And the government influences cars and their owners through a number of other ways already, namely taxation.
It's ok to be angry about capitalism
- Thread starter XsjadoBlaydette
- Start date
Insurance is already regulated. Giving the private sector sole access to something everybody needs or else is just rent seeking
Last edited:
Still doesn't change the fact that it is easy (and beneficial) to demand insurance and difficult to provide and maintain a public insurance option.
And no, it is not something everyone needs. Only car owners do. Quite different from e.g. health care.
How is it any harder than a private company making a private option?
Mind you, I haven't said any bad word about mandating liability. The State mandates and enforces liability all the damned time. It's not extra complicated just because a car is involved.
On top of that, can I complain that *I* am not insured to drive vehicles, but the car is insured to being driven? Or is that no good for the "complain about capitalism" thread?
Not harder than a private company doing the same, but very much harder than just passing a law that demands people have insurance.
What is the problem with that ? Car owners having to pay for insurance instead of people owning driver licenses seems like a good move.
Hence the complaint about capitalism, yes
No correlation, people who don't drive don't need insurance. But somehow my insurance carrier trusting anybody who happens to be driving my specific car makes more sense than insuring me to drive cars?
The main impact is for business related driving. So companies that decide that the driving has to happen in the first place are on the hook for its insurance, not their employees.
Well, in theory at least. It is not as if certain companies try to push their employees to use private cars for business purposes.
Because a civil fund to compensate vehicle owners for loss in the event of traffic accident, rather than forcing owners by law to pay unrelated third-party private businesses to operate their own property, is Communism.
Fantastic: not only am I being mandated by the government to buy car insurance from a private third party insurance company, I'm being mandated by the government to buy the wrong scale of car insurance from a private third party insurance company, who are retrofitting their 51% commercial vehicle insurance to the 49% market (and much greater in raw number) share of private owners
That's *much* worse
If a driver instead of an owner would have to have insurance, you still would need it, wouldn't you ? And families that share cars would need extra insurances for each possible driver.
So, sorry, i fail to see the harm done.
So, sorry, i fail to see the harm done.
I posted to say having a requirement for car insurance is a good thing. That was all. You wanna change the argument to something else. Also, the reason you shouldn't make someone get car insurance when they register the car is because you can have a car and not drive it, thus why would you be forced to have car insurance to merely own a car?
You can do taxes for free, I do mine for free every year. Also, taxes shouldn't even be a thing to do, the government has all the information you provide them anyway so there's really no point in having to do your taxes in the 1st place.
That didn't answer my question about whether those neighborhoods have more overall insurance claims and more risky factors than other areas. I'm guessing (though could be wrong) it's one of those racist things that really aren't racist and the rates would be the same if everything else was the same for those neighborhoods if the people were white or Asian or whatever.
A) My complaint was never that I was forced to have insurance. My complaint was that said insurance had to come from a third party private corporation
B)Montana does, in fact, force you to have insurance to register a car.
Wild. Wish car insurance worked like that, which was the point of the statement
You guess that a *lot* of racist things aren't actually racist based on nothing whatsoever
Adding extra drivers to the specific car is already required and usually costs extra anyway. Only now those people also have to pay for any other car as well, possibly with extra people in turn.
If I am a safe driver, then I am a safe driver. What is the logic behind needing liability insurance for every car I own.
Also, the government forcing me to give money to private industry
Part of this is that some cars are harder to drive than others (vehicle size), or are more likely to be involved in an accident (fast cars). And for fully comp insurance, some cars are just more likely to be stolen (nice cars, keyless entry cars). I do think a driver's second+ vehicle should be heavily discounted though. (The way this works in the UK is that I have fully comp insurance on my own car, and that covers me for third party liability on anyone else's car as long as that car is insured by someone else -- I can't just have one insured car and also drive my uninsured car.)
The way Australia does it varies from state to state a little but registration rolls compulsory third party into the cost. So technically driving an uninsured car here is the same as an unregistered one. I'm pretty confident that is the only insurance you're legally required to have. Comprehensive, Third Party Fire and Theft, and Third Party Property are recommended but as far as I know you can ride without them if you're so inclined.
In Germany insurance is also compulsory and per car, but only third party coverage.
It is not more expensive if several drivers share a car. There are generally discounts for second cars, staying accident free for some time and driven kilometers (lower better, don't ask me how they check this). If extra drivers cost more, depend on the policy. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't, but usually this cost only balances out using your driving record and experience.
And honestly, i don't see anything wrong with it. Car insurance should be paid by car owners. Who owns a car, is richt enough to pay for insurance. Making the insurance a public service would sooner or later lead to it being partially tax funded with the general population on the hook.
It is not more expensive if several drivers share a car. There are generally discounts for second cars, staying accident free for some time and driven kilometers (lower better, don't ask me how they check this). If extra drivers cost more, depend on the policy. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't, but usually this cost only balances out using your driving record and experience.
And honestly, i don't see anything wrong with it. Car insurance should be paid by car owners. Who owns a car, is richt enough to pay for insurance. Making the insurance a public service would sooner or later lead to it being partially tax funded with the general population on the hook.
Last edited: