If the gentleman has insurance, if he is farsighted enough to pay premiums and make an insurance contract, and he is injured, and his insurer, his health insurance, pays that, the benefit of his foresight and the premiums that he has paid for years accrue to the wrongdoer. The wrongdoer walks scot free because the gentleman's company cannot subrogate against him. The gentleman is paid because he had the smarts enough, the wisdom enough, the foresight to pay premiums, and the real winner is the wrongdoer, am I right?
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of insurance and liability in a legislative context.
Share
More from Henry Hyde
an unrelenting Government assault on property rights, fueled by a dangerous and emotional vigilante mentality that sanctions shredding the U.S. Constitution into meaningless confetti.
I simply want to say, in response to my friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), that contempt is not animating our legislation, and I really question the wisdom of penetrating motives, which seems to be a habit with some people…
I am very pleased to offer H. Res. 744, which expresses support for the Good Friday Agreement as the blueprint for lasting peace in Northern Ireland and support for continued police reform in Northern Ireland as a critical element in the…
The more valuable our dissent into weakness, dissension and inaction, the greater the aid and comfort we give to our enemies.





