Agreement To Provide Insurance: Fill & Download for Free

Well, yes, they’re correct - It might not be a problem.However, to assume that it isn’t going to be a problem is to assume that literally dozens of things will happen or not happen as required for any given potential scenario to ‘not be a problem’.For example:That customs posts in the EU won’t immediately start rigorously applying 3rd-country standard to goods being shipped into the EU from the UK, absent any agreement to the contrary.That they won’t immediately start collecting tariffs, absent any agreement to the contrary.That insurance companies will continue to cover UK hauliers on the continent, absent any agreement to the contrary.That the EU governments continue to recognise driving licences and other necessary documents, absent any agreement to the contrary.That aircraft leaving the UK are legally allowed to overfly continental airspace and that the governments of those countries continue to allow them to do so, absent any agreement to the contrary.Insert a list of hundreds of other things here, and end each one with “…., absent any agreement to the contrary.”Because that’s what ‘no deal’ means - the hundreds and thousands of interlocking agrements that provide the framework that business currently operate under, are gone. They no longer exist.So it basically relies on every other company in every other country with which we currently do business, who are shipping literally any thing or any body to and from the UK, to go ‘well, there’s no formal agreement in place any more, and that might cause all sorts of legal and insurance-type problems, and that might build in massive headaches down the line in terms of court actions, back-taxes, and tariffs and so on, but you know what? We’ll just keep doing what we’ve always done rather than play it safe’.Some companies might do that. But for all of them to do it? We live in an interconnected world. The framework we live and work in is a house of cards. Remove one, and the rest don’t stay up by themselves.Flip a coin 1,000 times and see if you get heads every single time.Do you feel lucky, punk?

Rights are nothing more than recognitions we agree to extend to one another. Some people believe in natural rights. I believe in no such thing. Nature doesn’t confer any right on anyone. The most natural order of things is that might makes right. It is only when a society becomes organized enough to have mutually beneficial agreements between its members that you can talk about rights. Thus, I have the right of property because other members of society agree that we won’t just have a free-for-all where everyone can take everyone else’s stuff. And we agree to back up this agreement with punishments for violators.When societies first come up with a concept of rights, it is usually to provide security, both bodily security—don’t harm me and I won’t harm you—and security in the possession of things—don’t steal my bow and I will leave your chickens alone. But there comes a time when a society, if it is lucky, will become opulent enough to be able to afford to provide its members with things other than property rights and bodily safety. Such a society might decide that everyone will pitch in to pay for roads, for instance. The society in so deciding, compels its members to fork over some of their property rights—which exist solely because they are conferred by the society. That’s the power of taxation. It is inherent in the power of association and self-governance.Of course, individual members have the right and ability to fight such demands on their property rights. They can seek to influence the rule-making process of the community or they can leave and take their chance on protecting themselves and their property on their own. That’s about it.Now, we live in a world that has certain features that the people who founded our governments could not have known.We have superb medical care.Unregulated, superb medical care is really expensive, when left to the markets alone.Not only is it expensive, but the rate at which the costs are increasing is not sustainable.When you look at both the national and the international level, it is clear that involving the government in the regulation of healthcare is the most effective way of providing adequate care to the greatest number of people at the cheapest possible price.In light of these realities, it is not unreasonable for people to argue that the government should ensure universal healthcare based on two things:We are wealthy enough to afford it. We have the power of taxation. Let’s increase our tax rate and give everyone health insurance.Government-sponsored healthcare is better at cost-control than private insurance. This is supported by both theory and data.You don’t have to agree that we should do this. You don’t even have to agree with the terminology of healthcare as a right. Certainly, it’s not the perspective that I choose to emphasize. As I’ve stated above, I view rights as whatever we agree to confer on one another. Thus, once upon a time, in this country, you had the right to purchase and own human beings. This right was deemed to be so inalienable by millions of people that they were willing to go to war to protect it.I will close by answering your question directly.How can healthcare be a right? By passing a law mandating universal health insurance.Who are you going to force to provide it? No force is necessary, except that of the law. The law will force people to pay taxes. Those taxes will pay healthcare providers. The healthcare providers will provide healthcare and be remunerated for it. That’s all.

It was the ‘trial stage’ of a very bad and potentially expensive divorce. My attorney had deposed me fully; my wife’s attorney had had her shot at me in cross-examination. Her attorney deposed her; she lied like a rug over and over.It was time for my attorney to cross-examine her; the judge simply said “cross examine.” I was visualizing a real blood-letting - a fairly full disclosure that would reveal her insidious lies and devious ways.My attorney leaned over to me and said “I don’t think I’m going to cross-examine her.”“WHAT?!?!” I sputteredIn whispered scream tone I repeated outright lies she told. He stood by his position. I was in shock; blown away!My attorney reluctantly asked for a two-minute recess - he knew the judge did not like interruptions to proceedings. The judge hesitantly agreed and we stepped into the hallway.My attorney quickly told me “I know exactly what I’m doing. You’ve got to trust me on this.” We went back into the courtroom.My attorney said “Your Honor, we have no questions.”The judge said “Start your closing arguments.”Then…(drumroll, please) my attorney said “The law…states that no matters that have not been brought before the court can be considered in this settlement. And since there has been no discussion about income, earnings or ability to earn money, they cannot be considered…” Enough said! Both our wage/earning disparity and insurability were not on the table for discussion. I had made most of the money during our marriage, and was the sole source of health insurance. And the judge could not take that into consideration and even possibly award her ‘spousal support’ or require me to provide insurance for her. TA-DA!!!My attorney explained that if he had asked a single question - as in cross-examining her - her attorney might have remembered that she left that huge balloon aloft and could have brought it up. By cutting off the cross-examination she didn’t have that option. So, in two short sentences…my attorney saved me an easy $30–50k per year of ‘lifetime support’ for the ex.Thank You Joe!And/but the judge apparently saw through her anyway as his ruling was as much in my favor as the law could possibly allow it to be. My attorney, after reading the eventual settlement agreement said the judge had been “diabolical” in his ruling, cutting her to the absolute minimum that he HAD to award her to prevent her from being able to file an appeal.