[Rushtalk] Dallas

Tom Matiska tom.matiska at att.net
Wed Sep 2 16:01:58 MDT 2015


Cal recently provided subsidized insurance for illegals at $38/month.  This was to fix the problem of 1.4M uninsured driving up insurance costs by making legal residents pay instead for illegals insurance as taxpayers.     It should have an Act 65 warning saying only California knows this to make sense.   AB 60 which gives DLs to illegals requires insurance, but I've yet to find numbers showing a dent in the problem since January.  Tom
T-Mobile. America's First Nationwide 4G Network

"Stephen A. Frye" <s.frye at verizon.net> wrote:

>Right - though I can't compare to PA.  I pay $1300 per year for a LOT of insurance.
>
>Your individual facts are probably accurate.  The previous conclusion you drew was not.
>
>And you omit several key statistics.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com [mailto:rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com] On Behalf Of Tom Matiska
>Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 12:35 PM
>To: Rushtalk Discussion List
>Subject: Re: [Rushtalk] Dallas
>
>Last time I lived in SoCal my rates were double my PA rates.  Try to buy car insurance without a license.  Google the number of traffic accidents/ fatalities involving illegals.  If you are a properly licensed and insured driver you are footing the bill for their uninsured status.  Tom T-Mobile. America's First Nationwide 4G Network
>
>"Stephen A. Frye" <s.frye at verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>Your math is flawed.  Very.  On one hand you are talking/writing about premiums, and then you conclude with losses, assuming a $1000 (plus) loss for every illegal alien in the country.  And you doubled your own figure of $1000 to support your claim of losses by illegals.  I don't know what the annual insurance losses are across the country, my guess is that you didn’t either when you wrote this.  But not every illegal causes an accident, and not every uninsured accident is caused by an illegal.
>>
>>Your post here seems to imply that we eliminate illegal immigration, we will eliminate uninsured drivers.  Not a valid argument at all.
>>
>>This discussion was originally premised on uninsured motorists.  You have now tried to glue this to the argument of illegal immigration.  These two issues may have a mathematical intersection, but they are separate considerations.
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com [mailto:rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com] On 
>>Behalf Of Tom Matiska
>>Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 10:28 AM
>>To: Rushtalk Discussion List
>>Subject: Re: [Rushtalk] Dallas
>>
>>Simple math says uninsured illegals(10M+++ ??) times $1K+ for insurance(double that in SoCal) equals $20B+ in losses for the insured motorists they victimize.
>>
>>Plus the value of the 5K lives they claim on the road each year. In terms liberals understand that is the amount of lives lost in the first 10 years of both wars combined.
>>
>>There is no legal reason I'm aware of to give qualified Mexican drivers a DL.   We don't need it in their country. Real issue is the left wishes to use the U.S. DL as a passport to citizenship. 
>> 
>>Tom
>>
>>--------------------------------------------
>>On Wed, 9/2/15, Stephen A. Frye <s.frye at verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> And the mathematical correlation
>> between illegals and mandatory car insurance is … 
>>_______________________________________________
>>Rushtalk mailing list
>>Rushtalk at csdco.com
>>http://kalos.csdco.com/mailman/listinfo/rushtalk
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Rushtalk mailing list
>>Rushtalk at csdco.com
>>http://kalos.csdco.com/mailman/listinfo/rushtalk
>_______________________________________________
>Rushtalk mailing list
>Rushtalk at csdco.com
>http://kalos.csdco.com/mailman/listinfo/rushtalk
>
>_______________________________________________
>Rushtalk mailing list
>Rushtalk at csdco.com
>http://kalos.csdco.com/mailman/listinfo/rushtalk


More information about the Rushtalk mailing list