I have always felt that law enforcement agencies should be nearly, if not completely, funded by fines and penalties paid by the bad guys. The general public shouldn’t be funding the majority of their operations.
When the economy is in the tank like it currently is, people tend to commit more insurance fraud, and because the economy is bad, the insurance companies have to cut back too, and thus quite a bit of their SIU (Special Investigation Unit) get laid off as well. When the enconomy is bad, the LAST thing an insurer should cut is their SIU just for that very reason.
I have two comments: one, if police were funded ONLY by fines and costs, we end up with a moral hazard whereby the police will make arrests based upon financial need instead of to protect and serve the public. Two, how does prescription diverson cost insurance companies? The problem of diversion is just that, a legal prescription, for a legal insured, is diverted to others; whether or not the prescription is diverted, it was procurred legally and for a valid purpose. If we can prevent the diversion, the costs will not decrease but remain the exact same; diverting anything does not increase the costs.
Seems your looking at the article and attacking the topics within. This is a major problem in America today. Everyone addressing the problem and not the root cause of the issue.
The cause that sums all of these problems are corrupt politicians plus state and federal agencies that have, what they feel is an unlimited income. If they would obtain fiscally conservative values, manage as it was their business and hold to their respective constitutions, we would have balanced budgets with a growing economy.
Economies rise and fall no matter what the government does. If our government were perfectly balanced with no corruption, we’d still have peaks and valleys in the economy. It just gives the economy the best shot at recovering when it’s down if the government is in order. No matter what they do, the government cannot prevent a recession and they cannot improve a rally. We’ve seen them try everything and the only thing that has ever made a difference is starting a war.
“we end up with a moral hazard whereby the police will make arrests based upon financial need”.
and your point is what exactly, we all know that speeding fines are only imposed for revenue enhancement.
really want to convince us otherwise? then fine, from now on, no dollar amount for a speeding ticket, you get six points on your license, and after 2 speeding tickets you lose your license. But they won’t implement that one, because it eliminates REVENUE ENHANCEMENT.
all about safety? B.S. with a capital S.
it is all about the money.
wrong, we haven’t seen them execute ceos for sending american jobs overseas, let us try that one. We also haven’t seen them execute bank ceos for stealing money from the american taxpayer, let’s try that one too.
Your point 2 is wrong, diversion does cost extra. My husband has a pain prescription. Dr prescribs enough so he could take 3 pills every day. He doesn’t use them that often so we only need to buy a prescription every other month. If he sold the left over pills or gave them away each month, we would refill the prescription every month thus doubling the cost to our insurance company.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
I have always felt that law enforcement agencies should be nearly, if not completely, funded by fines and penalties paid by the bad guys. The general public shouldn’t be funding the majority of their operations.
Yeah, our speeding fines go to the local library! Should be used for the department so we don’t have to keep downsizing.
When the economy is in the tank like it currently is, people tend to commit more insurance fraud, and because the economy is bad, the insurance companies have to cut back too, and thus quite a bit of their SIU (Special Investigation Unit) get laid off as well. When the enconomy is bad, the LAST thing an insurer should cut is their SIU just for that very reason.
I have two comments: one, if police were funded ONLY by fines and costs, we end up with a moral hazard whereby the police will make arrests based upon financial need instead of to protect and serve the public. Two, how does prescription diverson cost insurance companies? The problem of diversion is just that, a legal prescription, for a legal insured, is diverted to others; whether or not the prescription is diverted, it was procurred legally and for a valid purpose. If we can prevent the diversion, the costs will not decrease but remain the exact same; diverting anything does not increase the costs.
Seems your looking at the article and attacking the topics within. This is a major problem in America today. Everyone addressing the problem and not the root cause of the issue.
The cause that sums all of these problems are corrupt politicians plus state and federal agencies that have, what they feel is an unlimited income. If they would obtain fiscally conservative values, manage as it was their business and hold to their respective constitutions, we would have balanced budgets with a growing economy.
Economies rise and fall no matter what the government does. If our government were perfectly balanced with no corruption, we’d still have peaks and valleys in the economy. It just gives the economy the best shot at recovering when it’s down if the government is in order. No matter what they do, the government cannot prevent a recession and they cannot improve a rally. We’ve seen them try everything and the only thing that has ever made a difference is starting a war.
“we end up with a moral hazard whereby the police will make arrests based upon financial need”.
and your point is what exactly, we all know that speeding fines are only imposed for revenue enhancement.
really want to convince us otherwise? then fine, from now on, no dollar amount for a speeding ticket, you get six points on your license, and after 2 speeding tickets you lose your license. But they won’t implement that one, because it eliminates REVENUE ENHANCEMENT.
all about safety? B.S. with a capital S.
it is all about the money.
“We’ve seen them try everything”
wrong, we haven’t seen them execute ceos for sending american jobs overseas, let us try that one. We also haven’t seen them execute bank ceos for stealing money from the american taxpayer, let’s try that one too.
Fair enough (i guess), but we have seen them take their companies away though. Who remembers Standard Oil and the railroads?
Your point 2 is wrong, diversion does cost extra. My husband has a pain prescription. Dr prescribs enough so he could take 3 pills every day. He doesn’t use them that often so we only need to buy a prescription every other month. If he sold the left over pills or gave them away each month, we would refill the prescription every month thus doubling the cost to our insurance company.