Simple question about car insurance

Bullcrap. Seriously, that is complete bull. I have insurance. Its required over here. Don't have insurance? You can't drive. I drive carefully, I do not drive recklessly, I am always worried about having an accident.

You seem to forget that its not just you who is injured and your car damaged in an accident. You could kill someone.

 

Is that a threat?

 

Actually, everyone who shares the road with you and carries insurance has done so; you're the one not shouldering your responsibility.

Roads are - by definition - socialistic. Shared granted privileges usually are.

The challenge is limiting socialistic privileges where possible. With roads, no feasible alternative has arisen. As such, you must meet your personal responsibilities in the event of accident.

Why should I have to buy less expensive vehicles to mitigate my exposure to loss due to your abrogation of responsibility? And why should I consider vehicle damage above personal injury, which carries with it far more dire consequences?

You continue to parrot the same arguments and analogies that have been decimated. Why?

 

That's some kind of psyco babble. Morel hazard my ass. You make it sound as if people get insurance then 'subconsciously' loose any sense of responsibility they had in their pre-insured days. That they just no longer give a f*** if their car gets banged up, they and their passengers get injured...they just go out and put the peddle to the meddle with the attitude that 'if you git in my way, I'll just run ya down...cause I'm insured now". WTF?

 

I absolutely support mandatory auto liability insurance laws. Driving without ins. is irresponsible in my opinion, and offenders should be heavily fined.

 

Liability, not comprehensive.
I don't have to insure my car to damages, but I have to have insurance to cover damage to other person(s)/property.

 

You are forced to pay car insurance because the costs of car accidents, particularly the ones where people require hospitalization or are killed, are incredibly costly. They have to be investigated, documented, and cleaned up which requires costly manpower and equipment. By taking on some of that burden, the burden of insuring against your own assets by such an event, helps ensure that you can pay off those debts which would otherwise wind up shoved onto the taxpayer. We aren't going to let the person you hit die, so we will save their lives. WHo will pay for those costs? You and your insurance. Unless you'd prefer the more socialist mechanism where we the taxpayers pay for it...?

 

You still do not get it. Yes...when responsibility from somebody is removed, they tend to act more recklessly, but the fact is that if you have no money to pay for damages than you have nothing to lose and that case, the victim gets screwed in the crash. If you cannot afford insurance, then you cannot afford to pay damages most likely, which is why its illogical to think how you are.

 

And car insurance would bring them back alive. I forgot

 

So will money be able to bring someone back from the dead, if they die? What happens then?

I say that designing roads/streets to be more safe, plus outlawing public-employment unions, plus not allowing cops to STEAL from people, would be a better way to go about this (*)(*)(*)(*)

 

Who says YOU have the right to TELL ME WHAT THE (*)(*)(*)(*) TO DO WITH MY CAR?

(*)(*)(*)(*) YOU.

 

Not the insurance. But prompt, effective, and expensive medical treatment might revive them. Good thing you have insurance to pay for it.

 

Ah yes. You want to force everyone to pay for health insurance now. Ok.

Are you SURE you dislike Obama? Are you sure you dislike HITLER?

 

Pretty sure.

 

Um, why wouldn't car insurance pay for something that wasn't your fault? You must have some crappy ass worthless car insurance if the INSURANCE company doesn't pay for something that wasn't even your fault.

Also, how about people just accept that there's a risk of being in an accident on the road and man the (*)(*)(*)(*) up about it?

I do think we should suspend the license of people who are at fault for accidents and have them legally sue-able, and we should have VOLUNTARY car insurance to partly rely on.

But not even your Nanny State Big Car Insurance policies will help some things that can happen as a result of a car accident.

 

I'm not so sure at all. You support a thieving parasitic nanny state.

 

Actually, we can tell you what you can or cannot do with EVERYTHING you own when you're on other people's property.

Which is exactly why driving is a privilege; not a right.

Class dismissed.

 

We all pay taxes for the road your driving on that's why! If you don't like the requirements, don't drive, walk, ride a horse, take a cab, a bus or a high speed train! But, you have NO right to drive.

 

What are you talking about? Insurance pays for unintentional damage that you would otherwise have to pay for. If you don't have the money for it, then who will pay for the damages from an accident that may have been unintentional accident you were involved in?

So you think it's better for the economy and the nation at large that people keep on hand enough cash to cover the possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars required to repair any number of cars, other property, and medical bills incurred as opposed to just paying monthly premiums?

I'm afraid that aside from calling it nanny state, you haven't really offered up a good reason to get rid of it.

Here's what will happen if you make the insurance optional. Some will stop buying it. That extra 100 bucks or so a month will go to Wal-mart or whatever else they want to spend it on. They WON'T save it for a rainy day, I promise you that. Then they will hit someone, let's say you, and you will go to the hospital and have other property damage bills. Who will pay? The "responsible" person who waived insurance and doesn't now have the money? So what if you sue? You can't get blood from a stone. You will be left with a liabilty you will either have to pay out of your pocket, minus whatever money you can get from the other party, or YOUR insurance will have to pay for then you will likely have higher premiums as well.

So please show me a plausible and likely scenario where voluntary car insurance is somehow better.

 

This is a given, of course licenses should be suspended for those who continually break the road rules. Having an accident which is your fault or causing an accident is a driving offense as much as is speeding, disobeying road signs etc.

 

A message for DeathStar. I will not be reading your reply, if any, as you are now on my ignore list. I do not debate with those who have illogical positions.

But here is the message.

Please tell the board your reaction.

You have 2 sons, both adults. One has the unfortunate experience of meeting up with a person on the highway that has no license, no insurance, and no financial responsibility. He has none of these things because he is a drunk. Because he is a drunk, he lost his license forever due to multiple DUI's. He has no financial responsibility because he is a drunk and cannot hold any job. and he has no insurance because no insurance company would write him a policy and he couldn't pay the premium anyway.
This irresponsible, and drunk, person crosses the center-line and head ons your son's vehicle. You son's skull is crushed and his aorta is torn in two. Your son dies at the scene.

And you in utter ignorance say a person should be held responsible AFTER he has caused an accident.

 

Its simple. If you can't be bothered doing the right thing and getting insurance for your car, hang up the keys and take the bus instead.

 

I don't see why my question demands such a vile and hate-filled answer.

My question was ridiculously simple: Where do you find, in law or tradition, that you have a right to drive a car on public roads?

 

Give the victim 15 minutes in a private room with 'em, no questions asked by Law Enforcement.

 

Just about sums it up..