Thread: Simple question about car insurance

This is a reminder to EVERYONE on this thread about the Mission Statement of this forum:

PoliticalForum.com functions as a public forum website open to all individuals of all political persuasions that is centered on the discussion of politics in general. All walks of life are welcome to join the discussions in the tradition of vigorous respectful debate. The purpose of rules and guidelines for the forum is to help create an environment that is inviting to as wide a spectrum of people as possible from all parts of the world, but that does not restrict the ability of users to express their political views, even if those views are inflammatory or unorthodox. In a world often filled with intense political turmoil and polarization of beliefs, PoliticalForum.com attempts to bring opposites together to relate their views and learn from one another.

Please remember to keep your comments in keeping with the spirit of this Mission Statement and the tone of 'respectful debate'.

thank you,
Cenydd
Site Moderator

As long as a person is completely confused about what insurance is, and what it is not, there is no possible way to explain their mistaken position.

Insurance is in no way a pre-payment plan of anything. Nor is it a promise to pay any bill. It does that, but that is NOT what it is.

Insurance IS a transfer of RISK, not costs, RISK. In exchange for a premium from an individual, the insurer accepts that individual's RISK. That is the contract. At the policy anniversary date, if there have been no claims, that is completely irrelevant. The insurer did not promise to pay claims or return the premium. The insurer agreed to assume the individual's RISK in exchange for the premium. And they DID that, so they keep the premium as per contract.

If one is of the position that there was no accident so the premium should be returned, then are they also willing to pay the difference when a $50,000. or $100,000 accident does occur?

If you pay $100.00 a month, $1200.00 a year and expect the premium returned at the end of the year, THEN you are agreeing that if an accident does happen in any year, say 6 months into the year, then the insurer is only liable for the first $600 in damages.

Originally Posted by DeathStar

Ok. It's your choice to either not make any income, or get 90% of it taxed from you if you make any. Income taxes aren't forced on you, so it's not theft. Same logic.

Your assertion is true, although for a simpler reason. Theft is unlawful seizure of property. Income tax is lawful, so it is not theft (by definition).

Originally Posted by Dan40

As long as a person is completely confused about what insurance is, and what it is not, there is no possible way to explain their mistaken position.

Insurance is in no way a pre-payment plan of anything. Nor is it a promise to pay any bill. It does that, but that is NOT what it is.

Insurance IS a transfer of RISK, not costs, RISK. In exchange for a premium from an individual, the insurer accepts that individual's RISK. That is the contract. At the policy anniversary date, if there have been no claims, that is completely irrelevant. The insurer did not promise to pay claims or return the premium. The insurer agreed to assume the individual's RISK in exchange for the premium. And they DID that, so they keep the premium as per contract.

If one is of the position that there was no accident so the premium should be returned, then are they also willing to pay the difference when a $50,000. or $100,000 accident does occur?

If you pay $100.00 a month, $1200.00 a year and expect the premium returned at the end of the year, THEN you are agreeing that if an accident does happen in any year, say 6 months into the year, then the insurer is only liable for the first $600 in damages.

Actually, you'd only get half/most of the $1200 back because some would go to paying for damages that did occur. But unlike current car inscamance, not 100% of it would be lost, which is because Big Car Inscamance wouldn't be allowed to make much of a profit by stealing from people. Lots of Big Car Inscamance jobs would be lost, but the freed up money that wasn't stolen from people's wallets by Big Car Inscamance would then be used more efficiently by the economy.

I'm going to buy a pizza. Eat half of it, return the uneaten half and ask for a 50% refund.

Originally Posted by lizarddust

I'm going to buy a pizza. Eat half of it, return the uneaten half and ask for a 50% refund.

Is that some retarded analogy to my suggestion about Big Car Inscamance? If so, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Originally Posted by DeathStar

Is that some retarded analogy to my suggestion about Big Car Inscamance? If so, you should be ashamed of yourself.

No less silly than your idea.

Originally Posted by lizarddust

No less silly than your idea.

Ah yes. Because stealing from people is definitely equally as silly as a mutually voluntary exchange, like what you described.

Originally Posted by Taxpayer

Your assertion is true, although for a simpler reason. Theft is unlawful seizure of property. Income tax is lawful, so it is not theft (by definition).

that would mean taxes are lawful as car insurance, its used the same way to insure the country for expendutures

Originally Posted by DeathStar

Ah yes. Because stealing from people is definitely equally as silly as a mutually voluntary exchange, like what you described.

How is car insurance involuntary?

Question: Do involuntary or "theiving" organizations need to advertise? I mean, if insurance companies are "big government" "stealing" from all of us, why do they spend millions of dollars advertising their products? Can't they just "force" us to buy their product?