PDA

View Full Version : Insurance




nobody's_hero
05-17-2011, 08:37 PM
How do you counter the argument that we need more involvement in healthcare regarding insurance because 'many states mandate automobile drivers to have auto-insurance'?

Is there any validity to the argument?

My premise is that you getting sick doesn't affect anyone else, and therefore, auto-insurance is not an acceptable analogy.

Then again, I have to kick myself, because I don't actually think that mandatory auto-insurance is justifiable. What if I never have a wreck? Later in life, I'll realize that I spent 50 or so years paying into a system that I could never receive benefits from (never had reason collect said benefits, because I was a careful driver). Sounds like a rip-off.

pcosmar
05-17-2011, 09:14 PM
I am opposed to state mandated auto insurance as well.
When I first started driving there was a choice, Either insurance or sign a financial responsibility form.

Insurance companies lobbied for the law, and at the time the promise and selling point was that when insurance was mandatory everyone's cost would come down. Insurance would be cheaper.
I watched this happen in two different States.

Both times Insurance costs doubled immediately after they had everyone by the balls.
And now we have NO Fault in this state. Which means that if I get hit by some idiot, I am shit out of luck because I do not carry Full coverage insurance on a car that is over 20 yrs old. I carry state mandated minimum. PLPD. It still costs me more each year than the car is worth.

I have never wrecked a car. Insurance is a scam.

Health insurance? I'll be fine till I die.

Elwar
05-17-2011, 09:25 PM
New Hampshire stopped mandating car insurance and the car insurance rates in NH are quite low compared to the other states.

Zippyjuan
05-17-2011, 09:33 PM
Buying insurance is placing a bet. The insurance company is betting that you won't be demanding as much money from them as they will get from you. You are betting that you will get into enough trouble to get more back than you paid in. You hope you never need it but can be glad when you do. Most people won't have enough put aside to deal with a major emergency. A wise allocation of insurance is to insure that which you cannot afford. The more things you cover, the more it will cost you. Mandatory lowers the cost to each person (those who avoid accidents subsidse those who do get into them) but requires everybody to place a bet. Mandatory participation also discourages competition on costs since you (insurance companies) have guaranteed incomes. They can raise rates with less fear of losing customers.

nobody's_hero
05-17-2011, 09:34 PM
I am opposed to state mandated insurance as well.
When I first started driving there was a choice, Either insurance or sign a financial responsibility form.

Insurance companies lobbied for the law, and at the time the promise and selling point was that when insurance was mandatory everyone's cost would come down. Insurance would be cheaper.
I watched this happen in two different States.

Both times Insurance costs doubled immediately after they had everyone by the balls.
And now we have NO Fault in this state. Which means that if I get hit by some idiot, I am shit out of luck because I do not carry Full coverage insurance on a car that is over 20 yrs old. I carry state mandated minimum. PLPD. It still costs me more each year than the car is worth.

I have never wrecked a car. Insurance is a scam.

Health insurance? I'll be fine till I die.

Thanks for reply.

That's along the lines of the argument I was making with this person. People seem to think that costs will go down if we just throw in another middle-man. The middle man wants his cut, though.

Interesting story on your state's auto insurance laws.

With the rates the way they've been over the past years, I've already "paid" for my truck with a full coverage plan. I could almost buy one and a half of my truck with everything I've thrown away on insurance. Granted, liability is still factored into those rates, however, I did not see a reduction in my rates once my truck's value was "paid" to the insurance company under full-coverage. You'd think that it should reflect on my rates that I've already paid enough to get back what I would get once they factor in the depreciated value of my vehicle if totaled. So, that leaves the rest of my insurance bill for covering injury or damages to others, I guess (sorry if this is hard to follow, I don't understand insurance enough to speak the language). If I had it to do over again, I would not have 'full coverage' but just 'liability'. It's been a big waste since I haven't had a wreck in my life and now the blue-book value of my truck is relatively worthless compared to what I've paid for full coverage and what they would give me if I total it.

Of course, the liability is a waste as well. I haven't yet caused anyone harm or damage, but I've been paying for it, as required by law.

nobody's_hero
05-17-2011, 09:35 PM
Thanks to all for the replies thus far, this is helpful information to see how other states do it. (I'm from Georgia) We have to at minimum have 'liability' insurance to drive on the roads here.

pcosmar
05-17-2011, 09:53 PM
Buying insurance is placing a bet.

That would be the case if it were voluntary.
But it is not, therefore it is Extortion.

see Protection Racket (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_racket)

Teaser Rate
05-17-2011, 09:57 PM
Simply put, the argument is invalid because you don't have to buy car insurance for yourself, but for the people whom you might harm while driving.

pcosmar
05-17-2011, 10:06 PM
Simply put, the argument is invalid because you don't have to buy car insurance for yourself, but for the people whom you might harm while driving.
No,
You have to buy car insurance because the law says you do.
Otherwise you could (as once was) just be responsible.

I have driven legally without any insurance and had signed a Financial Responsibility Statement.
This was once the law.
Sadly corporate lobbing and media sold lies changed that.

Ron Paul has suggested similar with health care. You make your own deal with the doctor without a middleman.

Teaser Rate
05-17-2011, 10:11 PM
No,
You have to buy car insurance because the law says you do.
Otherwise you could (as once was) just be responsible.

I have driven legally without any insurance and had signed a Financial Responsibility Statement.
This was once the law.
Sadly corporate lobbing and media sold lies changed that.

Ron Paul has suggested similar with health care. You make your own deal with the doctor without a middleman.

That law exists because when you drive a car, you're also placing other people at risk besides yourself.

pcosmar
05-17-2011, 10:16 PM
That law exists because when you drive a car, you're also placing other people at risk besides yourself.

No the law exists because it was created. It did not always exist. It was done in my lifetime, because it was NOT the law when I started driving.

It was pushed hard in the media and sold with false statistics and emotional stories and blatant lies.
It was never necessary. nor needed. It has only benefited the insurance industry. ( and insurance scamers)