What are the odds that someone could convince voters to stop calling it insurance? That, unless you choose a policy according to a plan of never making a claim against it, you only manage to pay extra for routine stuff?
On the other side of the fence,
"Interesting that yet again, the wise [via] of the world are foolish, while this guy, surely representing the dregs of humanity, sees through the charade."Dailymail should probably have never allowed comments.
"I know I shouldn't laugh........so I HOWLED instead.......poor police, imagine calling that in on the radio ( assuming it still worked) "unable to pursue suspect......all cars crushed" ....a bit like their pride I should imagine :-)" (Rated +710, Via.)
"You see this more and more. This is what progressive government will bring in America. You can't take away people's life long liberties one at a time, and tax them more and more, and expect that they are going to tolerate it. America needs to turn away from this path or it will be a civil war again." (+210.)
If it were a random pattern of insight and foolishness, I wouldn't worry about it. I suspect even the insight is dominated by foolishness. Would that third quoted guy actually pick up a weapon without social pressure? Or: why isn't there already racial civil war in South Africa? Does #2 think voting will fix things, and can anything convince them otherwise?