Insurance is just socialism with a profit for those that hand out other peoples money

[klamath]

The concept is the same, the only thing different was it WAS voluntary before mandatory car insurance and Obama care.

[Kilrain]

Umm, no. Spreading risk, which is what voluntary insurance is all about, is not socialism.

People are very sloppy when applying the term "socialism".

[malkusm]

I disagree with a lot of this post; although I agree that nothing should be mandated, insurance in general serves a valuable purpose in a free market.

[malkusm]

Umm, no. Spreading risk, which is what voluntary insurance is all about, is not socialism.

Key word being "voluntary" - but yes, precisely.

[roho76]

Last time I checked nobody held a gun to my head and forced me to buy insurance until the passing of ObamaCare. So NO, they are not the same thing. There is a big difference between voluntary and mandatory.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Key word being "voluntary" - but yes, precisely.

Agreed. Though there is a well reasoned argument for mandatory auto insurance since autos are used on public roadways. There's bigger fights than fighting over whether auto insurance should be mandated or not.

[juleswin]

For that to be true, insurance premium should be based according to your means not according to your risk and it wouldn't be voluntary. Other than those 2 big differences, they are the exact same thing :)

[juleswin]

Agreed. Though there is a well reasoned argument for mandatory auto insurance since autos are used on public roadways. There's bigger fights than fighting over whether auto insurance should be mandated or not.

Actually in most cities you are except from paying car insurance if you can prove that you have the means to pay for the minimum liability for that state. Insurance is just one way of proving that

[malkusm]

Agreed. Though there is a well reasoned argument for mandatory auto insurance since autos are used on public roadways. There's bigger fights than fighting over whether auto insurance should be mandated or not.

Also agree. Though I disagree with mandating auto insurance for that reason. If that's the case, why not mandate health insurance for children in public schools, annuities for those in public pensions plans, etc etc?

[tod evans]

Rand made a very good point this morning;

If this mandate is instituted folks will be going to prison if they can't afford it...

[klamath]

That is all socialism is. You pay into a sustem that provides a safety net if you lose your job or get sick for some reason. It is all shared risk. With insurance you know that if something catastrophic happens to you will never have the money to pay it off otherwise you wouldn't get insurance you would get a saving account. With insurance you are counting on the money other people paid in to bail you out.

[ClydeCoulter]

While the argument can be made that something voluntary is valid, the justice system along with the legislative system work together to make insurance more like that of the gangs that threaten to protect your shop/business if you pay, and then if you don't then send in the thugs to bust up your place.

[klamath]

Last time I checked nobody held a gun to my head and forced me to buy insurance until the passing of ObamaCare. So NO, they are not the same thing. There is a big difference between voluntary and mandatory.Sorry I fought that battle and lost my drivers license for a year. Don't tell me it isn't mandatory.

[malkusm]

That is all socialism is. You pay into a sustem that provides a safety net if you lose your job or get sick for some reason. It is all shared risk. With insurance you know that if something catastrophic happens to you will never have the money to pay it off otherwise you wouldn't get insurance you would get a saving account. With insurance you are counting on the money other people paid in to bail you out.


While the argument can be made that something voluntary is valid, the justice system along with the legislative system work together to make insurance more like that of the gangs that threaten to protect your shop/business if you pay, and then if you don't then send in the thugs to bust up your place.

The key being that most insurance is all voluntary shared risk. There are certainly socialist elements of the ACA which include profit sharing, barriers to entry in the marketplace, and so forth which will lead us closer to a single payer system. I don't think anyone in here will debate the merits of the ACA. But the OP seems to rail against all insurance, in general...I think the distinction between voluntary and mandatory needs to be clearly made.

[malkusm]

Sorry I fought that battle and lost my drivers license for a year. Don't tell me it isn't mandatory.

Again, your problems are all stemming from laws, not from the nature of insurance itself.

[erowe1]

I agree with the OP.

[limequat]

Rand made a very good point this morning;

If this mandate is instituted folks will be going to prison if they can't afford it...

I also like how Obama claims that it's as affordable as a cell phone plan, while not addressing that it is designed to be more expensive for the people that can't afford it (young kids, out of work).

It occurred to me today that Obamacare is just another inflation tax. It transfers wealth from the younger generation to the older generation. WTF?

[klamath]

The key being that most insurance is all voluntary shared risk. There are certainly socialist elements of the ACA which include profit sharing, barriers to entry in the marketplace, and so forth which will lead us closer to a single payer system. I don't think anyone in here will debate the merits of the ACA. But the OP seems to rail against all insurance, in general...I think the distinction between voluntary and mandatory needs to be clearly made. As long as it is voluntary it is different. However the concept of shared risk is the basis for socialism. If you buy insurance you are expecting someone else's money to bail you out.

[jkr]

insurance is gambling & a scam

[Cabal]

What's wrong with voluntary socialism, anyway?

[malkusm]

As long as it is voluntary it is different. However the concept of shared risk is the basis for socialism. If you buy insurance you are expection someone else's money will bail you out.

No, socialism assumes the sharing of more than risk - namely, it operates on a shared "responsibility to society" or some such BS. As such, socialism doesn't just share risk, it also shares reward.

Risk-sharing is essential in many cases. If everyone had to come out of pocket every time there was a catastrophic event, there would be a lot more bankruptcies and defaults. Paying a small amount to cover a risk that you are actually exposed to makes financial sense. Paying exorbitant taxes for the "greater good" does not.

[klamath]

Again, your problems are all stemming from laws, not from the nature of insurance itself.I am not really railing against insurance only bringing out a discussion of the concepts behind Shared risk thinking.

[Acala]

Either the OP's understanding of socialism is flawed or his understanding of insurance is flawed.

Real insurance (not talking the so-called health insurance we have today) is purely a creature of the market and is economically rational, beneficial, responsible, and voluntary. Socialism (as an economic system), on the other hand, is a creature of force, is economically unsound, and corrupts the participants.

Insurance is hedging your bets against the vagaries of fortune. If you choose not to hedge, fine. But don't come crying to me when your house burns down.

[klamath]

No, socialism assumes the sharing of more than risk - namely, it operates on a shared "responsibility to society" or some such BS. As such, socialism doesn't just share risk, it also shares reward.

Risk-sharing is essential in many cases. If everyone had to come out of pocket every time there was a catastrophic event, there would be a lot more bankruptcies and defaults. Paying a small amount to cover a risk that you are actually exposed to makes financial sense. Paying exorbitant taxes for the "greater good" does not.

Yes there would be more defaults and bankruptcies but to the socialist there would be a lot more starving people when they ran into hard times. Food stamps, welfare, unemployment, etc.

[angelatc]

Agreed. Though there is a well reasoned argument for mandatory auto insurance since autos are used on public roadways. There's bigger fights than fighting over whether auto insurance should be mandated or not.


But I think it should be like Michigan, in that we have no fault. Your insurance pays for your stuff. The state actually protects people from being sued over accidents. If your insurance didn't cover your losses, then too bad for you.

A lot of people don't like it, though. The mentality is that the person at fault should be made to pay! And I certainly understand that, but it is dehumanizing. We all have accidents sometimes. Being treated lie a criminal and faced with losing everything you own over a single mistake seems unnecessarily hostile.

[klamath]

Either the OP's understanding of socialism is flawed or his understanding of insurance is flawed.

Real insurance (not talking the so-called health insurance we have today) is purely a creature of the market and is economically rational, beneficial, responsible, and voluntary. Socialism (as an economic system), on the other hand, is a creature of force, is economically unsound, and corrupts the participants.

Insurance is hedging your bets against the vagaries of fortune. If you choose not to hedge, fine. But don't come crying to me when your house burns down.

Yes socialism is more but the basis behind socialism is "shared risk". Someone else will help you out when you are down.

[angelatc]

What's wrong with voluntary socialism, anyway?

Human nature.

[ctiger2]

Fascist insurance intertwined with Federal Govt mandate and regulations is what the OP is referring to.

Free Market insurance with ZERO Fed Govt ties and regulations is what is needed. This could also be accomplished by eliminating the Federal Govt entirely. What a wonderful world it would be.

[Acala]

Yes there would be more defaults and bankruptcies but to the socialist there would be a lot more starving people when they ran into hard times. Food stamps, welfare, unemployment, etc.

What you are talking about as socialism - the welfare state - differs dramatically from insurance in numerous ways:

People participate voluntarily in insurance risk pools by buying insurance. They do this because they believe they will receive a benefit.

Everyone participating in an insurance risk pool pays in an amount based on the risk they bring to the pool, not based on ability to pay or some arbitrary political decision.

Everyone participating in an insurance pool gets paid out of the pool only based on the occurence of events over which they have no control and which they may be presumed to be avoiding.


Insurance is managed with sound economic principles, balancing risk, return on investment of pooled funds, and premiums.

Also, as an aside, insurance is not always a for-profit venture. Mutual insurance companies are a form of non-profit risk pool. My auto and home insurance are with a mutual company. In any given year, if they pay out less in claims than they gain in premiums and return on investment, I get a rebate check.

[Cabal]

Human nature.

This term is tossed around a lot in some fairly unintelligent ways.

[Acala]

Yes socialism is more but the basis behind socialism is "shared risk". Someone else will help you out when you are down.

So friendship and family are also socialism? I think maybe you need to define what you mean by socialism.

[malkusm]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Acala again.

[Brian4Liberty]

There are comparisons to be made, and there are contrasts.

Insurance shares many traits with "socialism", but there are also key differences.

The main damage that insurance can inflict, whether government mandated, employer supplied, or voluntarily purchased is when nearly everything is covered, and price discovery and price competition is eliminated from the market being covered by the insurance. Rand alluded to this today on the floor of the Senate.

This thread topic has been discussed several times, and we have discovered that many types of insurance certainly are "mandatory", some enforced by law (like auto), some enforced by contracts (home insurance, client contracts), and some enforced by business and litigation pressures (business liability, professional liability).

[Brian4Liberty]

So friendship and family are also socialism? I think maybe you need to define what you mean by socialism.

They can be excellent examples of how "shared pots of money" can be problematic, even at the smallest scale. It is always prone to corruption and theft. Ever been in one of those situations where "everyone" throws in $20 for xyz (mandatory via social pressure)? Then someone adds up the actual costs of xyz after the fact and realizes that the money collected was more than the money spent? The minute that a pool of money is created, it is vulnerable to the will of the person who handles, has access or decides on that money. Even an honest individual will tend to direct the money toward their preferences. A dishonest person will do much worse than that.

[Ender]

insurance is gambling & a scam

Yep.

My uncle once said that car insurance is a betting game. You bet you won't need it and the company bets you will. Most of us pay our entire lives without needing it- or much of it, at least.

[Ender]

So friendship and family are also socialism? I think maybe you need to define what you mean by socialism.

That is NOT socialism. Socialism is not voluntary; communal living is.

[cajuncocoa]

Yes socialism is more but the basis behind socialism is "shared risk". Someone else will help you out when you are down.

that's called charity if it's voluntary.

[cajuncocoa]

voluntary insurance is more like a co-op. It can work as long as the members have some skin in the game. If you're asking others to pay 100% of everything, it will likely go broke.

Mandatory insurance is a little like socialism.

[Seraphim]

Wrong. Socialism is collectivism at the barrel of a gun.

C'mon man.

Insurance (so long as it is not gov't mandated) is voluntary risk spreading.


That is all socialism is. You pay into a sustem that provides a safety net if you lose your job or get sick for some reason. It is all shared risk. With insurance you know that if something catastrophic happens to you will never have the money to pay it off otherwise you wouldn't get insurance you would get a saving account. With insurance you are counting on the money other people paid in to bail you out.

[Seraphim]

Simple and accurate.


That is NOT socialism. Socialism is not voluntary; communal living is.

[Acala]

There are comparisons to be made, and there are contrasts.

Insurance shares many traits with "socialism", but there are also key differences.

The main damage that insurance can inflict, whether government mandated, employer supplied, or voluntarily purchased is when nearly everything is covered, and price discovery and price competition is eliminated from the market being covered by the insurance. Rand alluded to this today on the floor of the Senate.

This thread topic has been discussed several times, and we have discovered that many types of insurance certainly are "mandatory", some enforced by law (like auto), some enforced by contracts (home insurance, client contracts), and some enforced by business and litigation pressures (business liability, professional liability).

If the program that purports to be insurance covers expenses that are voluntarily incurred or are certain to occur, then it isn't insurance, it is a health care pre-payment plan or subsidy program or something else. But it isn't insurance. Real insurance covers casualty events that are expected only in a statistical sense.

Economic pressure isn't the same as "mandatory". Mandatory means force will be used against you if you don't purchase the product. You can own a house without insurance and you can run a business without insurance. It may not be prudent and it may not be easy, but it is not illegal.

[Dr.3D]

I started a thread about this some time ago:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?382004-Is-buying-insurance-the-same-thing-as-voluntary-socialism

[Cabal]

That is NOT socialism. Socialism is not voluntary; communal living is.

socialism
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism?s=t

Socialism can be voluntary, or coercive; both in theory and in practice.

Are you using an alternate definition?

[Acala]

That is NOT socialism. Socialism is not voluntary; communal living is.

Agreed

[Acala]

Yep.

My uncle once said that car insurance is a betting game. You bet you won't need it and the company bets you will. Most of us pay our entire lives without needing it- or much of it, at least.

If you think it is a scam, don't buy it. That is the beauty of it.

[Ender]

socialism
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism?s=t

Socialism can be voluntary, or coercive; both in theory and in practice.

Are you using an alternate definition?

Yes- Socialism, with a capital is usually the political term. Some use "socialism" without the cap as a more general term, but not always recognized as voluntary.

Communal living is voluntary sharing. Many early religionists called it Zionism, but that too, has been co-opted.

[Ender]

If you think it is a scam, don't buy it. That is the beauty of it.

Really.

So, don't drive and risk going to jail w OCare? Is that what you are advocating? Because both are mandatory.

[dannno]

If you buy insurance you are expecting someone else's money to bail you out.

That is actually completely wrong.

People who buy insurance are not hoping to make a claim because insurance carries what is called a deductible so there is nothing to gain or profit from making a valid insurance claim. So no, they are not "expecting" someone else's money to bail them out. In most cases insurance claims are made by a small percentage of customers who have a low risk of something relatively catastrophic happening, so they voluntarily spread out their risk with others who share similar risk.

People who buy insurance are hoping to pay their premiums and inevitably contribute to bailing out others who do end up needing to make claims and not have to make a claim themselves. However, if they do need to make a claim, they know that the incident which caused it will not result in them losing their business and/or their assets.

The only time a person would want to make an insurance claim is if they are committing insurance fraud, which is just like any other contract fraud and insurance companies actively pursue people who commit insurance fraud.

[dannno]

Really.

So, don't drive and risk going to jail w OCare? Is that what you are advocating? Because both are mandatory.

There are thousands of types of insurance, individuals and businesses voluntarily buy insurance for all sorts of things. Don't let mandatory insurance pollute the idea of free market insurance.

[Brian4Liberty]

If the program that purports to be insurance covers expenses that are voluntarily incurred or are certain to occur, then it isn't insurance, it is a health care pre-payment plan or subsidy program or something else. But it isn't insurance. Real insurance covers casualty events that are expected only in a statistical sense.

Economic pressure isn't the same as "mandatory". Mandatory means force will be used against you if you don't purchase the product. You can own a house without insurance and you can run a business without insurance. It may not be prudent and it may not be easy, but it is not illegal.

I agree that most of the disagreements here are about definition of terms, their original definitions, and their current popular uses.

When health insurance is discussed in public today, it is portrayed as insurance, but what is usually meant is "insurance" that covers everything. At what point does insurance become prepaid, all-inclusive coverage? Is there some definition or rule that when insurance covers too many things or has no deductables that it is no longer "insurance"?

[Acala]

Really.

So, don't drive and risk going to jail w OCare? Is that what you are advocating? Because both are mandatory.

I oppose mandatory insurance. I didn't think that was what the thread was about. I didn't see anything in the OP about mandatory insurance. If what the OP is saying is that mandatory insurance is socialism, well, I still think it is a bit of a loose usage of "socialism" but I won't quibble.

[Acala]

I agree that most of the disagreement here are about definition of terms, their original definitions, and their current popular uses.

When health insurance is discussed in public today, it is portrayed as insurance, but what is usually meant is "insurance" that covers everything. At what point does insurance become prepaid, all-inclusive coverage? Is there some definition or rule that when insurance covers too many things or has no deductables that it is no longer "insurance"?

In my opinion, as soon as insurance covers an expense that is incurred voluntarily (check ups, pregnancy, etc.) or that is known in advance to be necessary (pre-existing conditions, for example) it is no longer insurance because it is no longer pooling RISK but is transfering wealth to cover routine and known expenses.

[Ender]

I oppose mandatory insurance. I didn't think that was what the thread was about. I didn't see anything in the OP about mandatory insurance. If what the OP is saying is that mandatory insurance is socialism, well, I still think it is a bit of a loose usage of "socialism" but I won't quibble.

Then we agree.

And, any insurance I buy will always be mandatory.

[Brian4Liberty]

Here's a contrast between socialism and insurance: when you actually need to use insurance, your premium increases or you are dropped from coverage altogether. Not so with socialism. Perhaps socialism needs to be more like private insurance... ;)

[Keith and stuff]

The concept is the same, the only thing different was it WAS voluntary before mandatory car insurance and Obama care.

Neither auto nor health insurance are mandatory where I live. I only have 1 of them. The law says neither is required in New Hampshire. Where do you live in the US that either is required?

[dannno]

When health insurance is discussed in public today, it is portrayed as insurance, but what is usually meant is "insurance" that covers everything. At what point does insurance become prepaid, all-inclusive coverage? Is there some definition or rule that when insurance covers too many things or has no deductables that it is no longer "insurance"?

You can't blame those things on insurance, those are all faults of the government who decided in the 70s that corporations should provide their employees with health insurance, so they subsidized it by giving tax breaks to employers who gave health insurance to employees. So employers then realized they could give their employees a tax free pay bonus by providing them with health care - the more health care they provide the bigger the pay bonus - unfortunately for young healthy individuals like myself, my tax subsidized care from my company costs only slightly more than catastrophic care costs on the open market - so I make a rational economic decision to get the tax subsidized care from my company - but when I get older and may have some sort of health condition, if I lose my job I lose my insurance and will not be able to find insurance to suit my needs on the open market.

On top of that, there are all sorts of other problems we find because now people are over-insured and so the pricing mechanisms in health care are non-functional, so costs go up for everybody.. but the rational individiual economic decision to remain with employee health care remains even though it is bringing down the whole system.

So basically the government can destroy the value and nature of insurance by creating taxes and regulations (or in this case, continuing taxing individuals who buy insurance on the open market, but not individuals who buy insurance through their large company), so basically anti-free market activities can distort insurance and cause all sorts of problems.. but these problems shouldn't be blamed on free market insurance.

[Brian4Liberty]

In my opinion, as soon as insurance covers an expense that is incurred voluntarily (check ups, pregnancy, etc.) or that is known in advance to be necessary (pre-existing conditions, for example) it is no longer insurance because it is no longer pooling RISK but is transfering wealth to cover routine and known expenses.

Agree. That's a good cut-off point for defining purposes.

Of course medical insurance companies have the freedom to start covering anything they want, including routine and known costs. Maybe we need a law to make sure they name their services appropriately? ;)

[Ender]

Neither auto nor health insurance are mandatory where I live. I only have 1 of them. The law says neither is required in New Hampshire. Where do you live in the US that either is required?

I've never lived in a state where auto insurance wasn't mandatory.

[Acala]

Here's a contrast between socialism and insurance: when you actually need to use insurance, your premium increases or you are dropped from coverage altogether.

I have made substantial claims on both home and auto policies and neither of these things have happened. But they certainly would if the claim you made caused you to appear to be a greater risk. And I am in favor of it. Keep the riff raff out of my risk pool!!!:D

[dannno]

And, any insurance I buy will always be mandatory.

You should read my post #48, there are really a lot of useful reasons to buy insurance.

Let's say you started a business, and by the nature of your business there is a .01% chance you or one of your employees may end up making a mistake that costs you your entire business.. But a .01% chance is a 1 in 10,000 chance, so what you do is you get together with a whole bunch of other businesses who share similar risk and make a small premium payment to the insurance company that you will barely even notice since the chance of it happening is so incredibly low, but if the un-thinkable happens you will still be able to continue to run your business and support your family and you won't lose everything.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Examine the conditions under which you operate. Then do the math on how likely an event is to occur. Pretty soon you realize the lameness of the game.

Insurance is an abundant society's game of chicken that most consumers lose.

[dannno]

Examine the conditions under which you operate. Then do the math on how likely an event is to occur. Pretty soon you realize the lameness of the game.

Insurance is an abundant society's game of chicken that most consumers lose.

That's completely untrue. People buy insurance in the free market for the chance of an event happening that they cannot afford to pay but for which they would be held liable.

What the fuck would you do if you pulled out of your driveway tomorrow and ran into a $76k car? Do you have a large bank account or an extra house to sell to pay for the damages?? If you do, then it is true that you don't need insurance for this situation, but otherwise you might consider having it even if it wasn't required.

Insurance allows people to engage in behavior that is slightly risky and which could potentially consume much or all or even more of their cash and/or assets than they own, but the activity they are insuring is highly rewarding enough for the person to pay a premium to share that risk with a group of other people who are similarly engaged in that risk. So you may drive to work and end up spending a very small portion of your paycheck to insure your car, and since you are traveling ~70mph on the highway you may do some damage to others as well.

If you are that good of a driver, then in a free market there will be insurance companies who will seek you out as a low risk and want your relatively low monthly premium.

Yes, insurance companies profit, but they do so by providing a service to their customers that none of them will have to go through having all of their assets or cash seized in the case that a very unlikely event occurs.

[Philhelm]

Yep.

My uncle once said that car insurance is a betting game. You bet you won't need it and the company bets you will. Most of us pay our entire lives without needing it- or much of it, at least.

That should be the other way around. You bet that you will need it while the insurance company bets that you won't need it.

[Brian4Liberty]

I have made substantial claims on both home and auto policies and neither of these things have happened. But they certainly would if the claim you made caused you to appear to be a greater risk. And I am in favor of it. Keep the riff raff out of my risk pool!!!:D

That's a reason for a different opinion on insurance. I don't even want to add up the money I have paid into insurance, and never used it once.

And with auto insurance, I have found that once again, competitive price discovery is gone, because the price of repair is always higher than the deductible. No one cares how much over the deductible the repair costs, as long as it doesn't exceed Blue Book replacement value. Conveniently the repair is often right under BB...

[Keith and stuff]

I've never lived in a state where auto insurance wasn't mandatory.
I am sorry about that. I actually lived in a state where it was mandatory but, thankfully, only for a few years. It was very strange! Still over 1/4 of the people where I lived didn't bother to buy it.

I'm glad to be back somewhere where it isn't required. I buy it but I mean, it is less than $300 a year. Not a big deal with all of the nice cars and wild animals around, I think it's worth it.

[dannno]

That should be the other way around. You bet that you will need it while the insurance company bets that you won't need it.

Both are wrong in regards to the customer betting.. you aren't betting on anything. You don't WANT to use your insurance by making a claim even though it is a product you pay for, you will lose the deductible, but you do want to have it in case you need it. If you were going to bet on not having a payout, you would do so by not buying the insurance in the first place.. So you aren't betting on any particular outcome when you buy insurance.

The insurance company is in a sense betting that you won't need the insurance via the premium and deductible amounts. They offer a low enough price that is attractive so a customer will pay it, but high enough to ensure they have the capital to make payouts to their entire customer base.

[Philhelm]

Both are wrong in regards to the customer betting.. you aren't betting on anything. You don't WANT to use your insurance by making a claim even though it is a product you pay for, you will lose the deductible, but you do want to have it in case you need it. If you were going to bet on not having a payout, you would do so by not buying the insurance in the first place.. So you aren't betting on any particular outcome when you buy insurance.

The insurance company is in a sense betting that you won't need the insurance via the premium and deductible amounts. They offer a low enough price that is attractive so a customer will pay it, but high enough to ensure they have the capital to make payouts to their entire customer base.

The accuracy of oversimplified statements aside, my incarnation was the logically correct one.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Last time I checked nobody held a gun to my head and forced me to buy insurance until the passing of ObamaCare. So NO, they are not the same thing. There is a big difference between voluntary and mandatory.

Tell that to the poor folks who can't afford car insurance, therefore can't drive to work, therefore struggle to survive.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

I am sorry about that. I actually lived in a state where it was mandatory but, thankfully, only for a few years. It was very strange! Still over 1/4 of the people where I lived didn't bother to buy it.

I'm glad to be back somewhere where it isn't required. I buy it but I mean, it is less than $300 a year. Not a big deal with all of the nice cars and wild animals around, I think it's worth it.

Lucky. I wish my state went light on car insurance violations. BUT it's worse than a fucking DUI. It's so obviously a payout to the insurance companies. It makes me sick to my stomach.

[dannno]

The accuracy of oversimplified statements aside, my incarnation was the logically correct one.

No it is not. You are not betting on needing insurance when you buy it because when you get a payout you are losing money because you have to pay the deductible.

In fact, if you were betting on needing the insurance by buying it, then it would logically follow you would physically assure that you needed a payout by getting into an accident on purpose.

Betting the opposite direction, that you will not get into an accident, can be done by not purchasing insurance, that was a reference to the other poster's logic (or lack there-of)

Both are entirely incorrect.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

That's completely untrue. People buy insurance in the free market for the chance of an event happening that they cannot afford to pay but for which they would be held liable.

What the fuck would you do if you pulled out of your driveway tomorrow and ran into a $76k car? Do you have a large bank account or an extra house to sell to pay for the damages?? If you do, then it is true that you don't need insurance for this situation, but otherwise you might consider having it even if it wasn't required.

Insurance allows people to engage in behavior that is slightly risky and which could potentially consume much or all or even more of their cash and/or assets than they own, but the activity they are insuring is highly rewarding enough for the person to pay a premium to share that risk with a group of other people who are similarly engaged in that risk. So you may drive to work and end up spending a very small portion of your paycheck to insure your car, and since you are traveling ~70mph on the highway you may do some damage to others as well.

If you are that good of a driver, then in a free market there will be insurance companies who will seek you out as a low risk and want your relatively low monthly premium.

Yes, insurance companies profit, but they do so by providing a service to their customers that none of them will have to go through having all of their assets or cash seized in the case that a very unlikely event occurs.

Your statement about "completely untrue" is mathematically incorrect. It's a matter of perspective and degree. What I said is very true to the extent of the math involved.

Check your operating conditions. Then check the math on the risk of an event. It's a numbers game that most people lose.

If it gives you piece of mind, then so be it. It's my opinion that most Americans are actually very risk averse. We are consumed with safety and abundance, which is why the insurance industry thrives.

It's a lot of needless hand wringing in my book.

[Philhelm]

No it is not. You are not betting on needing insurance when you buy it because when you get a payout you are losing money because you have to pay the deductible. Please explain how that is illogical.

I did not invent the saying. Ender had switched the "old saying" around. If insurance companies were betting that you will need the insurance, they wouldn't provide it.

In either case, of course you're losing money...the win is to lose less money. I never bought health insurance because I did not think I would need it, and was willing to make the gamble, which is logical. Illogical would be if I thought I would need it but would not make the gamble.

[dannno]

Your statement about "completely untrue" is mathematically incorrect. It's a matter of perspective and degree. What I said is very true to the extent of the math involved.

Check your operating conditions. Then check the math on the risk of an event. It's a numbers game that most people lose.

If it gives you piece of mind, then so be it. It's my opinion that most Americans are actually very risk averse. We are consumed with safety and abundance, which is why the insurance industry thrives.

It's a lot of needless hand wringing in my book.

No, you don't get what I'm saying at all. You should really re-read my post. I understand insurance a lot better than you.

I understand that in a pool of insured people (a, b, c, d, e, f) are making premium payments that less than the amount of that premium payments will come back to the insured pool in payouts, thus creating a profit for the insurance company, thus the pool of insured are paying out more than they receive back in payments. That is what YOU are saying and that part is true.

What you completely fail to understand is the service that is being provided in return for the profit the insurance company makes. If everybody in the insured pool dropped out and former insured person c ends up having an incident, they may lose their house and all of their assets and have their life completely destroyed. They may lose their wife, kids, everything, all because they didn't have insurance.

So even though a, b, d, e, f don't benefit financially from the transaction, they don't know that information until it is all over, but it could have just as easily been them who lost everything.. So if they all carry insurance, what happens? EVERYBODY HAS THEIR HOUSE AND THEIR ASSETS AT THE END OF THE GAME. That is what they are all paying for, they want everybody in their pool including themselves to pay a small premium to ensure that they retain their assets in the case of an incident, which in all likelyhood WILL NOT HAPPEN TO THEM.

This is not a basic math equation of 1 + 1 > 1 + .9, there are probabilities involved and the parties understand that the situation where they make the premium payments and don't collect a payout is far, far better than losing everything they have.

[dannno]

I did not invent the saying. Ender had switched the "old saying" around. If insurance companies were betting that you will need the insurance, they wouldn't provide it.

In either case, of course you're losing money...the win is to lose less money. I never bought health insurance because I did not think I would need it, and was willing to make the gamble, which is logical. Illogical would be if I thought I would need it but would not make the gamble.

Dude, you need to re-read my post. I did actually say that insurance companies are betting on an outcome, so on that part I agree, but customers ARE NOT betting on a particular outcome by buying insurance, so both you and Ender are wrong about customers betting on an outcome. You bet on an outcome when you DON'T buy insurance, just like what you said about yourself not buying health insurance. And it very well could be a rational decision to make not to buy insurance, I never said everybody has to buy insurance for everything did I?

So that is the nature if insurance, I highly recommend re-reading my posts if you don't understand.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

People buy insurance in the free market...

...then in a free market there will be insurance companies who will seek you out as a low risk and want your relatively low monthly premium.

Yes, insurance companies profit, but they do so by providing a service to their customers that none of them will have to go through having all of their assets or cash seized in the case that a very unlikely event occurs.

By the way, the "service" is nothing but crony capitalism. Your statements would be true in a free market, but we are far from that. Two examples are car insurance and mandatory health insurance. Many people in the insurance industry are worthless thieves cutting into my wallet.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

No, you don't get what I'm saying at all. You should really re-read my post. I understand insurance a lot better than you.


I never said everybody has to buy insurance for everything did I?





I read just fine, and I get it just fine. It's not brain surgery.

Do you work in the industry? Those people in the industry are slowly making everyone buy insurance for all the main "everythings" in life. Those people are worthless, thieving lobbyists taking from me.

[dannno]

By the way, the "service" is nothing but crony capitalism. Your statements would be true in a free market, but we are far from that. Two examples are car insurance and mandatory health insurance. Many people in the insurance industry are worthless thieves cutting into my wallet.

It's not crony capitalism in all cases - as I said, there are thousands of different types of insurance.

I completely agree that where the government steps in the market becomes distorted.

But insurance by its nature, in a free market, can be a very good thing - not for everything, I'm not going to argue that everybody in California should insure themselves against tornadoes, and I'm not going to argue that everybody in Kansas should insure against earthquakes - I'm not saying that everybody should pay an insurance premium for every imaginable scenario that may happen - I'm just stating that there are valid and beneficial reasons to purchase insurance in many cases in the free market. It should not be seen as something inherently bad or 'unprofitable' just because insurance companies make a profit and customer pools create that profit for them, because they are providing a service by insuring that the entire pool does not have their life ruined over some type of risk they are taking that is very beneficial for them and is still highly beneficial even after making insurance premium payments to protect themselves.

[dannno]

I read just fine, and I get it just fine. It's not brain surgery.

Do you work in the industry? Those people in the industry are slowly making everyone buy insurance for all the main "everythings" in life. Those people are worthless, thieving lobbyists taking from me.

But you are confusing the insurance industry in a corporatocracy with insurance in a free market.. All I'm saying is that in a free market there are beneficial and good uses for insurance and it shouldn't be a bad word. It shouldn't be something you would "never consider buying" no matter what because there can be times when it is absolutely practical and beneficial.

If the liberty movement is going to take the lead on macro economics it would be nice not to be ignorant in other areas of economics.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I completely agree that where the government steps in the market becomes distorted.

But insurance by its nature, in a free market, can be a very good thing - not for everything, I'm not going to argue that everybody in California should insure themselves against tornadoes, and I'm not going to argue that everybody in Kansas should insure against earthquakes - I'm not saying that everybody should pay an insurance premium for every imaginable scenario that may happen - I'm just stating that there are valid and beneficial reasons to purchase insurance in many cases in the free market. It should not be seen as something inherently bad or 'unprofitable' just because insurance companies make a profit and customer pools create that profit for them, because they are providing a service by insuring that the entire pool does not have their life ruined over some type of risk they are taking that is very beneficial for them and is still highly beneficial even after making insurance premium payments to protect themselves.

More like perverted.

The rest of your insurance 101 has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

[dannno]

More like perverted.

The rest of your insurance 101 has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

Perverted is a fine word as well.

My insurance 101 has to do with people here who are saying there is never any good personal economic use for insurance, even in the free market, and that is economic ignorance.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

But you are confusing the insurance industry in a corporatocracy with insurance in a free market..




The only people confusing things are those Geico seminar instructors for new employees.

[dannno]

The only people confusing things are those Geico seminar instructors for new employees.

Why do you think every type of insurance is car insurance and health insurance?

I'm not even talking about those things specifically, at all.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Why do you think every type of insurance is car insurance and health insurance?

I'm not even talking about those things specifically, at all.

Well, I'm talking about it. If you want to buy insurance, then go buy it. Don't lobby government to make me buy insurance.

[Acala]

I read just fine, and I get it just fine. It's not brain surgery.

Do you work in the industry? Those people in the industry are slowly making everyone buy insurance for all the main "everythings" in life. Those people are worthless, thieving lobbyists taking from me.

Lol. The funny thing is many insurance companies were OPPOSED to mandatory auto insurance. Why? Because in the aggregate the kind of people that only buy auto insurance when forced to do so tend to be worse risks than those who buy insurance because it is prudent. So mandatory insurance forces a bunch of higher risk people into the risk pool, which means more claims will have to be paid out which means premiums will need to go up on the good drivers. In a sense, it is the opposite of Obamacare, which forces low risk young people into the risk pool to subsidize the health care of the old folks.

But the insurance companies can just exclude the high risk drivers, right? Nope. First of all, the drivers may not have demonstrated their riskiness yet. But even if they have demonstrated riskiness to the point of being uninsurable, the government assinged risk program (depending on the state) will force the insurance companies to take the bad apples at a specified premium.

So the reality is that insurance companies don't really want you drivers who only have insurance because you are forced. They would much rather insure those who not only want to buy insurance but want to buy uninsured motorist insurance to protect themselves against you.

[dannno]

Well, I'm talking about it. If you want to buy insurance, then go buy it. Don't lobby government to make me buy insurance.

I'm practically a fucking anarchist, though I would likely support a limited government state that respects the rights of individuals, but what the hell makes you think I would lobby government to make you buy insurance??? That isn't even the topic of the thread at all..

The ONLY point I am making is that there are benefits to free market insurance and people shouldn't confuse the insurance we have today with free market insurance, and if you are going to tell people about the benefits of free market economics and then go around saying that all insurance is inherently bad and inherently socialist, then you are going to lose credibility because that is ignorant and incorrect.

[Zippyjuan]

Insurance is placing a bet. I am betting the insurance company that I will be hit with an expense I cannot afford in the future. Each year that doesn't happen the insurance company wins my premium I pay to them. When I win (and I actually hope I don't eventually win), then the insurance company pays my costs (or part of them) for my problem. The insurance company is the "house" on the other side of the bet- they calculate the odds of their winning and sets the premiums at a level they think will get them more money in the long term than any future payouts to me will likely be just as Las Vegas casinos do.

Insurance should be for unexpected expenses you cannot cover yourself out of pocket- like a medical emergency or your house burning down. Insurance on your cell phone or iPad are not necessary.

[Acala]

Insurance should be for unexpected expenses you cannot cover yourself out of pocket- like a medical emergency or your house burning down. Insurance on your cell phone or iPad are not necessary.

Correct. Insurance is for the risk of being hit with a huge, but RARE, expense. Not for covering routine, small-ticket items. That is supposed to come out of your savings.

[Zippyjuan]

How come my car insurance costs so much? Because it probably covers thing you don't need covered like dents in the fender or small dings in the windshield.

[dannno]

Insurance is placing a bet. I am betting the insurance company that I will be hit with an expense I cannot afford in the future. Each year that doesn't happen the insurance company wins my premium I pay to them. When I win (and I actually hope I don't eventually win), then the insurance company pays my costs (or part of them) for my problem. The insurance company is the "house" on the other side of the bet- they calculate the odds of their winning and sets the premiums at a level they think will get them more money in the long term than any future payouts to me will likely be just as Las Vegas casinos do.

No, it is not a bet that you will have an unexpected expense, it's a bet that you may have it.. If you were actually betting ON it, for example over-insuring an item, then you would do something to purposely make it happen, and that would be insurance fraud.




Insurance should be for unexpected expenses you cannot cover yourself out of pocket- like a medical emergency or your house burning down. Insurance on your cell phone or iPad are not necessary.

That is correct - except that people do get insurance for their phones, but this is probably because the interest rate is held at 0% and a lot of people don't have any savings. And of course not everybody makes rational economic decisions, but the idea is you have a large enough group it begins trending toward that direction.

[Keith and stuff]

How come my car insurance costs so much? Because it probably covers thing you don't need covered like dents in the fender or small dings in the windshield.

There are many factors that go into car insurance costs. Costs of other cars in the zip code, crime in the zip code, state regulations such as minimum coverage amounts and no fault and the list goes on. 1 of the larger factors is the requirement to have car insurance. For example, the only state where it's no problem to not have car insurance (NH), has some of the lowest rates in the nation.

[Zippyjuan]

No, it is not a bet that you will have an unexpected expense, it's a bet that you may have it.. If you were actually betting ON it, for example over-insuring an item, then you would do something to purposely make it happen, and that would be insurance fraud.




That is correct - except that people do get insurance for their phones, but this is probably because the interest rate is held at 0% and a lot of people don't have any savings.

SO if interest rates were to rise, people would stop insuring their phones and iPads and other junk? I don't think so. Savings won't effect it much either (though if they do have savings they may worry less about not being able to afford replacing it).

[RCA]

Nope. 1-starred.

[nobody's_hero]

I recall back to my first class in nursing school, we learned that long, long ago, health insurance was offered by life insurance companies.

The logic:

Health insurance companies hope you'll die before you become a drain on their budgets.

Life insurance companies want you to live practically forever in good health so you'll keep paying in and won't die.

It sounds backwards as hell but it makes sense, lol.

[dannno]

SO if interest rates were to rise, people would stop insuring their phones and iPads and other junk? I don't think so. Savings won't effect it much either (though if they do have savings they may worry less about not being able to afford replacing it).

Not overnight.... but people would start saving more if the interest rate for saving went up and the interest rate for borrowing went up, no? Then eventually once people built up savings, they would be much less likely to get insurance for things they could afford to replace themselves.

Another issue is currently cell phone insurance is different than car insurance in that they don't assess the risk of the insured. Some people are very careless with their phones and for them the insurance might be worth it even if they have the $$ to replace it. A guy at my work destroyed his company iphone 3 times in a couple years, I still have mine that is now 3 years old. If they assessed the risks of the individuals buying the insurance they would raise the rates on people who are riskier, but it isn't worth it for them to do this I guess... It is really more of a customer service thing for them because if a person really can't afford to replace their phone, they are not going to want to continue paying their contract if they break their phone.. so they have a vested interest in helping make sure their customers have their phones so it may be worth it for them to keep the premiums low so people pay into it, so it may or may not be a profitable venture in and of itself.

[klamath]

That did get a discussion going and not a lot of name calling. Socialism is not the best word, welfare safety net concept is a better comparison.
If every person that pays premiums all their life collects exactly the same in claims as the total the paid over their life then it is not someone else's money. If however a pool of premium payers goes to their graves having paid a lot more in than they ever collected and the other pool collected more than they ever paid, then it is based on the welfare safety net concept. Over my life I have been told by many people this is why they pay taxes and support the social safety net. "Someday I might need it" To them paying their taxes is like paying their premiums for the security in the event of a catastrophe in their lives.

[dannno]

That did get a discussion going and not a lot of name calling. Socialism is not the best word, welfare safety net concept is a better comparison.
If every person that pays premiums all their life collects exactly the same in claims as the total the paid over their life then it is not someone else's money. If however a pool of premium payers goes to their graves having paid a lot more in than they ever collected and the other pool collected more than they ever paid, then it is based on the welfare safety net concept. Over my life I have been told by many people this is why they pay taxes and support the social safety net. "Someday I might need it" To them paying their taxes is like paying their premiums for the security in the event of a catastrophe in their lives.


The insurance company provides a service to the individuals who voluntarily pay for the safety net - the service is that none of them lose all of their assets due to a catastrophic accident that is unlikely to occur to them. It may not even be their fault, it might just be something that occurs completely out of chance.

For providing this service, the insurance company collects a small profit to operate which is why on average the insured will collect less than what they pay out in premiums. If they are charging too much and collecting too big of a profit, then another insurance company will come in and sell the insurance for a lower premium. That is a mechanism the government is missing, and it is what keeps costs at a reasonable level.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Lol.


Insurance companies were often all too glad to support some type of financial responsibility law because they knew they could step in and satisfy the requirement by marketing their product. Their position was that it was just easier buy their services than post some type of bond. There were still a lot of people who did not have money for insurance--the same as the historical faulted driver who was unable to compensate his victim in a court case. The "uninsured motorist" problem that was later identified was really no different than the decades earlier driver who was not able to compensate the victim he aggrieved.

What did change, however, was insurance companies early involvement, and their subsequent growth. They can shrewdly complain about "uninsured motorists," but the reality is that drivers not paying under the historical tort system is no different than the people not paying today.

In other words, insurance companies can't complain because their historical involvement with government eventually led to the morass of regulation that they now so conveniently bemoan. The worst thing is that insurance companies contributed to a system that shifted accidents from a tort process to that of pre-pay, or what some people term "pre-crime."

[MelissaWV]

That is all socialism is. You pay into a sustem that provides a safety net if you lose your job or get sick for some reason. It is all shared risk. With insurance you know that if something catastrophic happens to you will never have the money to pay it off otherwise you wouldn't get insurance you would get a saving account. With insurance you are counting on the money other people paid in to bail you out.

I will admit I did not read subsequent replies, so forgive me if I am being redundant.

Insurance has other benefits. In the case of health insurance, the company you choose paints you as less of a risk to potential providers. There are certain insurance plans we do not accept at work because they have a proven track record of not paying us, or paying us too little. We also minimize patients who would be self pay, because in our experience they do not like to pay up front and don't pay afterwards, either (why pay when you've already gotten the service).

Most of your posts seem to assume that insurance companies just put all of the premiums into a pot and then pay out when something happens. That isn't true.

There are Medical Savings Accounts available, also, if that is what you'd prefer.

Lastly, you stumble into the fallacy of "...you will never have the money to pay it off otherwise you wouldn't get insurance you would get a saving account." You can start a savings account today, sure, but if you wreck your car tomorrow or even a year from now, will you have saved up enough money to cover your damages? Once coverage is bound, you are covered. When I was a personal lines agent, I had to wince at the number of times people would wreck within the first few months of coverage. Yes, their premiums suffered, but they got a replacement vehicle and carried on. I doubt they would have had that money saved up within so little time.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I'm practically a fucking anarchist,...

What the hell is an anarchist, anyway. I get a kick out of people who dismiss law altogether.

[dannno]

What the hell is an anarchist, anyway. I get a kick out of people who dismiss law altogether.

I didn't dismiss law, I dismissed a monopoly on it.

[klamath]

I will admit I did not read subsequent replies, so forgive me if I am being redundant.

Insurance has other benefits. In the case of health insurance, the company you choose paints you as less of a risk to potential providers. There are certain insurance plans we do not accept at work because they have a proven track record of not paying us, or paying us too little. We also minimize patients who would be self pay, because in our experience they do not like to pay up front and don't pay afterwards, either (why pay when you've already gotten the service).

Most of your posts seem to assume that insurance companies just put all of the premiums into a pot and then pay out when something happens. That isn't true.

There are Medical Savings Accounts available, also, if that is what you'd prefer.

Lastly, you stumble into the fallacy of "...you will never have the money to pay it off otherwise you wouldn't get insurance you would get a saving account." You can start a savings account today, sure, but if you wreck your car tomorrow or even a year from now, will you have saved up enough money to cover your damages? Once coverage is bound, you are covered. When I was a personal lines agent, I had to wince at the number of times people would wreck within the first few months of coverage. Yes, their premiums suffered, but they got a replacement vehicle and carried on. I doubt they would have had that money saved up within so little time.You don't have to necessarily have the money saved, but make payments to pay off the totaled car or what ever. If you can never make enough to pay it off even with a payment plan then yes you used someone elses money to pay it off with insurance.

[klamath]

The insurance company provides a service to the individuals who voluntarily pay for the safety net - the service is that none of them lose all of their assets due to a catastrophic accident that is unlikely to occur to them. It may not even be their fault, it might just be something that occurs completely out of chance.

For providing this service, the insurance company collects a small profit to operate which is why on average the insured will collect less than what they pay out in premiums. If they are charging too much and collecting too big of a profit, then another insurance company will come in and sell the insurance for a lower premium. That is a mechanism the government is missing, and it is what keeps costs at a reasonable level.You wouldn't be in the insurance business would you?:D

[Ender]

What most do not understand is that things like medical insurance raise the cost so that you cannot afford to see a doctor w/o it.

I worked with a doctor who refused insurance/medicare etc and based his prices accordingly. For a deep cut, stitches, returning checkups, and stitch removal, the total cost was under $100. And, he was an amazing doctor who cared about serving people- not insurance co and the gov.

[MelissaWV]

You don't have to necessarily have the money saved, but make payments to pay off the totaled car or what ever. If you can never make enough to pay it off even with a payment plan then yes you used someone elses money to pay it off with insurance.

In the real world, right now, that person who wrecked their car is making payments on the initial car. After their wreck, they have the following obligations:

1. Medical bills
2. Rental
3. Property damage
4. Fixing their own vehicle/paying off the amount of the loan

On top of paying off that loan --- which I guarantee you will not wait for you to make payments --- you are also expecting the person to have enough saved up to buy another car, or else at least to put a downpayment on another one, while simultaneously making payments to fix any property damage, and likely renting a car while you figure out whether or not your car can be fixed (which will happen after a mechanic looks at it... I guess they take payments, too).

Or you can roll the dice with auto insurance. Honestly, I would have insurance even if it weren't "mandatory," just because it provides under/uninsured motorist coverage. The idea I'm going to always have enough saved up to make myself whole again after an accident is silly to me. Over the life of my paying into it, it is likely I will pay in more than I get out, but three serious car accidents later, I am pretty glad I've had good insurance.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

"Gambling" and "risk" are heavy vocabulary for an industry and its customers that worry too much. If you must do this and want to save money, then calculate the likelihood of any insured event occurring. Many things are possible, but those events are often improbable. That's just mathematics.

The second part of the equation is examining the conditions under which you operate. Don't tailgate or drive like a nut. Don't smoke in bed. Keep your electrical wires maintained. Don't build your house close to the river or on the beach. Don't eat like a slob. Those things go a long way to reduce your "risk." It ain't brain surgery.

Then there's the rest of us who just live. I can't control the weather, so I have homeowner's insurance. Not much voluntary insurance beyond that. I'm not a stuntman, but I do mild things like bicycling without a helmet and climbing coconut trees. Big deal.

People turned emergence from the womb and life into this hand wringing, risky proposition. For those people, life itself is risk.

[dannno]

You wouldn't be in the insurance business would you?:D

No, I took Economics in college.

[dannno]

"Gambling" and "risk" are heavy vocabulary for an industry and its customers that worry too much. If you must do this and want to save money, then calculate the likelihood of any insured event occurring. Many things are possible, but those events are often improbable. That's just mathematics.

The second part of the equation is examining the conditions under which you operate. Don't tailgate or drive like a nut. Don't smoke in bed. Keep your electrical wires maintained. Don't build your house close to the river or on the beach. Don't eat like a slob. Those things go a long way to reduce your "risk." It ain't brain surgery.

Then there's the rest of us who just live. I can't control the weather, so I have homeowner's insurance. Not much voluntary insurance beyond that. I'm not a stuntman, but I do mild things like bicycling without a helmet and climbing coconut trees. Big deal.

People turned emergence from the womb and life into this hand wringing, risky proposition. For those people, life itself is risk.

lol... so you DO carry insurance... after all this arguing...

[dannno]

What most do not understand is that things like medical insurance raise the cost so that you cannot afford to see a doctor w/o it.

I worked with a doctor who refused insurance/medicare etc and based his prices accordingly. For a deep cut, stitches, returning checkups, and stitch removal, the total cost was under $100. And, he was an amazing doctor who cared about serving people- not insurance co and the gov.

Medical insurance ONLY raises the cost of health care because the government is so involved in medical insurance.. They give deep discounts to companies who provide group insurance to their employees so everybody over-insures because it's like getting a raise without being taxed... it really causes a lot of problems, from increasing prices to tying your medical insurance to your job which in all likelihood will not last forever.. Then what? You have a pre-existing condition? Not insurable.. Private insurance, drastic cuts in taxes and regulation would bring down the cost and people would not be over-insuring.

[MelissaWV]

lol... so you DO carry insurance... after all this arguing...

Which is funny because homeowners' insurance (depending on the company) is the worst deal there is. Most people have no idea what's in their policy. It's usually after a hurricane or serious wind event that they find out, for example, that they have a wind deductible. Let's put the hypothetical home at $250,000. Let's put that hypothetical wind deductible at 10%.

When your home's roof blows off (note: the home doesn't need to be a total loss, or even close to it), your deductible is now 10% of the value of the structure. Do you have that lying around? Consider what that means. Despite having homeowners' insurance because you "can't control the weather," you are acknowledging that you'll pay for damage caused by wind until it exceeds $25,000. You will be on the hook for the full cost of replacing your roof, and any number of other things damaged by wind. Similar deductibles can be found in policies pertaining to hail. Rising water is not covered. Replacement of undeclared items is not likely to happen. Sinkhole damage may be non-covered, or there might be a percentage deductible as previously mentioned.

So yeah I do find it funny that someone would have homeowners' insurance, which is much more difficult to get the value out of, and covers much less likely events.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

lol... so you DO carry insurance... after all this arguing...


It's not completely my choice. I'm married, among other things.

Why would you also assume that I don't carry any type of insurance? The math of insurance means that it's not an either or proposition.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Which is funny because homeowners' insurance (depending on the company) is the worst deal there is. Most people have no idea what's in their policy.

So yeah I do find it funny that someone would have homeowners' insurance, which is much more difficult to get the value out of, and covers much less likely events.

You're probably right. Most people probably don't know what is in their policy. Most house shoppers also don't know why they should check bodies of around their prospective home instead of totally relying on flood maps. Most house shoppers also don't even look under rugs when house shopping and instead hope that their hired inspector catches all the common sense items. Most people don't spend a lot of time on these life basics and instead leave it up to someone else.

I know exactly what is in our policy. I double and triple read every legal contract I sign from top to bottom. Just ask the poor girl at the franchise who deducted $6.00 from the rest of her measly commission because I haggled over one tiny line in the document.

My wife now handles the insurance because we just combined the car and homeowner's, so I don't know the exact total amount off the top of my head. I know we wrangled a good deal over a number of days. I know the exact car portion, which is $331 per year for two cars. If I'm required to buy something, then I'm willing to put the time into the details and make it work me as much as possible.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Let's put that hypothetical wind deductible at 10%.



By the way, anyone signing anything like that is either a special case or deserves what they get. Even hurricane deductibles don't approach that "hypothetical."

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

No, I took Economics in college.

That was not the question. He asked if you're in the insurance business.

[DamianTV]

Hot Topic.

[Anti Federalist]

Agreed. Though there is a well reasoned argument for mandatory auto insurance since autos are used on public roadways. There's bigger fights than fighting over whether auto insurance should be mandated or not.

It's not, in NH, and our rates are some of the lowest in the nation.

[dannno]

That was not the question. He asked if you're in the insurance business.

No, I took an Economics class on insurance in college, about 10 years ago.. I haven't dealt with any type of insurance except car insurance and medical insurance for myself.

[Anti Federalist]

People turned emergence from the womb and life into this hand wringing, risky proposition. For those people, life itself is risk.

Risk makes life worth living.

Nothing good in life comes without risk.

Which is why, in fully controlled societies, like Japan for instance, suicide rates are very high.

[MelissaWV]

By the way, anyone signing anything like that is either a special case or deserves what they get. Even hurricane deductibles don't approach that "hypothetical."

Actually, in hurricane-prone areas, they can top 20%. I was being generous.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

No, I took an Economics class on insurance in college, about 10 years ago.. I haven't dealt with any type of insurance except car insurance and medical insurance for myself.

A class in college?!? Car and medical only?! So your experience that a typical 25 year old might have qualifies you to say--what were your words to me?--Oh yeah, "I understand insurance a lot better than you." Talk about your LOLZ.

[MelissaWV]

Actually, in hurricane-prone areas, they can top 20%. I was being generous.


The published insurance literature states that all insurers (for personal lines-homeowners) must offer hurricane deductibles of $500.00, 2%, 5% and 10%.

Notice the "must" portion. My example was 10%, which is within the "must" category.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Risk makes life worth living.




Very much agreed. There is a difference however, between invigorating risks and dannno's hand wringing over hitting a 76k car.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Actually, in hurricane-prone areas, they can top 20%. I was being generous.

Not even close.

[dannno]

A class in college?!? Car and medical only?! So your experience that a typical 25 year old might have qualifies you to say--what were your words to me?--Oh yeah, "I understand insurance a lot better than you." Talk about your LOLZ.

Just because you buy insurance doesn't tell you how the industry works.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Notice the "must" portion. My example was 10%, which is within the "must" category.

Oh okay, now you have to look it up. Between you and the college guy with Geico, I don't even know why I'm having this conversation.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Just because you buy insurance doesn't tell you how the industry works.

Oh, okay. And playing baseball means that I don't know how much a curve ball curves. Maybe I should take a physics class.

[MelissaWV]

Oh okay, now you have to look it up. Between you and the college guy with Geico, I don't even know why I'm having this conversation.

Huh? I didn't "have to look it up" but in general when you claim something online, you look it up as a courtesy. The internet doesn't accept "because I said so."

I worked as a personal lines agent for several years. There are a number of intersecting restrictions and non-covered events depending on where you live and how often things happen. You can literally live across the street from someone who's nearly uninsurable, yet your house is covered, based purely on proximity to the aforementioned bodies of water. Hell, you can have issues getting your home insured merely because you have an unabated risk --- lead, asbestos, a trampoline, a "vicious dog," a pool without a fence, or even stairs of certain dimensions without an approved railing.

I *don't* know why you're having this conversation, because earlier you acted as if 10% was unheard of. It seems I'm not the one that needs educating on the subject.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Huh? I didn't "have to look it up" but in general when you claim something online, you look it up as a courtesy.


Courtesy. Ok, whatever you say. Just keep throwing out those atypical and silly numbers.

[MelissaWV]

Courtesy. Ok, whatever you say. Just keep throwing out those atypical and silly numbers.

Okay. I yield to your expertise. What is a more typical wind deductible in Florida?

[MRK]

Well I would have to say insurance parallels socialism in that it is also "a big lie wherein everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else."

[Brian4Liberty]

Competitive markets are destroyed when consumers don't care about price.

Which solution do you prefer:

A. Obamacare as it is today.
B. Fully socialized healthcare (the future of Obamacare).
C. An end to all subsidies, incentives or breaks for purchases of health insurance.
D. An end to all subsidies, incentives or breaks for purchases of health insurance, plus a ban on employer provided health insurance.
E. What we had the day before Obamacare passed.