Should car insurance be optional?

[ckramer]

If healthcare insurance is not mandatory by law on the state level, why should auto insurance be required?

Should auto insurance be optional? It seems to me that the government should not force people to give their money to the ***greedy*** car insurance companies ***if they don't want to***.

But you don't have a choice here in Massachusetts.

[UdoKier]

1. It is optional.

If you prove that you have a given amount in trust to pay the damages from an accident, you don't need to have liability ins. in most states. The amount is usually something between 10 and 50,000 bucks.

[progressiveBadger]

2. The difference is that you having no health insurance doesn't affect me

I think it should be mandatory everywhere.

[ckramer]

8. Do you know there's something called infectious disease?

Healthcare uninsured don't affect you?

Think again.

[progressiveBadger]

11. Not as directly, no

Of course I want you to have health care, but if you don't, and I get the plague from you, MY health insurance still covers me.
If you crash into my car and don't have insurance, my insurance company will raise the crap out of my rates so I can't afford it any more.

[depakid]

71. The same EXACT logic applies to health insurance

If unisured's increase the burden of disease in the community- or wait to use the emergency room- by far the most expensive services available- and hospitals can't get reimbursed, they eiother have to write it off as charity care or go after the patient or their family- which means pennies on the collective dollar.

Who do you think pays for all that? That's right- YOU DO. Hospital care becomes more expensive (else the hospital would go under) and your insurance company raises the crap out of your rates (last 5 years or so that's been averaging about 15% or so a year- sometimes even more).

[progressiveBadger]

77. That is true.

I agree 100%. I know how much money is spent on the uninsured in this country, and the problems it causes to everyone. I am definitely for health insurance for all.
The difference is this though. When you buy a car, you are buying it with the understanding that driving it is a privilege, and with that privilege comes responsibility. You do not buy your body, and thus it is not a privilege, it is a right.
In a perfect scenario, I think everyone should be covered by public health insurance, and everyone who owns and drives a car should have to buy insurance for it.

[420inTN]

79. If you infect me with a disease, I can't file a claim ...

on your health insurance. If you hit me with a car, I can file a claim against your auto insurance.

[Ilsa]

3. I want car insurance.

I don't want to be on the hook for the debt if I total the car and still have a balance on the note. I also want "uninsured motorist" coverage so I am covered if someone hits me and they aren't insured.

I also want others to be insured so my medical bills and pain and suffering are covered if someone hits me.

[ckramer]

10. That's fine with me

but how about for those people who don't want to buy?

Why can't they have that FREEDOM ?

[Ilsa]

51. Because if you hit me, you'll probably need insurance coverage

not only to pay my medical, but my kids' medical, and my pain and suffering and damages since I can't work, etc. Got a couple of hundred grand laying around?

You have to have a license to drive, also. Not everything is based on your definition of "freedom".

[Walt Starr]

4. Excuse me, but that's an incredibly stupid question, IMO

Why are you making an argument for making poverty illegal?

Seriously, that's what you're trying to do and you use an illagitimate analogy while doing it! One does not have to own a car, but one must live. You're trying to compare apples to toasters!

[patdem]

54. EXACTLY...if you are poor you can take the bus and not have auto insurance

but if you are alive and required to cough up $700 per month to insure yourself so a man making a million per year does not have to subsidize your health insurance...that is crap...

Making being poor a punishable felony...indeed!!!

[Walt Starr]

68. It's making being poor a felony that carries an automatic death penalty!

Because hospitals will refuse services if you do not comply with the law, thus you die.

[vptpt]

5. I've always been against mandatory car insurance.

It makes people drive EVEN CRAZIER than they do without it. And how many scams have some people come up with to get money from insurance, including the "make somebody rear-end me so they automatically have to pay up" thing? Plus it's a racket, plain and simple. You can drive 20 years without an accident, paying your insurance the whole time. One little fender-bender, and your payments are likely to go way up. NOT FAIR.

[skygazer]

22. That's absurd logic

And you cite nothing to back up your claim that insured drivers are more reckless than uninsured.

In fact, not having insurance is indicative of irresponsibility on the part of the driver which would more likely translate into that person being more careless than the one who was responsible enough to purchase it.

Driving is a privilege, not a right. I have enough financial issues without getting nailed by some idiot with no insurance. I think car insurance should be mandatory and I also think health care should be available for all.

Instead of doing away with car insurance, we should be working toward universal health insurance.

[vptpt]

24. Shouldn't all insurance be subjected to the same standards?

And besides, you won't get anywhere arguing with me about it. I haven't driven a car since the war began, as my own protest. How about you?

[skygazer]

28. I drive a compact car that gets 30 mpg

And I have insurance. Kudos to you on your protest but don't get all sanctimonious with me because of it. Everyone has the right to protest as they please.

You still have not given me any evidence that uninsured drivers somehow are more careful than the insured.

I can see I will get nowhere with you on this because your logic is very flawed.

edited to add - no, I don't thing all insurance should follow the same pattern because different types of insurance - car and health - affect different situations differently. For the same reason, I don't agree with manditory minumums, zero tolerance policies and three strikes laws. I think each issue should be argued on its own merits, not by the logic that applies to an entirely different situation.

[vptpt]

33. I see what you're saying

I'm not trying to get all sanctimonious on you. Just engaging in a discussion. I'm just saying I've been in a car with too many people who pull out in front of others and then say something like, "Let them hit me, the insurance will take care of it". That seems like a common attitude on the roads these days.

Let's just agree to disagree. I've got your bus fare next time.

[barb162]

39. I have been noticing that more and more drivers are becoming

road warriors, very aggressive and stupid and that they are causing accidents. I also wish the NY law about no cell phone use while driving would be mandatory across the US. I am tired of having to veer away from these a--holes who almost run me off the road while they are gabbing away on their phones. They are a hazard. Once I saw this jerk in front of me on a cell phone crash into a guardrail...glad he only hurt his own car and the guardrail.

[vptpt]

40. Are any other states even discussing

laws banning cell phones while driving? I haven't heard much about that lately.

[barb162]

43. I haven't either and I wish they would. Have you ever been near

a driver that's going into your lane and they are distracted with thier gabbing? The problem is I don't think the cops are marking it down on tickets, like a person crashes into another is what gets written down, not that the idiot was on a cell phone and distracted. But I read somewhere that the cells are causing a fairly high % of accidents because of the distraction.

[barb162]

49. found the numbers (per some CA lawyer's web site)

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) states that 85 percent of all cell phone customers talk on the phone while driving. It has been estimated that 6 percent of auto accidents each year are caused by drivers talking on their phones. This total means 2,600 people will be killed and 330,000 will be injured in cell phone related car accidents this year.

Today, only New York bans drivers from using cell phones while driving statewide. A dozen other states have proposed similar bills only to have them die in committee.

[vptpt]

55. Only 6 percent?

Wow. I wonder if hands-free phones make things any better. New York allows hands-free phones, right?

[barb162]

70. don't know

[mcscajun]

67. It's coming along very slowly...

NY was the first state to prohibit handheld cell phone use while driving. Similar laws were passed in Washington, DC and New Jersey, and took effect in July 2004. Drivers caught in violation of the law are fined $100 for each offense.

[barb162]

36. are you talking about different rates for young male drivers v.

older male drivers, women's rates v. men's rates?

[vptpt]

38. My rates! I don't know about others.

I have to admit though, I'm being cranky right now. It's almost 3:30 and no one has come to give me a lunch break yet. I hate being stuck at work with no grub.

[barb162]

42. Different groups of people have different rates when the insurers

can prove statistically to the State Insurance Depts. that it's valid. Statistically (and intuitively) I think we all know that an 18 year old male is a more unsafe driver than a 38 year old male or female.

I hope you have lunch soon

[vptpt]

56. Thanks, I finally did! n/t

[depakid]

59. different groups have different rates even if the stats are bogus!

many states allow credit ratings to figure into auto insurance premiums, for example, even though whatever relationship there may be on paper is utterly and completely sprurious. :grr:

[barb162]

72. I find the credit rating thing to be out of line for rating auto risk

even if there is a solid relationship to driving and credit rating

[barb162]

23. not true

"One little fender-bender, and your payments are likely to go way up. NOT FAIR."

[vptpt]

26. What's not true about it?

Do you think your payments will go unchanged? Or did you disagree with the NOT FAIR part?

[barb162]

29. if you have a large reputable insurer, they are most likely not to raise

your rate at all.

[vptpt]

35. OK, I'll give you that

I just hate insurance companies, that's all there is to it. Along with cable companies, phone companies, and so on.

[barb162]

37. ME TOO!!!!

[barb162]

34. The other thing is I wouldn't drive if I didn't have insurance. With it

I will drive. Having it doesn't make me drive crazy. Driving crazy will only make the cops catch me and eventually take away my license becaue of too many tickets. SO why would I want to drive crazy? Why get tickets?

[DustMolecule]

6. Well, one line of thought

is that if you don't have health insurance, you're only "potentially" gonna hurt yourself. If you have an accident with your automobile, you're gonna hurt SOMEONE ELSE or someone else's property. If you do that, can you pay the other person for the damage you caused? Hence, the need for mandatory auto insurance.

One thing I've always wondered about though....if corporations can "self-insure", how come individuals can't self-insure? (if they had the money to do so?)

[eaprez]

7. Yes! IF...........

......you have no intention of driving.

[Artemis Bunyon]

9. Don't want to pay auto insurance? Don't drive.

Easy peasy.

[ckramer]

12. This is like saying - don't like Bush? move to France!

[Walt Starr]

13. BULLSHIT

But I get your drift and understand precisely WHERE you're coming from.

I gotta read some more of your posts.

[progressiveBadger]

16. No it isn't

It's like saying don't want to get lung cancer, then dont' smoke. No one is forcing you to drive. But when you do decide to drive, then you must take responsibility for the affects of you driving. Insurance INSURES that everyone on the highway is equally protected from a money standpoint.

[ckramer]

21. If you don't drive, how do you get to work or school?

Driving is no longer a privilege (it used to be). It's a basic right (for mature adults at least) of working Americans.

[skygazer]

25. Walk, bus, train, carpool, bike

Hitchhike, skateboard, ski. No, it is not a right. It's a grave responsibility to get behind the wheel of a car and part of that responsibility is ensuring that you can take care of any damage you cause.

[progressiveBadger]

14. Yep.

Driving is a privilege. I don't like paying for car insurance any more than the next guy, but the only people that don't want mandatory car insurance are the people who have never been in an accident with someone who wasn't insured.

[ET Awful]

15. If it were optional, premiums would be HIGHER than they are now

because Insurance companies would have more risk from having to pay for damage caused by uninsured motorists.

Trying to compare auto insurance to health insurance is ridiculous. The two are not at all alike. Health insurance isn't there to protect from incompetence, but from issues that arise, for the most part, naturally. Auto insurance is designed to protect the innocent from the negligent or incompetent. It's a very different issue.

[Nordic]

31. that makes absolutely no sense

I live in California, and there are a whole TON of drivers who are not only not insured, but they don't even have driver's licenses. They also don't speak English.

I got broadsided by a Mexican fellow with no insurance and no license and no registration and my insurance company and I had to eat it 100%.

It makes no difference. People can either afford it or they can't.

If they can't, they still drive.

[Bridget Burke]

46. Yes, and all those non-Nordics are also cluttering up your hospitals.

[pnb]

47. Well legally they can't still drive

There is a difference between that and what you really meant which was that they don't give a damn and do it anyway.

In actuality, they should be jailed.

[ET Awful]

48. And because the person that hit you was uninsured, and your company

had to absorb the cost, you have proven my point. If the other drive had been insured, your company would NOT have had to pay, the other driver's company would have.

California also has a mandatory insurance law, you did know that right?

Did you even think about the issue before you responded?

If there was NO law requiring insurance, there would be MORE people driving without insurance, this would result in MORE exposure to the insurer. If there was no law requiring mandatory insurance, your insurance company then says "the odds have just gone up that we will have to pay in the event of an accident, because more uninsured drivers are noow ono the road." Thus, your premium will go up because the insurance company will adjust their rates according to their exposure.

You haven't had much experience with insurance and how they arrive at what premiums will be charged have you?

[Pithlet]

69. Make it optional, and even fewer would be insured.

That was ETAwful's point. There are already enough people that drive illegally without insurance. I've always paid for my car insurance, even when I was in dire straits financially. When I was really strapped, if car insurance had only been optional, it would have been VERY tempting to go without and just hope for the best. I don't know if I would have done that, but I would understand why people did. Even if they weren't financially strapped, there are types who would rather gamble on no accident happening then pay the premiums. They WOULD be higher for those who elected to pay, if it weren't compulsory.

[bowens43]

17. Yes it should be optional

but if you don't have it , it should be illegal for you to drive or own a motor vehicle.

[barb162]

18. if you cause an accident and 3 people are dead, umm, I really

think you want auto insurance. Almost all the states several years ago finally decided to make it mandatory as there were so many idiots driving causing so many accidents that they considered it to be in the public interest. Then about 20 or so years ago some states went to no fault as the courts were so jammed with cases.

[barb162]

19. dele

[barb162]

20. dele

[Nordic]

27. if the government requires it, they should also provide it

as it stands, the government requires that we BUY something from, which I feel is an infringement of my rights.

If they say we have to BUY something, they should bloody well provide a low-cost solution to the requirement.

[ckramer]

32. I'm with you

I feel that car insurance companies are eating up working Americans' food money year after year endlessly.

[barb162]

44. "provide a low-cost solution" How about the people with a record

of fairly "bad" driving...they usually go into the high cost pools because no insurers wants them. The insurers have to do this as they states require it as a cost of doing business in their states.

[barb162]

45. dele again, is something wrong with DU right now, sorry folks

[ET Awful]

52. I see. . . the law says you have to buy food to feed your children

Does that mean that they should pay for it?

[rucky]

61. or at least invest in improving public transportation

that would be helpful in many ways.

[420inTN]

80. The government requires us to pay tax on income...

so should the government provide everyone with income?

The government requires you to have a driver's license, yet you must pay for it.

[sandnsea]

30. Try this

If you have an expensive car, you naturally insure it against any loss. Why should a poor person have to insure your loss too? People with $500 cars have to pay insurance rates to cover the most expensive cars, not the piece of crap they can afford to drive. So insurance companies are getting away with higher rates on everybody. It's a scam.

[ET Awful]

53. No, the person is buying insurance to cover damage that they

may cause, in most cases this is well below the level of damage they could cause in a single accident. The minimum amount of insurance a driver is required to carry is minute compared to the amount of damage they could cause.

The amount of insurance required by law wouldn't come close to covering the more expensive cars.

[depakid]

58. Actaully- state minimums usually only cover the price

of repairing a fairly modest car and personal injuries (to the insured and others) within a pretty modest range. If you're being financed and the lender compels you to purchase full coverage, that's another story....

[UdoKier]

63. YOU DO NOT NEED liability insurance to drive.

If you have enough money to sock away in an account to cover any possible damages, you are not required to carry liability insurance.

It is between $10,000 and $50,000 in most states.

Of course, most of us don't have that kind of money to just stick in an account where it can't be used...

But it would be no biggie for a Bill Gates or a George Bush.

[Rainbowreflect]

41. It is optional, you don't have to drive.

Obviously you have never been hit by an uninsured driver.

[tx_dem41]

50. Here, here! n/t

[donheld]

57. You are not required to have car insurance.

You are not required to have a car. No car no insurance. It's really to bad, because you need to
have health but too many americans couldn't care less wether you have good health or not.

[Cuban_Liberal]

60. Car insurance protects OTHER people, primarily.

In most states, it's only the liability and medical costs portion of automobile insurance that are mandatory.

[elsur]

62. exactly .. an uninsured driver broadsided my father at ...

... 70 mph by running through a stop sign last year, killing him instantly.

As she had literally nothing in the way of finances or assets, it would have been nice if there were some insurance on her end for my mother.

[Cuban_Liberal]

64. I'm sorry about your dad.

I don't know what state you live in, but in IL you could apply to the crime victim's compensation fund at the Attorney General's office, for some financial help. Maybe you and your mom should check it out in your state.

:hug:

[elsur]

66. I appreciate that ...

... she's taken care of but the fact remains that people, by and large, are too irresponsible as a whole to make a decision whether or not to be insured.

Unfortunately, the whole system is designed around the weakest link theory.

[catmandu57]

65. I've been screwed over by so many insurance cos.

I understand the frustration, I've had insurance, they had insurance, they have'nt had insurance on and on. I've had two cars totaled just sitting on the street, I've had to eat both of those, because the insurance company weasled out of paying and my only recourse was to hire a lawyer and go to court.
I think insurance companies are the sleaziest form of life going, right now I carry liability and have a perfect driving record, I would lay even money though that if I hit someone my company would weasle out then stick a shiv in my back.

[spunky]

73. have you ever been hit by an unisured driver?

I have. He rear-ended me. The cops came and said that since he was uninsured that if I chose to file the report he'd loose his license. He said he was broke from his recent divorce and would loose his job if he lost his license. I decided not to file the report since more damage was done to his car than to mine. I just never got the dent fixed. I did the right thing.

Had he done more damage though, I don't see why I should have had to pay for it. Or why my insurance rates should go up so he doesn't have to be insured. I'm poor too.

[TexasBushwhacker]

78. I agree BUT

The fact of the matter is, there are always a lot of uninsured drivers out there, even when insurance is mandatory, so personally, I think states that have "no fault" insurance where your insurance pays for the damage to your car have a more practical plan. If you want to protect your "stuff", in this case your vehicle and your injured body, you pay for insurance.

[Columbia]

74. How about national universal single-payer auto insurance?

[Royal Observer]

75. Of course not

How would the lawyers get payed if people didn't have insurance.

[jobendorfer]

76. state run basic auto insurance system, paid for with a gas tax

I'm taking it as obvious that, given the amount of damage
that we can inflict in car accidents, that all drivers
should have at least a minimum amount of insurance.

I'd like to see -- in each state -- a state-run insurance
pool that is funded by a gas tax. No more uninsured
motorists. The more you drive, the more you pay. People
with expensive cars, or car loans, may opt to purchase
additional, private insurance. But such a system provides
the basic collision and injury coverage in an unevadable
way.

But it makes way too much sense, so it will never happen.

J.