required to have car insurance. That's not open to discussion. Any other argument is just plain childish.

So I am paying for you to go to the emergency room; got it. Not everyone goes to the doctor or emergency room.

The lender requires you to have fire insurance on your home; the government could not give two shits.

You do not have to drive a car and you do not have to purchase liability insurance if you use any of the methods mentioned above.

Health insurance is now mandatory or I am fined/taxed for not having it. I have lived for 25+ years without needing health insurance, why should I be forced to buy something I refuse to use?

Sorry if it is too deep for you to comprehend the difference.

No dildo.. you don't pay for me, because I'm responsible and have insurance. I also live in a different state. However yes you are paying taxes which go to pay hospital bills of the uninsured in your state. In fact Cali is one of the hardest hit.

You should welcome Obamacare because in the long run it will save the state money..

:thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup

Funny, it isn't the state that fines/taxes me for not having health insurance. So I am supporting you and your ilk.

crockett, you keep repeating this over and over. I've never heard of the govt. paying hospitals (which are private business run by huge corporations) anything.

But you keep claiming that. So I used this new fangled thing called "google" and typed in "does govt. pay for unpaid hospital bills"

Nope. Couldn't find one thing that said the govt. would ever pay a big hospital corporation for any losses.

I have no dog in this fight ... as I am insurred when I am in the USA...

Here is an excerpt of an article of 2011 :

Obviously, someone has to pay for it , either the hospital ( that would then increase rates of services provided to compensate ), the governement , individuals ( going bankrupt ), ....

Meanwhile, back to net neutrality , why are republicans against what the majority of the public wants ? They always say that they want the gov out off people business .... ????

directfiesta, nobody has to pay for it. At least not the govt.

If that were true, then these giant corporations that own the hospitals wouldn't always be making record profits.

Here in the U.S. they price gouge. Then that allows the insurance company to claim that they were presented with a certain amount for the bill.
Then there are no real "negotiations". There is a "real" price that is hidden from the consumer. And that's what the insurance company pays out to the hospital. And then the insurance company uses the fake price-gouged price to raise your premiums on you.

No, they don't "negotiate" millions and millions of hospital bills. The hospital DOES have real pricing. They just don't show it to consumers.

If anything, an argument could be made that the high prices that hospitals charge are caused by non-insured people skipping on their bills.

But IF that were true (which it isn't...as I said RECORD profits for these giant hospital corporations), then we should all be seeing the price of procedures in hospitals go WAY DOWN thanks to Obamacare.

Guess what? They haven't. So that excuse is not valid either (though I already knew that).

Anyway, no...the govt. doesn't "bailout" the hospital industry every day. Matter of fact, I'm unaware that the hospital corporations have ever needed govt. money. They are rolling in money...just like the insurance companies are.

As for net neutrality. I first heard of it and said "Yeah, this is what's needed".

Then I saw a discussion from adult industry leaders on Xbiz saying that "NO" it was not what it seemed.
And now it seems that since Republicans have come out against it...it's the "good" thing to have this bill pass (just because Republicans don't want it)

The politicians and the media seem to be real good at taking what should be simple...and make it a confusing issue.

Up to $49 billion unpaid by uninsured for hospitalizations - USATODAY.com


Seriously Robbie it's pretty fucking common knowledge..


Your googling skills sucks btw..

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourcei...hospital+costs

Your first link says nothing about govt. paying anything.

And your second link to a google search also doesn't show that govt. pays hospitals anything.