Fuck car insurance

W

Who likes 2 party

New member
I dont belive we should be able to drive without insurance. its necessary, but your rates should stay the same I mean why should we be afraid to file a claim for something we pay for? something that ensures we'll be taken care of.

people sure arent afraid to use the hell out of their health insurance

I just think maybe it'd be better if you have so many at fault accidents your license gets suspended or something for being reckless. maybe a law? im sure that would keep people buying insurance and keep insurance companies from losing too much, perhaps not making a filthy amount of money anymore though.

just brain droppings
 
I believe people should have the choice whether or not to get insurance.

If someone runs into you, you should be responsible for your car, and them responsible for their car. As a corollary, I believe that insurance companies shoulnt be allowed ot hike up your rates under this kind of system unless you're at fault for the accident. But this way you dont ahve to have insurance laws and people can make the choice themselves about whether or not they want to insure their car, and people can file claims after being hit without being worried about rate increases. I'm REALLY simplifying this, so yes, there's more to it. But in a nutshell that's it.
 
If you don't want to carry car insurance I think you should have to show financial proof that you can cover an accident yourself.



I agree that it's crap that your rates go up JUST because you filed a claim. You're sitting at a light, a drunk rear-ends you and your rates go up... load of horse shit.
 
I've never heard of that. I know in Idaho that you must carry insurance. Period. End of discussion.

And really, when you think about how much a car accident costs, car insurance isn't really that expensive. Let's say you pay $100 a month for 3 years. That's what? $3,600? Then you get into an accident and total my truck. Blue Bookis $1,600. I go see a doctor, get X-Rays, miss a few days of work, need an MRI, get a neck brace and shit... pretty quick the bills run up to $15,000 that you don't have to pay.

Hell, a girlfriend of mine got t-boned and broke her pelvis in 4 places. The car was worth 6 grand, the medical bills was worth 48 grand, the missed time at work came to another 4 thousand, physical therapy was 20k... She didn't have insurance because it cost too much. Her wages are being garnished and at the rate they're garnishing she'll lose %30 of her take home pay every paycheck for the next 60 years. They garnish her social security if she collects that as well. She'll basically die penniless unless she figures out a way to pay off my ex.
 
I guess I didnt explain it very well.

Under my system, everyone has insurance for themselves. No one has liability insurance, that will lbe taken over by your own insurance. The key is that your insurance shouldn't and wont be allowed to jack your rates over you making claims.

If someone runs over your car, YOU file a claim, and YOUR insurance company pays you for everything, but by law your rates would have to stay the same IF you're not at fault. The whole point is that if we abolish liability insurance, then you cant punish people for filing claims.

Therefore, if you cant afford to replace your car or pay your bills, that's just too bad, that's the risk you took when you didnt get insurance. But you wont have to cover anyone else's, because their insurance companies will cover that.

All this really accomplishes is that it allows you to file claims without fear of a rate hike. You're just eliminating the third party and insuring yourself. I think it simplifies things a lot. I think it's fair for them to raise your rates after an at fault accident.

I'm not really very sure how well a system like this would work, but in theory it would all balance out, I think?
 
I see what you're saying. I insure me, you insure you and Bob fucks his uncle because he doesn't want insurance. If I get hit, my company fixes my car and my rates stay the same.

But doesn't that mean that you (or your insurance company) is now responsible for the actions of other people? I mean I can just get a big jackassed truck, put huge steel girders out front and not give a damn because I'm not responsible for damage I do to your car. Sure, I might get a reckless driving ticket or something but that's nothing compared to the broken back and fucked up Camaro you got.

How would the rates be determined? The value of the car being insured? Would they take into account past accidents or driving infractions?

It may work... but we gotta iron the kinks out first.
 
In other words, the government is mandating you use a specific business.

Also, driving is less of a "privelege"(It's more of a necessity in the US due to urban sprawl) than the internet. Should the goverment start mandating the purchasing and updating of anti-spyware and anti-virus softwares as well?
 
No, the government is mandating that you carry insurance. They say nothing about which company or what plan you pick. You are free to shop around and select the one you like. But if you wish to drive you have to use one.



You can argue the necessity aspect but it's still not a right. As far as the internet goes, you can fuxor your computer all you want and it won't affect me. But if you're driving and fuxor it all up you may damn well cause me serious injury.

The odds of injury in an accident are high, the cost of the injury is astronomical and the chances that 99.9% of drivers can pay those costs themselves are next to zero. (By injury I mean physical or monetary.)

As long as it's a privilege the state is free to put whatever barriers they want on it.
 
Back
Top