Health insurance and car insurance

[Anti Federalist]

While there have been insurance policies and schemes available since the 1920s, mandatory insurance did not become a widespread phenomenon until the 1970s.

So, starting at a baseline of 1985, let's look at what mandatory car insurance has increased in cost, after being told by our oppressors that "by mandating everybody buy it, it will drive costs down".


Prices for Car Insurance, 1985-2019

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, prices for motor vehicle insurance were 378.45% higher in 2019 versus 1985 (a $1,892.25 difference in value).

Between 1985 and 2019: Car insurance experienced an average inflation rate of 4.71% per year. This rate of change indicates significant inflation. In other words, car insurance costing $500 in the year 1985 would cost $2,392.25 in 2019 for an equivalent purchase. Compared to the overall inflation rate of 2.56% during this same period, inflation for car insurance was higher. (http://www.in2013dollars.com/Motor-vehicle-insurance/price-inflation/1985)

Our oppressors used the same bullshit argument to sell us Obama/Romney Care.

https://www.kff.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/8905-exhibit-1-111.png

Just a friendly public service message from your pal, AF.

[Danke]

Repair costs might be a factor.

Anyway, I buy and maintain used cars, all but one have no collision coverage, just liability. Cheap.

[Anti Federalist]

Repair costs might be a factor.

Anyway, I buy and maintain used cars, all but one have no collision coverage, just liability. Cheap.

Very much so, that is part of it, and the EP Autos piece I lifted that stat from said as much, but it doesn't explain all of it.

[PAF]

Government involvement. Lobbyists.

I have raised this issue many times but folks still do not get it: No harm, no crime.

One of the major issues is that if I am speeding to get to my destination on time and no accident has occurred, LEO will pull me over, ticket me and then points are applied, which raises my premiums.

Or if miss a turn and go the wrong way and conditions are good, I do a U-Turn before reaching the divider which divides the highway for the next 8+ miles, LEO tickets me for an "illegal" U-Turn.

Any time and every time government gets involved it becomes a RACKET.

And then they have the balls to call me asking for money for one of their fund-raising drives which many people are more than happy to donate.

[nobody's_hero]

Government involvement. Lobbyists.

I have raised this issue many times but folks still do not get it: No harm, no crime.

One of the major issues is that if I am speeding to get to my destination on time and no accident has occurred, LEO will pull me over, ticket me and then points are applied, which raises my premiums.

Or if miss a turn and go the wrong way and conditions are good, I do a U-Turn before reaching the divider which divides the highway for the next 8+ miles, LEO tickets me for an "illegal" U-Turn.

Any time and every time government gets involved it becomes a RACKET.

And then they have the balls to call me asking for money for one of their fund-raising drives which many people are more than happy to donate.

Insurance premiums are based on risk. If you are a riskier driver then you should probably expect to pay more in premiums.

Then again, there's a good argument to be made on whether or not it is law-enforcement's place to be doing risk-assessment for insurance companies. Would we rather have insurance companies spying on our driving habits?


Insurance is the real racket. My mother tried progressive's little SNAPSHOT device that plugs into the computer of the car, which supposedly helps lower rates for good drivers, and ALL it does is measure braking habits. If you live in the city and have a traffic light every 100 feet, you're screwed. It is better to NOT opt to use the device and rely solely on your driving record to argue for lower premiums.

[euphemia]

As it happens, my husband was the victim of a hit-and-run on Tuesday. Insurance will cover most of the damage and the rental while his car is being repaired.

A few years ago a woman darn near killed him. He was at a full stop and she was texting. Hit him almost head on. She was wealthy, but had Progressive, lied to the police, lied to the insurance company, and it was a big mess.

[PAF]

Insurance premiums are based on risk. If you are a riskier driver then you should probably expect to pay more in premiums.

Then again, there's a good argument to be made on whether or not it is law-enforcement's place to be doing risk-assessment for insurance companies. Would we rather have insurance companies spying on our driving habits?


Insurance is the real racket. My mother tried progressive's little SNAPSHOT device that plugs into the computer of the car, which supposedly helps lower rates for good drivers, and ALL it does is measure braking habits. If you live in the city and have a traffic light every 100 feet, you're screwed. It is better to NOT opt not to use the device and rely solely on your driving record to argue for lower premiums.

Private insurance without government involvement would be the ideal choice. Whether one is considered "risky" should not be factored in, there are some who are considered "risky" yet never had an accident (such as 5 or 10 over the limit or pulling a U-Turn). Once LEO gets involved, the state profits at our expense while cost of premiums go up. This is double-dipping, and when no injury or accident occurs, theft.

To me it is another example of profiting off of pre-crime :mouthopen:

[Anti Federalist]

Then again, there's a good argument to be made on whether or not it is law-enforcement's place to be doing risk-assessment for insurance companies. Would we rather have insurance companies spying on our driving habits?

Insurance is the real racket. My mother tried progressive's little SNAPSHOT device that plugs into the computer of the car, which supposedly helps lower rates for good drivers, and ALL it does is measure braking habits. If you live in the city and have a traffic light every 100 feet, you're screwed. It is better to NOT opt not to use the device and rely solely on your driving record to argue for lower premiums.

Lucky us, we got the worst of both worlds, cops and insurance companies spying on us.

[jkr]

both are gambling...and the house always wins.

[Zippyjuan]

Very much so, that is part of it, and the EP Autos piece I lifted that stat from said as much, but it doesn't explain all of it.

Policies also cover a lot more things because the customers demanded it. "Why isn't this covered by my insurance?" In the case of car insurance, that now includes fixing small cracks in the windshield, scratches and dents in the body.

[Working Poor]

I pay under $1000 a year for driving insurance. I have never gotten a ticket for any kind of moving violation. I have gotten a few for not having proper registration but that has been more than 10 years ago. The place where I buy insurance says I have the lowest premium of all their customers.

I think auto and health insurance is a rip off and I think if you don't have to file a claim you should get some kind of refund. I resent the hell out of having to pay what I pay for it. I don't have health insurance. My son has a $100,000 policy on my life that he pays the premium on that he will divide with himself and my grand children after final expenses which I don't mind because at least he will get something back for paying all these years. I instated it about 20 years ago and he started paying it about 10 years ago since he is the beneficiary.

[tfurrh]

I know in Texas you can have a $100k surety bond, and drive with no insurance.

But I'm not TheTexan with that kind of money.

I've never been at fault for any accident in my 16 years of driving. It kills me to think of all the money down the tube.

[shakey1]

It’s. A. Racket.

[PAF]

https://youtu.be/9tnCKFg4-j4

[Danke]

https://youtu.be/9tnCKFg4-j4

Very PC.

[Danke]

I know in Texas you can have a $100k surety bond, and drive with no insurance.

But I'm not TheTexan with that kind of money.

I've never been at fault for any accident in my 16 years of driving. It kills me to think of all the money down the tube.

If you could some extra cash teaching night time courses, @TheTexan (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=33245) might be looking to hire instructors in your area.

[PAF]

Very PC.

Hilarious nonetheless :tears:

[Anti Federalist]

Very PC.

Theye haven't seen mayhem yet.

Keep fucking pushing... (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berserker)

[Danke]

Theye haven't seen mayhem yet.

Keep fucking pushing... (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berserker)

Maybe someday the Berserkers in Minnesota will rediscover their roots...


We might have to partner with the local Injuns like oyarde this time.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApxnAr6pRt0


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oo9buo9Mtos

[Occam's Banana]

Private insurance without government involvement would be the ideal choice. Whether one is considered "risky" should not be factored in [...]

Of course risk should be factored in. Insurance cannot work any other way. The only way around this is to introduce force (e.g., the government) into the matter - for example, by mandating "universal" coverage in order to make up for the shortfalls that will occur because risk is not allowed to be accounted for ... (and at that point, we are no longer talking about "insurance" at all - we are talking about "entitlement" ...)


[...] there are some who are considered "risky" yet never had an accident (such as 5 or 10 over the limit or pulling a U-Turn).

Under a genuinely private, free-market insurance regime, if consistently doing those or other things correlates with greater liability to a sufficiently high degree, then those who do those things should indeed be considered more "risky" - because they are.

And if the actuarial analysis used by an insuror to identify "risky" insureds consistently miscalculates risk (by mistakenly identifying "risky" insureds as "not risky" or, conversely, misidentifying "not risky" insureds as "risky"), then the market will punish that insuror by inflicting losses (or reducing profits) commensurate to the degree of its miscalculations.

That is, after all, exactly how free markets are supposed to work. You judge and assess a risk and then either accept or reject it. If your accept it, then you reap the reward if the risk pays off, and you bear the burden if it does not - and you do it all without interference from others except in cases of force or fraud. It is no different for insurance than for any other enterprise, and it is simply absurd to say that insurors should not factor in the risk of liability when issuing or pricing policies.

[PAF]

Of course risk should be factored in. Insurance cannot work any other way. The only way around this is to introduce force (e.g., the government) into the matter - for example, by mandating "universal" coverage in order to make up for the shortfalls that will occur because risk is not allowed to be accounted for ... (and at that point, we are no longer talking about "insurance" at all - we are talking about "entitlement" ...)



Under a genuinely private, free-market insurance regime, if consistently doing those or other things correlates to a sufficiently high degree with greater liability, then those who do those things should indeed be considered more "risky" - because they are.

And if the actuarial analysis used by an insuror to identify "risky" insureds consistently miscalculates risk (by mistakenly identifying "risky" insureds as "not risky" or, conversely, misidentifying "not risky" insureds as "risky"), then the market will punish that insuror by inflicting losses (or reducing profits) commensurate to the degree of its miscalculations.

That is, after all, exactly how free markets are supposed to work. You judge and assess a risk and then either accept or reject it. If your accept it, then you reap the reward if the risk pays off, and you bear the burden if it does not - and you do it all without interference from others except in cases of force or fraud. It is no different for insurance than for any other enterprise, and it is simply absurd to say that insurors should not factor in the risk of liability when issuing or pricing policies.

I totally agree with that. I should have taken the time to note that government has no business in risk assessment for private companies. Thanks for the clarify + Rep.

[Occam's Banana]

I totally agree with that. I should have taken the time to note that government has no business in risk assessment for private companies.

Exactly. Among other things, government interference knocks actuarial soundness into a cocked hat. When "insurance"[1] is mandated "universally," insurors have a captive market. As a result, they can evade a lot of the discipline that a free market would impose on them. They can get away with overcharging or under-serving their insureds (by using actuarially dubious excuses to increase premiums, for example), because, hey, you're forced to get insurance from somewhere, so whaddaya gonna do? Switch to some other insuror that has the very same perverse incentives under the very same government regulations and mandates? Hah!

And this, of course, leads to yet more government interference in the name of "protecting" consumers from the very abuses that the government's previous regulations and mandates caused in the first place ...

... and the wheel goes round and round ...



[1] I put "insurance" in quotes because, as I noted before, it's not really insurance at that point - it's an entitlement (a half-assed sort of entitlement, to be sure, and one that at least some people are forced to pay premiums for, but an entitlement nonetheless).

[PAF]

Exactly. Among other things, government interference knocks actuarial soundness into a cocked hat. When "insurance"[1] is mandated "universally," insurors have a captive market. As a result, they can evade a lot of the discipline that a free market would impose on them. They can get away with overcharging or under-serving their insureds (by using actuarially dubious excuses to increase premiums, for example), because, hey, you're forced to get insurance from somewhere, so whaddaya gonna do? Switch to some other insuror that has the very same perverse incentives? Hah!

And this, of course, leads to yet more government interference in the name of "protecting" consumers from the very abuses that the government's previous regulations and mandates caused in the first place ...

... and the wheel goes round and round ...



[1] I put "insurance" in quotes because, as I noted before, it's not really insurance at that point. It's an entitlement.


Well said. Out of + Rep so here you go.

[aGameOfThrones]

Insurance premiums are based on risk. If you are a riskier driver then you should probably expect to pay more in premiums.

Then again, there's a good argument to be made on whether or not it is law-enforcement's place to be doing risk-assessment for insurance companies. Would we rather have insurance companies spying on our driving habits?


Insurance is the real racket. My mother tried progressive's little SNAPSHOT device that plugs into the computer of the car, which supposedly helps lower rates for good drivers, and ALL it does is measure braking habits. If you live in the city and have a traffic light every 100 feet, you're screwed. It is better to NOT opt not to use the device and rely solely on your driving record to argue for lower premiums.

They also use your credit history in the equation.

[nobody's_hero]

They also use your credit history in the equation.

I think practically every business does. That's fairly standard before anyone even wants to do any business with you.


My point was that for the sake of determining rates, the insurance companies don't really care that what you do with your property might be illegal or not. They just want to know what risks are involved.


It's not illegal to have a fireplace in your home or smoke cigarettes indoors (well, unless you live in Ban Francisco), but those were still questions I had to answer when I applied for homeowner's insurance.

[shakey1]

Exactly. Among other things, government interference knocks actuarial soundness into a cocked hat. When "insurance"[1] is mandated "universally," insurors have a captive market. As a result, they can evade a lot of the discipline that a free market would impose on them. They can get away with overcharging or under-serving their insureds (by using actuarially dubious excuses to increase premiums, for example), because, hey, you're forced to get insurance from somewhere, so whaddaya gonna do? Switch to some other insuror that has the very same perverse incentives under the very same government regulations and mandates? Hah!

And this, of course, leads to yet more government interference in the name of "protecting" consumers from the very abuses that the government's previous regulations and mandates caused in the first place ...

... and the wheel goes round and round ...



[1] I put "insurance" in quotes because, as I noted before, it's not really insurance at that point - it's an entitlement (a half-assed sort of entitlement, to be sure, and one that at least some people are forced to pay premiums for, but an entitlement nonetheless).

Well said... outta rep ammo :(