Comments on: Compulsary Insurance Won’t Work

By: Randall

Randall — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 18:46:40 +0000

I’m actually going to agree with Randy this time, it actually pains me inside. But I too am a low risk driver in a semi-low risk area. I pay $640.00 a year for full coverage. I have never got into an accident, thankfully.

Plain and simple if you own a car you have to have auto insurance. It’s stupid if you don’t. If you didn’t you could be sued and lose everything but your shirt if you were the cause of a bad accident.

If you can’t afford it then move closer to your job or get a job closer to home. These people can bike or walk to work or get a ride from a friend. If you dont want to pay high rates b a safer driver.

By: Randy

Randy — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 22:20:22 +0000

George you can gouge the insurance companies all you like with huge lawsuits and no increases for bad risk drivers but they also have the right to leave your state. That does and has happened when the states make it so that they not only do they not make a profit but show a large loss. Like I said before if you think the insurance companies make so much money on in their opinion poor risk drivers then start your own insurance company.

My insurance is 394.48 for a full year and full coverage. I am a low risk person in a low risk area.

By: George

George — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 19:40:02 +0000

No, I got JJ’s point that when insurance what mandated, the costs went up, probably as a preventative move to protect their bottom line.
Now how would one be able to tell if that happened or the insurance companies were sticking to the people?

http://www.motorists.org/insurance/

By: Universal Health Insurance? | NSLog();

Universal Health Insurance? | NSLog(); — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 19:39:14 +0000

[...] unique perspective compares universal health care (by way of universal health insurance) to universal auto insurance. Summary: didn't work there, won't work for health [...]

By: Bill Pope

Bill Pope — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 18:47:15 +0000

Jim, put yourself in the position of a person who just had had his car totalled and been seriously injured by another negligent driver. One that is too poor to afford insurance and doesn’t have anywhere near the assets necessary to cover the loss. Do you still think insurance should be optional?

Your libertarian analysis of the alternatives is unduly pessimistic. In British Columbia we have a government run system that requires purchase of basic third party liability coverage in order to get a license plate. Private insurers are allowed to compete for additional coverage, but naturally they’re only interested in creaming off the best risks from the public system- the “choice” they offer isn’t for everyone, you see.

It may shock you, but the public system actually runs a surplus, and still allows the right to sue- private insurers are always pushing no-fault as a way to limit costs. It also has maintained stable premiums while private firms had to jack up rates to cover investment losses. Repairs can be done at any shop which will accept payment (they all do) which are conveniently located near claims centres.

Finally, the rating system is transparent. You can know in advance how much a ticket or claim will affect your rates. How many private insurers do that?

Finally as a Canadian, I’d love to talk about health insurance! Our system costs less, delivers longer life expectancy, and no one goes bankrupt because of it. My wife is from the US, and definitely prefers the system here.

By: Randy

Randy — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 00:36:06 +0000

George you miss the point as usual.

By: George

George — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:32:21 +0000

It was Goldman-Sachs & JPMorgan screwing the public. A dollar per gallon right to them.

By: Randy

Randy — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 01:01:59 +0000

JJ as far as I know every state regulates auto insurance companies. If the auto insuance were allowed an increase then the expenses were higher or they were required to take higher risk drivers so they would have to increase the rates of everyone to make up the added expenses unless they were allowed to increase the rates on the higher risk drivers. Tell us the facts that you have that the insurance companies were gouging the drivers or are you one to just complain without any information? How much was insurance increased? You tell us nothing.

I suppose you compained that the local gas station was gouging you last year with high gas price and they were pocketing a couple of bucks a gallon.

By: JJ

JJ — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 22:36:38 +0000

Back in the mid-1980s when Ohio mandated auto insurance, all of the insurance companies raised rates overnight because they knew they would be getting new business.

By: Randy

Randy — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 22:32:08 +0000

Jim Baxter you do not know what you are talking about. Insurance companies have computers full of data about accident statistics and costs of different groups. You do not have any. There are two choices. Either have the group that costs the insurance company more money pay higher premiums or have everyone else pay for their higher expenses. If you think that people do not cost an insurance company any more expenses than anyone else then you have NMA start your own insurance company and charge that group the same as everyone that does not get traffic violations. In your words you would make millions and millions of dollars. Good luck with that.

“The private insurers decide to cover their new losses by adding surcharges for traffic violations, routine accidents, poor grades in school, age, neighborhoods, and less than sterling credit ratings.”