What do you think about Massachusets insurance law?
443342
its about time.  i am sick and tired of subsidizing others insurance, when they are fully able to pay for it themselves.  so they can't party every night of the week anymore.  boo-hoo
236191
What kind of insurance are you looking for?
628840
As I understand the basics of the legal arguments here, its about freedom of choice.....an interesting concept, when the federal government spends millions of dollars every year to treat self-induced cancer.\n\nI feel about this one the same way I feel about helmet laws.  If you want to smoke or not wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle, fine.  But sign a waiver saying you won't take a dime from taxpayers to treat the result of your foolish decisions.
714224
I think here in Michigan the biggest issue is whether we are going to allow a person to buy the office of Governor. I think restoring checks and balance to the federal government is also important. Dove hunting has become an issue as well as equal rights.
440432
I think it's interisting.  I'm curious to see how this turns out.  I guess they make us have car insurance... I'm worried it's gonna be a huge burdon on business and low income families... let's wait and see!
186775
Definetly, it is very affordable. While you may never have to use it, the minute you do it will become worth it, you will be so thankful you had it. No one plans on a fire or a flood. It is not only your apartment you are responsible for either, should you leave the oven on and burn the whole place down you are responsible for all the damge. I am sure you would feel alot better knowing that insurance would cover it. Being in an apartment you are probably just starting out or trying to safe money. Don't leave the door open for all your hard work to be taken away from you because of one accident. Please take the safe route and get insurance, should something happen you will be forever thankful. Good Luck, enjoy your apartment! -Michael
291988
I guess to appreciate the new law you have to be on the "receiving" end.\n\nMy sister was renting her house to someone. After a few months of hardship stories, she finally had to start evicting them after $2000 in back rent had accumulated.  \n\nThen they filed for bankruptcy.  \n\nThen 2 days after the creditors meeting, they apply and get a brand new mortgage, putting down $5000 on the loan.\n\nThat's abuse of the bankruptcy system.\n\nNow, on the other hand, we see the 78 year old retiree who runs up $20,000 in medical bills.  No way to ever catch up, rent runs behind, credit cards get maxed out.....\n\nOr the husband with 2 kids, factory worker getting $25 an hour and thinks his job is secure.  Gets laid off, can't find any jobs that pay more then $9 an hour.  Wife can't work cause she's raising kids.......\n\nIn both of these cases, creditors don't care.  They want their money.  Collection agents relently hound and threaten them.\n\nYeah, I know both sides of the story.
278325
It may help if you elaborate on what you are looking for. If you are looking for insurance to cover the actions of county commissioners in the course and scope of their duties as commissioners, you may be out of luck, plus they should be imune from personal liability anyway.\n\nIn any case, perhaps your question would be better suited for the Dept of Insurance in your state.
395457
You can go to the law library and look it up! why is Massachusetts having as much of a problem with vandalism and any part of the rest of the country?
1170900
You might be able to get a rider on a homeowner's insurance policy to cover personal property.  For example, your policy might cover $5000 of personal property on you at any time.  Theft would definitely be covered - I'm not sure how it would affect those "I dropped it in the swimming pool" type incidents.
720315
You can also throw the insurance company's into the mix, they have a good thing going and would hate to lose it to socialized medicine. They essentually set the rates that uninsured have to pay and it is wrong. I as an uninsured person have to pay full price for everything and the insurance companys set their own price as to what they will pay. In effect I am subsudizing the insurance companys low rates. This is wrong and I would like to see somebody do something about it, maybe as more become uninsured I will see it happen if I live long enough with substandard health care because I can not afford to pay full price.
893666
YES!!\n\nAnd it should be affordable, and available to all employees who work enough hours to get benefits. Also, it should be a good program, including coverage for prescriptions, dental, vision, hospitalizations, and routine check-ups.\n\nAs for breaking my bank, it won't affect me. I stopped shopping at Wal-Mart more than a year ago in protest of the way they treat their employees. My personal little boycott doesn't hurt them, but I spread the news around about them wherever I go, and I encourage people to pay a few pennies more and shop at an alternate store where the employees are treated like an asset, rather than a throw-away resource. It's funny how a little education about what Wal-Mart is doing is enough to cause people to rethink their buying. If Wal-Mart is the only place I can get something, I do without it, and I am slowly spreading that idea to those with whom I come in contact. Until Wal-Mart starts doing right by their people (healthcare is just one of the places where they are not paying attention to the needs of their employees), they don't get another penny of my money.
908629
Against.\n\nDamage caps would make the occasional tort suit "part of the cost of doing business" and not dissuade the perpetually negligent (or willfully tortious) from their acts.\n\nTort law is pretty morbid.  Take it from someone who's used the Personal Injury Valuation Handbook.  You can look up various injuries and figure out what the "going rate" is.\n\nWhat, your convenience store sold you a counterfeit pair of sunglasses (advertising them as real) and when you went to put them on, they broke and a shard blinded your right eye?  Just flip to the appropriate page and find out how much it's worth to be permanently blind in one eye.\n\nSuppose the victim was a police officer or active-duty serviceman?  Poof, he's out of a job.\n\nSuppose the victim was an Olympic class marksman and the glasses took out his shooting eye?  Poof, no Games for him.\n\nTort actions are about making a person whole for the damage they've caused.  We can't give back an eye, or bring someone's dead baby back to life...all we can do is give them money.  And the more egregious the act, the higher the punitive damage award should be.
359411
Saturday :: November 08, 2003\nCourt: Gay Sex is Not Adultery\n\nThe New Hampshire Supreme Court has decided that gay sex is not adultery. An interesting decision, and a correct one in our view, holding that judges should not be the arbiter of what is or is not an intimate act. The opinion is here. [link via How Appealing.]\n\n    Part of the problem in New Hampshire is that adultery is not defined in the state's divorce laws. So the court looked up "adultery" in Webster's dictionary and found that it mentions intercourse. And it found an 1878 case that referred to adultery as "intercourse from which spurious issue may arise." \n\n    But the majority did not want the New Hampshire courts to step onto the slippery slope of defining which sex acts outside of intercourse might amount to adultery. "This standard would permit a hundred different judges ... to decide just what individual acts are so sexually intimate as to meet the definition," the court said.\n\n\n\nSex Offender Registry is offensive\nHundreds of gays convicted of having sex with other men have to register with their local police\nby John Ward\n\nEffective October 1, 1996, sex offenders who reside in Massachusetts and who are not in jail are required to go their local police station and register. Failure to do so is a crime punishable by imprisonment. Your reactions to this might be, "Well, that sounds a bit Orwellian, but we have to do something about the sexual predators who are living undetected in our midst."\n\nIt's not quite that simple. Besides being a dreadful measure that will do little or nothing to make anyone safer, the law has serious, and probably unintended consequences for a large number of gay and bisexual men who would never dream of having anything other than consensual sex with other adults. Here is why. Under the new law, a sex offender is defined as anyone who has been convicted of certain specified crimes any time after January 1, 1981. This includes "Open and Gross Lewdness" and indecent assault and battery. The intent probably was to snare people who have been convicted of exposing their genitals to children and to persons who perpetrate forcible sexual attacks. However, these same statutes have been used over the years to prosecute adult males who have consensual sex with other adult men in the woods, as well as those who appear to linger too long at the urinals at men's rooms, such as Back Bay Stations, and those who are entrapped by undercover police officers who engage them in conversations and then arrest them if the conversation leads to physical contact. By the most conservative estimate, there are hundreds of men who have pleaded guilty to these offenses to save themselves embarrassment or because they did not think they could get a fair trial, even though the police reports used to convict them often included outright lies. Under the registration statute, which is now in effect, these men, if they were convicted after 1981, now have to register as sex offenders, even though they were convicted of victimless crimes, or face further prosecution. Once one has registered as a sex offender, virtually anyone over the age of 18 can go to the police station and be informed whether any named individual is a sex offender or be provided with a list of all sex offenders who live within a mile of any specific address.\n\nGay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) has brought a law suit on behalf of a man who was entrapped in the woods by an attractive young plainclothed officer who engaged in "suggestive" conversation with him, allowed the man to touch him, and then arrested him for indecent assault. The man comes from a small community, and, when he came to see us, was literally suicidal over the effect that exposure would have on him, his wife, his children, and grandchildren.\n\nWhatever the result of GLAD's suit, there is no doubt that now is the time for u
721096
There is a group here in NH trying to get Souter to change his mind. They are trying to get the town of Weare, NH to take Souter's home in town by eminent domain to build the 'Lost Liberty Inn'. They lost in the March 2006 election but the fight is not over yet.\n\nAs far as who is responsible:\nJustice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion; he was joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. \n\nJustice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the principal dissent, saying "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms." She called it a "reverse Robin Hood", steal from the poor to give to the rich.\n\nEminent domain is a violation of the 5th Amendment to the Constitution; "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." That means that, if justly compensated, private property can be taken for "public use". The case that set this all off was Kelo v. City of New London (125 S. Ct. 2655), where the city of New London, CT condemmed a group of homes and took them by eminent domain so they could sell the property to developers. The plan was to build a conference center, small state park, a resort hotel, 80–100 new residences, and various research, office, and retail space. While the conference center and state park fall under the "public use" clause, the rest does not.\n\nThe issue is coming up for a vote again in Weare, NH in November. I hope to stay at the "Lost Liberty Inn" shortly thereafter, even though it's only abot 30 miles from where I live.
512063
Absolutely.  Chief Justice McLachlin's reasons were clear and sensible.  It is worth noting that the whole issue of social host liability was only raised in an attempt to aid recovery of the monetary damages.\n\nThere was a wrongdoer (Desmond Desormeaux).  He drove drunk and hit another car, killing one person and paralyzing another (Zoe Childs).  He was convicted in criminal court and went to jail for it, and was found liable in the personal injury lawsuit.\n\nUnfortunately, Desormeaux had no auto insurance, and no assets to enforce judgement.  That doesn't leave Ms. Childs SOL.  Under Ontario law, she can, and probably did, recover monies from her own auto insurer, and the provincial fund, under the uninsured and underinsured provisions.  However, there are policy limits.  So Childs' personal injury lawyer added this issue of social host liability to bring in defendants with insurance coverage and no statutory deductible.  That is why this claim was pursued, so that deeper pockets could be added, not to hold the party hosts accountable for any actual wrongdoing or negligence.  If Mr. Desormeaux had been insured, it is highly unlikely that social host liability would been an issue.\n\nI have the deepest sympathy for Ms. Childs, but the fact that Mr. Desormeaux was uninsured is not a good reason to extend tort liability beyond reasonable limits.
701697
Yeah, mine. Yes it was awful. The other person didn't stop and plowed into me and my husband. Destroyed my van and hurt my husband.He had to go to physical therapy and so did I because it hit on my side and displaced my hip. The doctor put my husband off work for a year. We had a lawyer who happened to be friends with the other persons insurance adjuster and we got hardly anything at all as far as a settlement. The other persons insurance did pay my van off and that left me with $75.00. It was a mess. Sorry to rant on and on but it still makes me angry to think about it.