"No, it's the actual context."

No, that's Dana's conventional interpretation, fostered by official statements from providers, and the elected. It may actually spread the risk or allow it to be shared, but that's not the reason for it, just the coincidental byproduct.

But, it's an interpretation.

"If you view any reduction of risk as meaningless until it can reduce the risk to 0%, that's a pretty low tolerance."

Never said or implied any of this nonsense.

Just the opposite: was damn clear, ban the fuckin' guns, confiscate what you can...won't make a damn bit of difference (and I sure won't cooperate) but you'll 'feel better' (which is what all this about, yes?).

#

"If you're just using talk of the impossibility of "eliminating" risk as a distraction from any talk of reducing it, then, yay for you, I guess."

Yay for me, always. That's beside the pont which got ain't nuthin' to do with distractions. Seems to me I'm lookin' the issue ('gun' and 'gun user') square in the face.

Just waitin' on the rest of you to do the same (but not tw...he ain't capable of facin' anything not approved by the politburo).

henry quick couldn't identify a communist even it one stabbed him in the back. Because that would be other members of his platoon.

tw = rabid, agency-killing, communitarian.

Identified. Easy-peasy.

Do you know the history of insurance? I do - and sharing the risk was the original purpose of insurance. The big bucks are the byproduct of that development.

You talk about your tolerance for risk. That's fine - it's up to you if you want to insure your risk. The mandatory nature of motor insurance is because of the third party element.

She’s right you know. I studied the history of insurance, too. Lloyd’s coffee shop, the sharing of risk and the sharing of gain from the actual (seafaring) adventures ....




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yeah, Loyd's is the granddaddy of insurance, but not the premise.
It started when primitive people started banding into groups/villages, one for all, all for one.

Those dirty commies...

I remember when Ivana took the Donald back to court for more alimony. She said I can't live on $75,000 a month. Seems to me like he took care of her.

That crack about confiscating firearms without due process should give us all pause. Sen Flake may have him pegged though, whoever talked to him last...

He's an idiot. Truly an idiot.

"Do you know the history of insurance?"

Sadly, no...the extent of my knowledge (and interest) is that Ben Franklin started an insurance company.

#

"sharing the risk was the original purpose of insurance. The big bucks are the byproduct of that development."

I must disagree. The original (and current) purpose of insurance (in a free, or somewhat free, market) is to make money for the company owner(s). Providing a mechanism for 'sharing the risk' is the means by which that money is made.

'Big bucks' is not a byproduct but is the sought after goal.

"He's an idiot. Truly an idiot."
 

Why?

Companies that operate on that principle are some of the most unproductive companies in this country. They believe the entire purpose of that company is to enrich the central committee - top management.

How ironic. That is also called communism. When socialism breaks down, the Central Committee of the Communist Party is only interested in their wealth and power.

henry quirk has just endorsed communism. Go figure.

The purpose of every company is its product. Profits are only a reward for successfully doing its purpose. That has always been fundamental to this America economy.

"The purpose of every company is its product."
 

Nope. The purpose of every company is profit. Product or service is the means to profit. This is the basis of free enterprise (which I endorse and you despise).