Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
^ Man public insurance just looks better and better from where I'm sitting...and I'm an almost total capitalist!
|
That $7.7 Billion number has to be put into prospective as I'm sure the capital employed by the sector is rather substatial and thus this represents a decent return on capital. Using 2002 is also a poor reference point as any industry that depends on stock market returns performed poorly in that year as it was probably the bottom of market in the past decade. I'm sure as an FA you'd agree with me that 2002 wasn't pretty.
While the more I learn about this story I agree the whole thing stinks, but I don't see how you improve efficiency, reduce corruption, and benefit consumers as a whole by nationalizing it. Sure rates might go down but the taxpayers will be subsidizing the difference. Therefore transit riders who also draw a taxable income will be paying for those that drive. That in my mind is just as bad as accident victims subsidizing other drivers and insurance company profits by taking an artificially lower settlement. I think now that the QB has struck this down it's time drivers face facts and realize that what they pay in insurance reflects their share of the cost of risk on our road system. If you dont' want to pay your share then get off the road.