Simple question about car insurance

I have no responsibility, necessarily, for the uncertain future. I might swerve off into your house on an icy road and hurt you or someone in your family. Do you also want to force me to pay for your health insurance?

How absurd. If I have a valuable car and don't want to get sued, I pay for car insurance.

Why would someone that didn't have insurance, be paid for by insurance? How ridiculous.

$0, if I didn't ask for insurance.

 

Yes it does. One should not need a license to engage in a right (including gun ownership btw).

What we're talking about is a privilege.

Um...that is the exact same argument, and I already made it. Have you just been responding without reading my comments? Few people have the financial resources to cover the potential medical costs of a serious accident should they be at fault. Insurance is the only way for most.

You've already defeated your own argument. You've already been forced to "agree in some cases". It is merely a small hop and skip to "all" cases.

How do you know the cases in advance?

Whether injury takes place through accident or intent is meaningless. Both require payment. Insurance assures that other parties have recourse.

Who on Earth required you to explain this?

Your logic is frayed beyond repair. I have already repudiated your claim.

Nonsense. Start an insurance company if you wish. There is no unjust playing field. Next, you'll claim that those who produce food have an "unjust" playing field because their product is required as well.

Utterly pinheaded response. There is no ponzi scheme; you clearly do not even know what a ponzi scheme is.

Why should the burden of enforcement of societal responsibility fall on a private business? This is one of the very few valid roles of Government.

 

your choices you make shape your future, and sometimes they end up in accidents that could involve hurting another person. thats why insurance is there smart guy, in case of such happenings in which you cant help but are still your fault. so yeah there is a responsibility to those around you, if your actions cause them harm it is your responsibility to remedy the situation whether it be paying for their hospital bills or paying for their car to be fixed.

so yeah, if you lost control of your vehicle, which would be your fault because you either dont know how to drive on an icy road or were stupidly going too fast, and slammed into my house and hurt me or my family then hell yeah your ass should be paying for not only our medical bills, but also to get our house repaired. your actions caused the destruction, you pay to get it fixed.

if you are on the road with any car you are to have auto insurance, or you will be sued no matter what. hope you like sleeping in cardboard boxes.

ugh im talking about if an uninsured motorist hit my car, my insurance would have to shell out the bill to get my car fixed, they wouldnt pay for the idiots car as he would be S.O.L. . but then that would cause my insurance to go up because of the possibility of another uninsured moron hitting my vehicle.

once again driving is a privilege and not a right. you have every right not to buy any auto insurance, but its illegal for you to be on the road if you dont.

plain and simple. gladly lawmakers are reasonable when it comes to this as it makes perfect sense.

 

Ok.

So this is the heart of the issue. Edit: how far does it go? How do I know you won't arson my house sometime? Should I force you, through government/politics, to pay "Insurance Y" which covers any damages to my house that you never caused, but very well might?

It doesn't mean that we should necessarily force people to pay for crimes/accidents they did not commit, though. Law enforcement maybe, but this, I disagree with.

No one is ever forced to buy food, with the threat of losing some important right/privilege in their lives.

If we are to compare this to mandatory payment (if you have an income) for law enforcement etc., which I believe is what you're doing, then we should also tax people's incomes to pay for car insurance. But those two things are not comparable precisely.

 

"But what if you wreck my car, who's gonna pay for it??"

Answer - First of all, if you have car insurance, they could pay for it if the coverage is good enough. You could theoretically sue me for damages, but then again this assumes that it was completely my fault. It wouldn't be as though I purposely went and (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up your car, so I don't think I should have to pay for 100% of that anyways; it would be unintentional. Also, you should have thought about that before voluntarily getting on the road and driving, knowing the risks. Personal responsibility, eh?

That would raise the driver's premiums, which many people cannot afford.

Whether or not you intended to cause damage does not matter. If you intended to, you would not be sued. You would be imprisoned. If someone accidentally hit you with their car, would that mean that they would not have to pay for your hospital bills? Were you not taking the voluntary risk of going outside?

 

Why wouldn't your house insurance cover any costs, assuming it was non-intentional on my part and/or due to something (like "black ice" on the road) that I couldn't control? Are you paying house insurance for nothing?

More pertinently, do you think you have the right to force me to pay for that BEFORE it happens? That was my question. I might swerve off into your house IN THE FUTURE. Do you think you should be allowed to force me to pay for possible future damages to your house NOW, as in, BEFORE that possibility becomes actuality?

It's very "liberal" to sue everyone else for all bad things that happen to them.

If you intentionally made a deal with a car insurance company that had, written in their policies, that your insurance costs would increase due to something that wasn't your fault...then it was your choice for making a deal with that company.

If car insurance were voluntary, I most likely would not make any kind of deal with a company that had a policy that I'd have to pay more due to someone else causing an accident.

Of course, car insurance is NOT voluntary, which is exactly WHY unfair policies like that exist.

Security over liberty.

 

Seriously, google before you post.

http://www.google.com/search?tbm=is...pl=228l228l0l4199l1l1l0l0l0l0l259l259l2-1l1l0

 

You brake it you pay for it, plain and simple. Has nothing to do with freedom or liberty, has everything to do with being responsible for your actions. You are responsible for paying for what you destroy, nobody else should foot the bill for you destroying someone else's property.

Then again I forget I'm speaking to a liberal, which is one who considers themselves free of any personal responsibility.

 

Unfortunately for you, roads are public property. You want to drive one them, then meet the standards put forth by the public for their use.

 

That's like saying, "I didn't mean to run you over. It was an accident. I shouldn't have to go to jail for 100% of the time, you should have to go to jail too."

 

The government does not force you to buy insurance. If you want to drive on publically owned roads, you are required to own insurance.

If you don't like, build your own private road system.

 

Negative. You have the right to drive it on your property whenever the hell you want, but once you pass beyond your property, you must obey the rules on the other person's property.

In this case, the public's property.

 

The stupid responses keep on coming.

Arson is a willful planned crime. Highways accidents are not.

Addled.

Huh? People are forced to buy food or they will die.

No, they're not. Even in your drug-induced fog you could see that.

 

Maybe because HOUSE insurance is not AUTO insurance. But if you drive your house on the public streets, you'll need AUTO insurance on your HOUSE. But, of course, you live in an apartment where the landlord pillages, and plunders and rapes you on a monthly basis.

What you need to do is buy a "Collector Car," and look into Collector Car insurance. Surprisingly the cost of insurance to insure expensive Collector Cars is a great deal less costly than normal car insurance. And you and the collector Car insurance company AGREE on a value of your collector car. If the car is worth $150,000.00 and the insurance company agrees, that is what they will pay if the car is destroyed, no depreciation.

So now all you need is a House to avoid the monthly screwing from your landlord and a collector car to avoid the monthly, semi-annually or annual screwing from an auto insurance company.

However there are untold others that exist only to screw over YOU!

 

Simple answer: no one's.

But States have the authority, unfortunately, to force these regulations on you, so there's nothing we can do about it.

Well, not nothing... We can change the national discussion such that we remove the Federal regulation which says "If a State doesn't require car insurance, we're going to take away your highway funds".

Or am I thinking about the 21-drinking-age law?

 

That is the drinking laws and I believe speed limit laws also.

 

They're comparable in that they're both uncertain. The reasoning behind car insurance is that it's uncertain whether someone will get in a wreck with you, either by intentionally wrecking into you (that is possible) or accidentally doing so.

A guy in your state that lives in a different county that you don't know, has no idea if you're going to arson his house. How could he possibly know that? You very well could. Should he FORCE you to pay for his house insurance, or ANY part of it?

Does that mean we should socialize food, too?

 

That's the whole point, indeed: that we shouldn't have this policy.

"Majority rules" is the utilitarian way, and it seems as though a lot of people are actually utilitarians in disguise based on this thread.

21-drinking-age laws shouldn't exist either.

 

You went way more into auto insurance with your questions.
So to answer most of your other questions. You can't have a million people each designing their own car/vehicle and running them publically. It would be chaos. Part of living in a civilized type society.

As for auto insurance, I agree, the insurance industry got gov't to mandate insurance. Sold if off as they were stuck paying for those that didn't have insurance. And to an extent that is true. If you do 100K of damage and have no insurance and no job or assets of any sort. There is nothing to get from you and your damage. And like you said, 100% not your fault, so the other person who had insurance had to collect all the damages from their insurance company even though the other person may have been only 10% negligent.

 

One could, authoritarian-ly, argue that these hypothetical vehicles should inspected beforehand. But "authorized vehicle" laws are not only meant to protect our safety, they are meant to give Big Car a monopoly on road transportation. Anyone that doesn't realize this is a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing fool.

Ok. Well maybe the person that was involved in the damages should pay part of it, or maybe all of it if they have the assets and especially if they did it INTENTIONALLY, but, accidents are accidents.

You knew there was a lot of risk in going on the road if you have 100K worth of damage-able property going onto that road.

 

Your body could represent $100k worth of damage-able property. Drunk drivers rarely put people into the hospital intentionally, but their lack of intention isn't reasonable cause to excuse them of the responsibility for their actions.

 

What is this nonsense about only paying part of the damages if you accidentally cause a wreck simply because it wasn't intentional? Very, very rarely is there a car accident that happens in which no one is to blame. At least one person is almost always at fault because they were driving recklessly. Whether that's speeding, following too closely, driving while distracted, driving while under the influence, improper vehicle operation (e.g. headlights aren't on), or any number of other reasons, one of the drivers can be found to be mostly, if not completely, at fault. You accidentally hit me because you weren't driving properly? You pay 100% of the associated costs. You messed up. Why should you only pay some portion of the damages?

 

This is what happened to DeathStar's argument in this thread:

 

This definitely marks the first time I've ever wished for "Speeders R Murderers" to post in a thread.

Getting these two together would be like crossing the streams in Ghostbusters.

 

No question. What an over-abundance of abject stupidity.