On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 16:43:30 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
James Wilkinson wrote:
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.

I did say ask your parrot if you didn't understand the difference.

There is no difference. I've explained why they're the same, I've yet to see your counter argument.

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.

Have you any idea how much it costs to sort a house after the fire brigade
has put out even a fairly minor fire?

Depends if you waste money or fix it yourself. And most people never have the fire brigade out.

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.

As I said before, ask your parrot. It would know - as everyone does - that
it is likely the claim for third party injuries which could be massive -
not the vehicle.

Bull****. Most accidents just break the cars. And injuries should never be paid for by someone else. It's just tough ****.

--
"If women are so bloody perfect at multitasking,
How come they can't have a headache and sex at the same time?" - Bill Connolly