goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on April 20, 2015, 06:30:35 PM
-
I love living in an anti-nanny state. Brownback vetos bill adding regulations to Uber (http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article19094037.html)
-
yup, background checks and insurance are stifling innovation
-
some great quotes from scott schwab in there tho :love:
-
Suck it, Jeff Longbine from emporia
-
some great quotes from scott schwab in there tho :love:
Yeah, he seems pretty pissed off.
-
good for brownback. i'm glad to see him get one right.
-
What kind of cretin isn't a fan of uber????
Oh, 7 is
-
good for brownback. i'm glad to see him get one right.
yes, agreed
-
Question is can a Kansas uber take me to the plaza?
-
good for brownback. i'm glad to see him get one right.
yes, agreed
I thought the same until I read the article and saw his excuse for the veto was that the background check requirement that the industry places on itself, in his words, goes farther than the requirements in this bill. If that's the case I don't understand why uber lobbied so hard against it and why it needed to be vetoed. Doesn't matter though the veto will be easily overridden.
I need to know why you guys think that not having convicted sex offenders picking up non-suspecting potential victims and making sure drivers have more than liability insurance is the wrong thing?
-
good for brownback. i'm glad to see him get one right.
yes, agreed
I thought the same until I read the article and saw his excuse for the veto was that the background check requirement that the industry places on itself, in his words, goes farther than the requirements in this bill. If that's the case I don't understand why uber lobbied so hard against it and why it needed to be vetoed. Doesn't matter though the veto will be easily overridden.
I need to know why you guys think that not having convicted sex offenders picking up non-suspecting potential victims and making sure drivers have more than liability insurance is the wrong thing?
I'm not sure how easily the veto can be overridden. I doubt most of those who voted for it the first time around were aware that Brownback opposed it. Now that they know, I expect some of them will change their vote.
-
I don't know much about the insurance aspect, but I kinda think a background check requirement for drivers seems like a good idea. Was there anything else in the bill?
-
good for brownback. i'm glad to see him get one right.
yes, agreed
I thought the same until I read the article and saw his excuse for the veto was that the background check requirement that the industry places on itself, in his words, goes farther than the requirements in this bill. If that's the case I don't understand why uber lobbied so hard against it and why it needed to be vetoed. Doesn't matter though the veto will be easily overridden.
I need to know why you guys think that not having convicted sex offenders picking up non-suspecting potential victims and making sure drivers have more than liability insurance is the wrong thing?
I have read there is a concern that a background check performed by the state could be accessed as a public record by insurance companies and Uber drivers will get their policies cancelled.
-
I don't know much about the insurance aspect, but I kinda think a background check requirement for drivers seems like a good idea. Was there anything else in the bill?
No
-
I don't really know anything about it, but know that I know brownback opposes it, I support it.
-libtard
-
good for brownback. i'm glad to see him get one right.
yes, agreed
I thought the same until I read the article and saw his excuse for the veto was that the background check requirement that the industry places on itself, in his words, goes farther than the requirements in this bill. If that's the case I don't understand why uber lobbied so hard against it and why it needed to be vetoed. Doesn't matter though the veto will be easily overridden.
I need to know why you guys think that not having convicted sex offenders picking up non-suspecting potential victims and making sure drivers have more than liability insurance is the wrong thing?
I have read there is a concern that a background check performed by the state could be accessed as a public record by insurance companies and Uber drivers will get their policies cancelled.
ah, that makes sense. It also makes sense that insurance companies want to know if their policy holders are driving for Uber.
-
good for brownback. i'm glad to see him get one right.
yes, agreed
I thought the same until I read the article and saw his excuse for the veto was that the background check requirement that the industry places on itself, in his words, goes farther than the requirements in this bill. If that's the case I don't understand why uber lobbied so hard against it and why it needed to be vetoed. Doesn't matter though the veto will be easily overridden.
I need to know why you guys think that not having convicted sex offenders picking up non-suspecting potential victims and making sure drivers have more than liability insurance is the wrong thing?
I have read there is a concern that a background check performed by the state could be accessed as a public record by insurance companies and Uber drivers will get their policies cancelled.
Yeah if they have been popped for possession or dui or violent felonies that's probably a good thing. I doubt they will pull insurance for petty thieves.
-
I don't really know anything about it, but know that I know brownback opposes it, I support it.
-libtard
Hilariously ironic given that you didn't read the article
-
good for brownback. i'm glad to see him get one right.
yes, agreed
I thought the same until I read the article and saw his excuse for the veto was that the background check requirement that the industry places on itself, in his words, goes farther than the requirements in this bill. If that's the case I don't understand why uber lobbied so hard against it and why it needed to be vetoed. Doesn't matter though the veto will be easily overridden.
I need to know why you guys think that not having convicted sex offenders picking up non-suspecting potential victims and making sure drivers have more than liability insurance is the wrong thing?
I have read there is a concern that a background check performed by the state could be accessed as a public record by insurance companies and Uber drivers will get their policies cancelled.
ah, that makes sense. It also makes sense that insurance companies want to know if their policy holders are driving for Uber.
I don't think it should matter if you're delivering pizza or people. No different than neighborhood car pool.
-
I don't really know anything about it, but know that I know brownback opposes it, I support it.
-libtard
Hilariously ironic given that you didn't read the article
A conjectural and unfounded attack. Way to stay in character.
-
good for brownback. i'm glad to see him get one right.
yes, agreed
I thought the same until I read the article and saw his excuse for the veto was that the background check requirement that the industry places on itself, in his words, goes farther than the requirements in this bill. If that's the case I don't understand why uber lobbied so hard against it and why it needed to be vetoed. Doesn't matter though the veto will be easily overridden.
I need to know why you guys think that not having convicted sex offenders picking up non-suspecting potential victims and making sure drivers have more than liability insurance is the wrong thing?
I have read there is a concern that a background check performed by the state could be accessed as a public record by insurance companies and Uber drivers will get their policies cancelled.
ah, that makes sense. It also makes sense that insurance companies want to know if their policy holders are driving for Uber.
I don't think it should matter if you're delivering pizza or people. No different than neighborhood car pool.
Quite a bit different than carpooling really
-
well, I can see why you don't need a background check for a pizza delivery guy, but I think an insurance company would also like to know if their drivers are delivering pizza.
-
All drivers have to have insurance under existing state law, you rubes. Perhaps it's not the amount the legislature wants for uber drivers, and it is almost certainly less than required by cab services (another discussion on how fair competition is). I can't even imagine the backlash and accusations of racism if kansas tried to enforce mandatory "state minimum insurance ID check".
I don't see how the bank should have any say in the matter, and they certainly shouldn't be able to take IC cars as collateral for uber debt. If the driver's borrowed to buy their car, that lien is already on the title.
-
good for brownback. i'm glad to see him get one right.
yes, agreed
I thought the same until I read the article and saw his excuse for the veto was that the background check requirement that the industry places on itself, in his words, goes farther than the requirements in this bill. If that's the case I don't understand why uber lobbied so hard against it and why it needed to be vetoed. Doesn't matter though the veto will be easily overridden.
I need to know why you guys think that not having convicted sex offenders picking up non-suspecting potential victims and making sure drivers have more than liability insurance is the wrong thing?
I have read there is a concern that a background check performed by the state could be accessed as a public record by insurance companies and Uber drivers will get their policies cancelled.
ah, that makes sense. It also makes sense that insurance companies want to know if their policy holders are driving for Uber.
I don't think it should matter if you're delivering pizza or people. No different than neighborhood car pool.
Quite a bit different than carpooling really
Didn't peg you as a Big Insurance guy.
-
Car insurance isn't immoral
-
All drivers have to have insurance under existing state law, you rubes. Perhaps it's not the amount the legislature wants for uber drivers, and it is almost certainly less than required by cab services (another discussion on how fair competition is). I can't even imagine the backlash and accusations of racism if kansas tried to enforce mandatory "state minimum insurance ID check".
I don't see how the bank should have any say in the matter, and they certainly shouldn't be able to take IC cars as collateral for uber debt. If the driver's borrowed to buy their car, that lien is already on the title.
The law mandates that the uber drivers carry collision coverage more than just liability that the current state law requires. You'd know that if you actually read the article.
-
All drivers have to have insurance under existing state law, you rubes. Perhaps it's not the amount the legislature wants for uber drivers, and it is almost certainly less than required by cab services (another discussion on how fair competition is). I can't even imagine the backlash and accusations of racism if kansas tried to enforce mandatory "state minimum insurance ID check".
I don't see how the bank should have any say in the matter, and they certainly shouldn't be able to take IC cars as collateral for uber debt. If the driver's borrowed to buy their car, that lien is already on the title.
The law mandates that the uber drivers carry collision coverage more than just liability that the current state law requires. You'd know that if you actually read the article.
You realize collision only insures the driver's vehicle, right? That's the bankers part of this. Obviously that part of the law is stupid. Good grief.
-
All drivers have to have insurance under existing state law, you rubes. Perhaps it's not the amount the legislature wants for uber drivers, and it is almost certainly less than required by cab services (another discussion on how fair competition is). I can't even imagine the backlash and accusations of racism if kansas tried to enforce mandatory "state minimum insurance ID check".
I don't see how the bank should have any say in the matter, and they certainly shouldn't be able to take IC cars as collateral for uber debt. If the driver's borrowed to buy their car, that lien is already on the title.
The law mandates that the uber drivers carry collision coverage more than just liability that the current state law requires. You'd know that if you actually read the article.
You realize collision only insures the driver's vehicle, right? That's the bankers part of this. Obviously that part of the law is stupid. Good grief.
I'd imagine there is some difference in what the insurance would pay toward the medical bills of the passengers you are driving around as well. I'm not sure, though. All I know about this bill is that it had nearly unanimous support from the house and senate, and now it is vetoed and it will be hilarious if congress can't find the votes to override it.
-
Now that you're mandated to have medical insurance, it shouldn't matter if you have coverage for your passenger.
-
All drivers have to have insurance under existing state law, you rubes. Perhaps it's not the amount the legislature wants for uber drivers, and it is almost certainly less than required by cab services (another discussion on how fair competition is). I can't even imagine the backlash and accusations of racism if kansas tried to enforce mandatory "state minimum insurance ID check".
I don't see how the bank should have any say in the matter, and they certainly shouldn't be able to take IC cars as collateral for uber debt. If the driver's borrowed to buy their car, that lien is already on the title.
The law mandates that the uber drivers carry collision coverage more than just liability that the current state law requires. You'd know that if you actually read the article.
You realize collision only insures the driver's vehicle, right? That's the bankers part of this. Obviously that part of the law is stupid. Good grief.
I'd imagine there is some difference in what the insurance would pay toward the medical bills of the passengers you are driving around as well. I'm not sure, though. All I know about this bill is that it had nearly unanimous support from the house and senate, and now it is vetoed and it will be hilarious if congress can't find the votes to override it.
I'm sure they'll lose some votes but it's so overwhelming that I can't see them losing that many. They are 8 votes clear in the senate and 23 votes clear in the house. They could lose 20 percent of the entire legislature and still be good.
-
Now that you're mandated to have medical insurance, it shouldn't matter if you have coverage for your passenger.
You're kidding, right?
-
All drivers have to have insurance under existing state law, you rubes. Perhaps it's not the amount the legislature wants for uber drivers, and it is almost certainly less than required by cab services (another discussion on how fair competition is). I can't even imagine the backlash and accusations of racism if kansas tried to enforce mandatory "state minimum insurance ID check".
I don't see how the bank should have any say in the matter, and they certainly shouldn't be able to take IC cars as collateral for uber debt. If the driver's borrowed to buy their car, that lien is already on the title.
The law mandates that the uber drivers carry collision coverage more than just liability that the current state law requires. You'd know that if you actually read the article.
You realize collision only insures the driver's vehicle, right? That's the bankers part of this. Obviously that part of the law is stupid. Good grief.
I'd imagine there is some difference in what the insurance would pay toward the medical bills of the passengers you are driving around as well. I'm not sure, though.
That's called liability insurance, and it's required by law (I think state minimum is still 25/50/25). How do people not know this crap?
-
All drivers have to have insurance under existing state law, you rubes. Perhaps it's not the amount the legislature wants for uber drivers, and it is almost certainly less than required by cab services (another discussion on how fair competition is). I can't even imagine the backlash and accusations of racism if kansas tried to enforce mandatory "state minimum insurance ID check".
I don't see how the bank should have any say in the matter, and they certainly shouldn't be able to take IC cars as collateral for uber debt. If the driver's borrowed to buy their car, that lien is already on the title.
The law mandates that the uber drivers carry collision coverage more than just liability that the current state law requires. You'd know that if you actually read the article.
You realize collision only insures the driver's vehicle, right? That's the bankers part of this. Obviously that part of the law is stupid. Good grief.
I'd imagine there is some difference in what the insurance would pay toward the medical bills of the passengers you are driving around as well. I'm not sure, though.
That's called liability insurance, and it's required by law (I think state minimum is still 25/50/25). How do people not know this crap?
Personal liability insurance is different than commercial liability insurance for vehicles.
-
All drivers have to have insurance under existing state law, you rubes. Perhaps it's not the amount the legislature wants for uber drivers, and it is almost certainly less than required by cab services (another discussion on how fair competition is). I can't even imagine the backlash and accusations of racism if kansas tried to enforce mandatory "state minimum insurance ID check".
I don't see how the bank should have any say in the matter, and they certainly shouldn't be able to take IC cars as collateral for uber debt. If the driver's borrowed to buy their car, that lien is already on the title.
The law mandates that the uber drivers carry collision coverage more than just liability that the current state law requires. You'd know that if you actually read the article.
You realize collision only insures the driver's vehicle, right? That's the bankers part of this. Obviously that part of the law is stupid. Good grief.
I'd imagine there is some difference in what the insurance would pay toward the medical bills of the passengers you are driving around as well. I'm not sure, though.
That's called liability insurance, and it's required by law (I think state minimum is still 25/50/25). How do people not know this crap?
Personal liability insurance is different than commercial liability insurance for vehicles.
No crap.
-
Then stop acting like the state mandate for personal liability insurance is adequate, dumbass.
-
Then stop acting like the state mandate for personal liability insurance is adequate, dumbass.
dumbass
-
uber sent me an email about rolling out in manhattan starting TODAY! and they thanked brownie personally!
-
(https://ci4.googleusercontent.com/proxy/Kd8E7g_MjM9PCeqqqcZZOxZg5l3m7kNf8DIJZu7uMPr77s4x-ipPjSrCAL1oyuez6sLcCmFF2oOfHlVD_iD13pk822s41Y1lfWhj6fBLYlAHby19YrzEj2dCpifLNiXSlIh43OniR_fmQYWbuBJX9sZgCWCKMVwSUlpYBmOQKik6cDX_WEOI3VsMJW27q6IU=s0-d-e1-ft#https://s3.amazonaws.com/uploads.hipchat.com/17604/1175500/EdN5EZ8TG7TgrBT/uber_kansas_uber-everywhere_blog_700x300_r3.jpg)
-
wtf are they trying to say with that big boring rectangle
-
I tried three times to unhighlight it before realizing that's just what color it is