Insurance

[Vic]

Originally posted by: jemcam
Someday you'll understand, Vic. When you have more assetts or you see first hand just what tragedies arise from people without insurance, you'll think the $300 or so per month is a bargain in hindsight.

Somehow it seems I post in vain. Or I'm not the only one using ad hom
First, you have no idea of my income or assets. Rest assured, I'm far from poor.
Second, I already do pay $110/mo. for my auto ins. That's for 2 cars, 2 drivers, 100/300/100 coverage with all frills including uninsured motorist coverage and everything else. And yes, I do think it's quite a bargain. 5 years ago, I was involved (not at fault) in a major accident in which my claim was far more than the amount I had ever paid into insurance in my whole life (and I've been paying for 16 years).

However, I still don't think it should be mandated by law. If you're unable to understand the simplest concepts of my argument, then I think you should not be so pompous in countering it.

 

[jemcam]

Originally posted by: Vic
I wish my product was required by law.

And for Ausm and others who don't get it, it's simple (perhaps too simple?).
- No privately-sold commerical product should ever be required by law.
- If you don't like a product, don't buy it. No one should ever be forced to buy a product (see above).
- Because I believe the 2 above does not mean that I think the product in question is without value (quite contrary in this case).
- Only a morally and ethically bankrupt person would compare the issue in question with laws against murder and robbery.

Anything more?

If insurance were solely operated by the government, you really think it would be better? Do we at least agree that insurance is a neccesary evil? (I do) If we agree on that, then don't you think that competition in the private insurance industry creates better deals for consumers?

If all laws were struck down today that required any form of insurance on anything, you do realize that our economy would collapse, don't you? The banks couldn't give loans on cars and homes anymore, and there would be so many default judgements with nothing but paper to back them up. Do you think that people who don't carry liability insurance on their cars would continue to voluntarily keep their coverage? I think not. So, what would happen more than likely would be that the rates would go even higher since there were woudl be even more payouts on losses that were not the fault of the insured.

Do you feel this way about the FDIC with banks? Because a strong analogy can be made there as well.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: jemcam
If insurance were solely operated by the government, you really think it would be better? Do we at least agree that insurance is a neccesary evil? (I do) If we agree on that, then don't you think that competition in the private insurance industry creates better deals for consumers?

If all laws were struck down today that required any form of insurance on anything, you do realize that our economy would collapse, don't you? The banks couldn't give loans on cars and homes anymore, and there would be so many default judgements with nothing but paper to back them up. Do you think that people who don't carry liability insurance on their cars would continue to voluntarily keep their coverage? I think not. So, what would happen more than likely would be that the rates would go even higher since there were woudl be even more payouts on losses that were not the fault of the insured.

Do you feel this way about the FDIC with banks? Because a strong analogy can be made there as well.

No.
Yes, I have already said as much.
Of course.
No, it wouldn't. Or are you saying that our economy didn't exist before 1972, when the first state mandatory auto ins. law was passed?
Banks and lenders already required insurance on securitized collateral long before laws were made to require carrying insurance. Point of fact: most localities do not require that homeowners carry fire insurance, but all banks/lenders do. Law does not apply in that case.
The smart ones would. The stupid should not be protected from their stupidity.
Rates would not go higher for that reason, but because less people might be paying into the "pool." Legal remedies have long been in place to make un/under-insured motorists pay for their damages. Many people are forced to pay monthly payments for the rest of their lives, and you cannot bankrupt such payments. Point of fact: insurance premiums have steadily gone up since mandatory auto ins. became the norm in every state (about 1991, IIRC).
FDIC is not an apt comparison, as it is neither private nor commercial. I have my own opinions on that issue, but I believe they would be very off-topic to this thread.

 

[jemcam]

I quit, you're mind is made up and closed.

You really think you can compare today's economy to 1972?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: jemcam
I quit, you're mind is made up and closed.

You really think you can compare today's economy to 1972?

Did you even read my post?

edit: obviously you didn't.

 

[jemcam]

Originally posted by: jemcam
I quit, you're mind is made up and closed.

You really think you can compare today's economy to 1972?

 

[NogginBoink]

Actually, in the state of Texas, even auto liability insurance is not required. You can "self insure" by having (I believe) a $50K bond.

But given the size of judgements these days, I personally feel that would be rather stupid.

I'm all for mandatory jail sentences for driving without liability insurance. I'd say 24 hours in jail for first offense, then progressively longer sentences for repeated violations in a 24 month period.

As for credit reports being used to set insurance rates, there is a statistically significant relationship between credit scores and how many claims will be made by an individual. If the statistics show this group is a bigger risk, then why shouldn't this group pay higher premiums?

 

[jemcam]

The smart ones would. The stupid should not be protected from their stupidity.

Last time. Liability insurance is as much (or more) to protect people that are harmed financially because of negligence as the insured who buys it. Why should I have to buy more insurance (Underinsured Motorist) because some irresponsible people choose to break the law and not have liability? You're argument is invalid.

 

[NogginBoink]

Vic, I have to disagree with you about laws protecting stupid people against their own stupidity.

Mandatory auto liability isurance protects me against other peoples' stupidity.

If someone else causes an automobile accident in which I am injured, the mandatory liability ensures that person can pay for my healthcare.

I do understand that ultimately it's the other person's stupidty,but ultimately, it is my interests, and not that stupid person's insterests, that are served by his liability insurance.