Simple question about car insurance

The right thing would be to not have a police state ROB me, and you. That would be the right thing. There are ways to have safety nets in society without having a parasitic police state criminally attack innocent people. You just have to be creative enough to think of them.

 

Yeah and if ground transportation were designed in a safer way than having vehicles on rubber tires swerve any which way they please on a dang tar road, that would be far more effective than having a tyrannical police state ROB me legally.

 

If I don't have insurance and you do and I hit you, your insurance company should pay for the damages I caused. You could also I guess sue me like a beotch for said accident.

YES!! OBVIOUSLY, Big Car Insurance takes in FAR more money than they ever pay people, otherwise they couldn't possibly be profitable. That means that the cost of damages, in total, must ALWAYS be less, per day/month/year, in the U.S., than the money that Big Car Insurance STEALS from us. Do you not understand that??

Ima make a new thread about this.

 

As long as those without insurance can be shot on the spot for causing an accident, I have no problem with your assertion.

 

yeah, so because roads are "public", the majority gets to immorally bully and be violent against the minority?

Also, I doubt MOST people support this tyrannical freedom-hating communist Nazi police state that you and most other fascists on this forum are in love with.

 

Are you an idiot?

First of all, we don't have to ROB people blind in a big nanny police state, in order to have safety. At least, if we do rob people blind, we should at least give them their money back that Big Car Insurance STOLE from them, every year or so, if they haven't caused a significant accident.

Second of all, you like most wannabe tyrant beotch manginas on this forum, have the fantasy of simply replacing one form of aggression, with an even worse one. And yet you claim "Democrats" are tyrants!!

 

Personal attack duly noted and reported.

Then buy a surety bond of $1 million dollars. I would accept that as being financially responsible.

How many time must it be said, driving is a privilege NOT a right. If you want to drive you simply have to meet the requirements. Since you don't want to, I suggest you buy a horse, ride a bus or buy a skate board.

 

Personal attack duly noted and reported.

How do you expect any adult to debate you?

 

You obviously aren't an adult (a man) if you can't take an obviously true comment.

By the way, I didn't say you were an idiot, I asked you if you were.

 

Good luck! Professor Peabody

 

If you're paying $200 a month on a $2000 car then you must be a terrible driver and you deserve to have to pay that much. We pay about $150 a month for full coverage on two vehicles (a $10k car and a $20k jeep), including medical due to state law, and my wife is somewhat of an insurance risk. Someone paying $200 on a $2k car probably has at least one DUI, or gets in a wreck every few months. When I had an old $3k Ranger, I was paying $160 every 6 months, and I was 19 at the time.

Is this why you're freaking out about insurance? You have no real idea how much auto insurance costs?

 

That does not correspond to me personally. Although, if you're 21 (as I am) they will charge you boo-coos no matter what you drive or what your history is. I personally have never had even a minor traffic violation, however.

But are you really so dense that you don't understand the simple logic behind my point?

Say someone is robbed $100 a month for Big Car InSCAMance. Let's say they're robbed for a year at that rate, thus totaling $1,200 in robbed money. If they haven't caused any accidents which resulted in $1,200 in damage within that year, they should get the rest back; if they caused $0 in damage, they should get $1,200 back at the end of that year.

It could also, if you want to really get greedy and rob people blind like a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing unconscious criminal bloodsucker, work like this: rob people at X amount per month until Y amount in total has been robbed from them, and if they haven't caused any damage until that time, stop charging them for insurance until they do cause damage in an accident. We'll start with that.

 

I wouldn't call $27 per month "beaucoup," even at 21. Pay for a cheap, used car outright and just get liability insurance. I'd be surprised if you end up paying more than $500 for the whole year.

Insurance can't work if the company is giving all that money back at the end of the year. They might be able to give it back to you after a very longer period of time, sort of like how some term life insurance policies work. But there is no way any insurance company could be solvent while paying back premiums at the end of each year.

 

If Big Car Insurance wants to forcefully and criminally impose itself on us, we should be able to regulate them to where they can barely make any profit.

If enforced safety laws are to exist, they shouldn't be profit-motivated.

 

Anyone who pays $200 a month insurance on a $2000 motor vehicle is either naive or a bloody idiot.

 

Seeing as the requirement for insurance is backed by law, there is nothing criminal about the service that insurance companies provide. All of the hyperbole in the world won't change the laws, and you definitely will drive more people away from your position than towards it with such absurd language. People might take you more seriously if you talked less like Chicken Little.

 

People are just beotches that deserve to get (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up the ass by The State, then, I guess. But they should not violate ME in the process, which they DO.

A bloody revolution against The Tyranny State is what will be needed, I fear.

 

Good luck to you Sunshine, hope you get some support

 

I see my suggestion has gone unheeded. A revolution because of needing insurance to drive? I bet you're a joy at parties.

 

That, and the Big Tyrannical Police and Military State in general. We can't have this. I shouldn't have to duck and dodge tyranny every step I make. (*)(*)(*)(*) that. And (*)(*)(*)(*) anyone that supports The Tyranny State.

I hate people.

 

You never answered my question:

Where do you get that you have a right to drive? What is the law, Constitution, or other concept that gives you the right to drive?

If you don't have the right to do something, it's not "criminal" if you're charged a fee to do it.

No one is making you have "walking" insurance or bus riding insurance. No law makes you buy insurance on your home if you own it outright. The law requiring insurance is premised on the fact that you might cause an accident and harm someone else, and you need to be able to pay for that harm.

Little known fact is that you're not actually required to have insurance. You're required to have proof of surety. If you can afford a surety bond or simply can prove you have the cash socked away in escrow, in most states you don't actually need insurance, per se. What you need is fiscal responsibility.

 

You really don't want to touch where that came from without rubber gloves.

 

As long as I'm not hurting anyone by driving, I have every bit of a right to drive ANYwhere I want except sidewalks and PRIVATE property.

What we should do instead is have a system where if the state, through the pretense of "car insurance", robs me say, $100 a month for 12 months thus totaling $1,200 in robbed money, and I haven't caused $1,200 in damage within that year, they should pay me back most or all of it, and then start the cycle again for the next year.

If they're going to be FORCED on us, car insurance companies, or any kind of insurance, should not be profit-motivated. If ANYthing is BOTH profit-motivated and FORCES you to buy it's products, then they are obviously not in it for your well-being. They're just thugs.

 

No you don't. Try and drive onto the steps of the capital building or park your car in town square.

Public property doesn't mean anyone can do anything with it, it means it's property owned by the public as a whole -- and the public as a whole get's to set the rules of it's use. Just like any owner get's to set rules about what cannot be done on his property.

 

About this whole "security"/safety thing. A thieving nanny state doesn't sound much like "security" at all; I mean, if I were really "secure"/safe on the roads, I wouldn't have to constantly worry about being ROBBED on it by legal criminals.