Too many dealers

Page 6 of 6  


This is a different situation. The white level is too high, blinding many oncoming drivers.
They are unnecessary for our driving conditions, but nice to have at the gas consuming high speeds on the AB in Germany.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I didnt have a choice in it, one way or the other. My responsibility is to dim my lights when there is oncoming traffic, and I do my best to be mindful of this.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I've not found it to be a problem, even on a two lane that is my regular route from work in the dark of winter. Idiots with high beams or poorly aimed driving lights are a bigger problem.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message

I never complained about others with HID headlights either, Ed. Nor with DSLs. They just dont bother me like they apparently upset some people
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
GlassVial wrote:

The vast majority of the time, the dealer and insurance company make out on the insurance. Otherwise, they wouldn't be selling it if they didn't make money.
jeff
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
the mark up on servioce contracts is about 50 % if you sell enough of them in a 30 day period if not it's less like 35%
Jeff wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
philthy wrote:

So that means that if you sell a $900 policy for $1200, you make a fast $300.
That means, assuming zero overhead and profit for the insurance company, a loss of $300, on average.
Jeff
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Insurance is always a loss, unless you need it. Sometimes even then it is a loss.
Life insurance never helped a single insuree.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@nospam.nix wrote:

That's wrong in two counts: With life insurance, you can get an annuity with it. That's not a good idea. Plus, if death is imminent, the insurance companies may be willing to provide a payout while one is still living (at less than what the payout would have been).
However, the insuree is not the person who is insured. Rather, what is insured the financial well-being of the beneficiary of the insuree. And that has made a lot of lives easier after the passing of a loved (or hated one).
Jeff
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I know all that, but the fact stands, simple life insurance doesnt help the insured.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@nospam.nix wrote:

It's no designed to help the insured.
So what is your point?
I did see you went from "life insurance" to "simple life insurance."
Jeff
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:> I did see you went from "life insurance" to "simple life insurance."

Yes, I did. I wanted to separate all the gobbledegook insurance tullprat from the simple insurance situation.
An annuity MAY pay you back your capital and more, and may not. In the latest AARP, it warns retirees against variable annuities.
The insurance companies WILL make money. We have both already accepted that.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
thats the markup the dealer gets from the contract cost to them
Jeff wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
philthy wrote:

Right, which means that the insurance company expects to spend less than 75% of the insurance contract cost in payments. Which means that, on average, right off the bat, the purchaser of the insurance contract is out 25%. Of course, the insurance company expects to make money on the deal, so the expected payout is less, which indicates that the extended service plans (the insurance) is not that valuable, on average.
Jeff

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06/21/07 11:02 am Jeff wrote:

Thinking of extended warranties as "insurance policies" makes a lot of sense, but it seems that you apply different rules to these compared to other kinds. If you never have a claim on your homeowner's insurance, do you consider that your premiums were a waste of money and recommend people not buy such insurance?
That being said, however, the only reason we have a 7yr/75Kmile warranty on our '02 300M is that it was a freebie, presumably because Chrysler wanted to unload the '02 models to make way for the '03 models. But in fact ours wasn't one that had been sitting around that they wanted to get rid of: it was built to order because we wanted side air bags and no moon roof or multi-disc CD player.
Perce
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Percival P. Cassidy wrote:

compared to the cost of the repairs, the home insurance makes a lot more sense than the extended service. Even an expensive repair after 4 years (on new cars is not very likely) is probably less expensive than the service policy, if you have to buy it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 12:20:28 -0700, BlueD rebooted the Etch-A-Sketch and scribbled:

When I bought my Avalanche in Sepember last year, they asked if I wanted "extended coverage."
The price was $1200. At the time, GM was only offereing 3/36000mi coverage. In other words, I'd be paying $1,200 for two years of coverage.
I declined. Knowing the 5.3L engine and the 4L80/4L60 transmission, I figured they would not go bad before five years. Any other repair would not cost anywhere near $1200. (I put 150K miles on my '95 Jimmy with the 4L60 and never had a slip.)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Percival P. Cassidy wrote:

Insurance is for things that you can't afford to fix yourself. A burnt down house, for example.
The cost of repairs, IMHO, doesn't qualify for buying insurance. The odds and costs make auto repairs something that most people should effectively self-insurance.

Yeah, but they can't very well say that these nearly identical cars have the insurance and these don't. Those sorts of offers apply to all qualifying cars.
Jeff

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.