Thread: Simple question about car insurance

Originally Posted by GeddonM3

yep you should. you see driving is a dangerous game no matter where you are or what you might be doing. you are driving a 3 ton hunk of motor 40mph or more with people in their 3 ton+ cars or trucks driving the same speeds or greater.

driving is a PRIVILEGE,NOT A RIGHT!!! you DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to be in a moving hunk of possible destruction and not be ble to pay up for the damages you can cause whether purposely or accidentally.

you have every right to pursue a drivers license, but just like everything else there are rules you must follow and rightfully so one of those rules to being able to have the PRIVILEGE TO DRIVE is to carry atleast liability auto insurance.

dont like it, stay the hell of the road.
yep it sure does, and your irresponsibility shows. you have a personal responsibility to be able to cover the people around you if you happen to destroy their vehicles or even put them in the hospital and they have a responsibility to be able to cover you if they do the same.

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?

you realize if car insurance were voluntary nobody would get it

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

and those that have it would have to have their own insurance foot the bill for (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s that dont have it

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

and what prey tell do you think is "good enough" ??? $5 a month? i only pay $34 a month for one of my cars, id say thats pretty friggin reasonable and thats for a SUV.

so tell me, what are "reasonable" prices in your mind?

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

Originally Posted by DeathStar

Oh. Well, yes. But that doesn't translate to anything even remotely close to forced 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.

No one is forced to even go on the roads, nor should they be for any reason. You could make another argument, also authoritarian but at least fair to some extent, that people should have to demonstrate that they could cover damages of other drivers if they were to cause a wreck.

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.

Blaming people for accidents? I agree with that in some cases, but I don't equate accidents with intentional aggression/violence. Forcing people to buy car insurance, is equating accidents with intentional aggression/violence.

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.

Accidents happen. Sometimes, they are very costly. Sometimes they aren't even caused by you, yet happen to you.

Who on Earth required you to explain this?

That doesn't mean we should make society a communistic "everyone pays before anything happens in case it does" ultra-safety net authoritarian Hell hole.

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

Well, at least there are "competing" companies. But they still have an unjust playing field granted to them.

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.

Now, if state-enforced car insurance were abolished as it should be, car companies could still have "you either have car insurance or we don't sell you a car" policies. But that would be a private deal, not a state-enforced ponzi scheme. HUGE difference.

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.

Originally Posted by DeathStar

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?

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.

Originally Posted by DeathStar

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

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.

Originally Posted by DeathStar

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

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.

Originally Posted by DeathStar

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

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.

Originally Posted by Subdermal

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.

Ok.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

Originally Posted by GeddonM3

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Security over liberty.

Originally Posted by DeathStar

Simple question. Who's rights does it violate for me to not pay for car insurance, if I don't want it?

Car insurance is only mandatory because Big Car lobbyists, like all Big Business/Corporation people, bribed the government into making regulations/rules that benefits them unjustly. You leftists will say "so burn the corporations!!" and you rightists will say "so burn the government!!" but I'd say that they're both equally as guilty; if I (corporations) pay you (the government) to shoot someone (make unwarranted regulations), whom of us is guilty? BOTH of us are guilty.


If I weren't FORCED to pay for car insurance, then car insurance companies would, rather than relying on me being FORCED to buy their product, have to ATTRACT me to VOLUNTARILY buy their product. They'd have to make it less expensive and/or give better coverage.


Now I know what you're thinking.

"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?

I refuse to let you limit my economic freedom in this instance, in order to salvage your security. PERIOD.


"Wouldn't they charge way more for cars then?"

Answer - The only reason why cars are so expensive now is because Big Car is in bed with the government. I'm forced to either drive an "authorized vehicle" or else not drive on the road. I could theoretically build my own vehicle that costed all of a couple/few hundred bucks if I wanted to, but Big Car and the government won't let that happen because Big Car wants to force us to buy their products, and the government lets it happened because they're being BRIBED by Big Car. If you deny this, you're a Corporate propagandist.



I don't see why anything else would be necessary to say in this OP. My point is either through your skull at this point, or your skull is too thick than to be penetrable.

Seriously, google before you post.

http://www.google.com/search?tbm=isc...59l259l2-1l1l0

Originally Posted by DeathStar

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.

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.

Originally Posted by DeathStar

Answer - The only reason why cars are so expensive now is because Big Car is in bed with the government. I'm forced to either drive an "authorized vehicle" or else not drive on the road. I could theoretically build my own vehicle that costed all of a couple/few hundred bucks if I wanted to, but Big Car and the government won't let that happen because Big Car wants to force us to buy their products, and the government lets it happened because they're being BRIBED by Big Car. If you deny this, you're a Corporate propagandist.

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.

Originally Posted by DeathStar

My OP addresses everything you just said. Why should I have to necessarily pay for 100% of damages to your car, if I didn't intentionally cause them? You purposely and voluntarily took the risks of going on the road.

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."