On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 15:37:40 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
James Wilkinson wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 14:02:18 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
James Wilkinson wrote:
In my entire life, the only thing the NHS fixed for me was a couple of
broken bones. That's a lot less than my tax contributions to the NHS.
I would much rather have paid for the bones from my own pocket.

Right. One of those eternal optimists. No house insurance either?

Only buildings to shut the mortgage lender up.

Like the lottery, the odds are always against you. The insurance
company makes money. If you don't get anything insured, you're much
better off, and can afford the odd mishap.

Not like the lottery. You play the lottery hoping to get a windfall. You
insure against being hit by a windfall.

So exactly the same. Both involve paying money into something on the slight offchance of something happening. Sensible people realise you shouldn't bother with the unlikely.

If you have enough money to pay for your house being destroyed by fire
etc, no need to have insurance.

Not likely for the whole thing to be destroyed.

Very few indeed have enough money to pay for a possible third party claim
after a motor accident - hence the compulsory insurance.

They shouldn't have to pay. Why not make it everyone pays for their own car, no matter who is at fault? And no, careless drivers couldn't go around destroying hundreds of cars, they couldn't afford their own to be replaced that often.

--
Acupuncturists do it with a small prick.