"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
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?

Because I'm not interested in having my new car written
off by some stupid clown that can't drive for nuts.

And no, careless drivers couldn't go around destroying hundreds of cars,
they couldn't afford their own to be replaced that often.

Corse they could if they are well paid or are very successful
working for themselves and drive cheap used cars because
they are such hopeless drivers.