Car insurance hurts the poor, good drivers and America.

Car insurance is a necessary evil BECAUSE of the people who don't have insurance. If we don't have insurance, then when the car is damaged there is no way most of us could get it repaired.
A better question would be "Why do I need insurance on each car I own?" In Texas, all vehicles must be insured, even if you are the sole driver of each car, and obviously can't drive both of them at the same time. There is a way out- an umbrella policy covering all your vehicles, but it is expensive and not generally known about by folks.
I think car insurance should be sold to the driver that covers him in whatever vehicle he drives, and it should be pro-rated according to mileage driven per year, and/or according to the size of the vehicle.

Part of the reason car insurance is so expensive is because:
A) a lot of ****ty drivers
B) Car insurance companies have to make a profit.

or...

C) It's mandatory, so you HAVE to cough it up regardless. It's that or a suspended license.

Mandatory car insurance laws exist to make sure that anybody YOU HIT can have their property repaired. That's why in most (maybe all) states, only liability insurance is required in order to drive.

Sorry, driving isn't a right, and if you're not going to make sure you can pay for damages you might cause to MY truck, you shouldn't be on the road.

So if you crash into someone's Ferrari you should be able to pay for damages?

The problem is that you can't pay for 90% the things you hit anyway regardless of whether or not you have insurance. The fact is you'd be better off if you just put money in a jar. Some insurance doesn't even cover damages at all.

Yup, or just buy more insurance than the state-mandated minimum.



This entire statement is uninformed rambling. In Texas for example, the state-mandated minimum liability auto coverage 20/40/15, which will cover nearly all minor to moderate accidents (the vast majority of car accidents are minor to moderate fender benders). More serious accidents are almost always caused by negligence or intoxication, in which case a lawsuit should be expected regardless of coverage. Further, the 20/40/15 rule ensures that should the person who is at fault for the accident cause damage or bodily injury in excess of their policy limits, that collection of the difference becomes relatively feasible given the average networth of Texas residents.

Driving a car is not a right, and so the government has every right to dictate the qualifications to be met in order to drive on PUBLICALLY-FUNDED roads. Don't like the rules, buy up large plots of land and build your own.

And what makes you think if you can afford the state mandate insurance, that you wouldn't be able to afford to pay minor to moderate damage with all the money you'd be saving by not having insurance?

The government shouldn't be able to make you pay for things that are designed to make a profit.

And as a matter of fact a means of travel IS A RIGHT.

Consider the fact that liability insurance for the highest risk group (males 16-25) runs about $300 a month. That's $3600 per annum. Let's say that you get into a wreck with a person driving a $10k car, but you total the car and hurt the driver. Do you honestly think that $3600 will cover that? Moreover, do you actually think that people will defy the wealth effect and NOT spend that excess cash?

They don't make you do anything. You CHOOSE to buy a car and drive from place to place, there are plenty of means of public transit available to the citizens of even smaller towns. When you CHOOSE to drive, you are obligated to follow certain rules. You can't exceed the posted speed limit, you have to stop when the light is red, and you have to have PROOF OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY. It is possible to prove self-insurance, it's just a bitch and MORE EXPENSIVE than simply paying Allstate the monthly fee. Sorry dude, you don't get to wreck my truck and not pay for it just because you can't afford it.


Not on PUBLICALLY funded roadways it isn't. You have the right to life, liberty, and property....end of list.

Since EVERYBODY paid for the road (taxes), EVERYBODY decides the rules for driving on it (elected representatives), and EVERYBODY has decided you need car insurance in order to use EVERYBODY'S roads. If I make you take your shoes off to come into my home, you can either do it, or not come in my home, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. I'm a huge libertarian, but your position is without merit and very childish.

And the truth comes out. This is about personal responsibility not about safety. The government doesn't trust people with their own money, and it's true that many are irresponsible. Why should the responsible one's have to suffer because some people don't know how to handle their money?

Not when the only form of transportation is on public roads on privately owned vehicles it's not. The Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." As far back as the court ruling in Corfield v. Coryell, the Supreme Court recognized freedom of movement as a fundamental Constitutional right. In Paul v. Virginia.

Also again I'm going to have to bring up the point of some car insurances don't even insure vehicles, they simply pay for any medical needs resulting from a crash.

So we do we allow people with these type of insurance contracts to drive on the road? Sure people should be able to pay for damages they cause, but this is a matter of PERSONAL responsibility, if a person thinks getting insurance will aid in paying for a crash then they should be free to get 'said insurance, but the fact remains: car insurance is designed to make a profit. If they didn't receive more money than they gave out then then wouldn't be in business. Forcing people to supplement the profit of private companies so that they can have the basis necessities is WRONG!

Call it childish if you want, but If only those who could afford to pay for damages to everything on the road then the entire lower class of America would be without cars and it's safe to say the the economy would greatly suffer for it.

Not to mention having a car is virtually a requirement to have a job if you live in the country or in the suburbs.

Why should the responsible ones suffer at the hands of uninsured motorists? Protection of property rights is a just and natural form of governance, and if that includes setting minimum guidelines for driving on PUBLIC roads, then so be it.

I took Con Law when I got my BA in Poli Sci, and your reading of the Constitution is legally and logically incorrect. The state government is not barring somebody from driving because they are poor, they are barring somebody from driving without car insurance. Whether they can't afford it, don't want to buy it, or are uninsurable because of their driving record DOESN'T MATTER since the law only states that you must have car insurance to drive. Thus, all citizens are treatedly equally because whether you're worth $3 or $3million, you need to have car insurance to drive a car on public roads. I guess driver's licenses and car registration are wrong too, since they cost the driver a good bit of coin in some states? I suppose pilots shouldn't be licensed or have insurance either. I mean, the guy flying the news chopper should be able to replace by house, car, and personal effects should he crash into my home......

100% false, wrong, incorrect, etc. 20/40/15 refers to the following:

$20k in medical per person, per accident
$40k in medical all people, per accident.
$15k in repair costs per accident

You don't have the right to basic necessities. You have the right to life, liberty, and property, end of list.

To declare your right to basic necessities would be to deny the right to property, which in turn would be to deny the right to basic necessities (property) and thus create a logical fallacy. Moreover, a car is not a necessity. I took public buses to my classes in college (parking permits were expensive, but I bet you have a problem with those too), and two of the people in my office take the bus to work everyday because they save money on gas and maintenance. Cabs, buses, subways, bicycles, and WALKING are all means of transportation I personally see used everyday in lieu of driving a car. You just want to be able to drive without the added expense of insurance. This has got nothing to do with any perceived "right", you just want to have your cake and eat it too.

It's not society's job to provide for your lifestyle preference.

You have a right to live wherever you want, but that doesn't mean you don't have to play by the rules. If you need a car to get to work, but can't afford it, MOVE CLOSER TO WORK.

and who says

A) insured people are always capable of paying for dammage

or

B) Uninsured people are never capable of paying for dammage

----------
Assumptions do not form a good foundation for such an argument

Hold on right there, I said no such thing. I was merely replying to the statement that the ability to have transportation is not a right.

You realize there are 49 other states right? Each with their own systems. I'm not sure how things go down in Texas but here in my home state it is perfectly legal to have insurance that only covers medical damages, i know several people who have such insurance contracts.

freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of press, right to privacy, right to peacefully assemble

and I could go on....

so consider yourself wrong on that one.

Have you ever lived in the country? If you live where I do then an automobile is the only viable means of transportation.

No one asked them to. Since when is saving money as opposed to doling it out to insurance companies asking for society to provide for lifestyle preferences?

Oh, yes because moving is totally an option when you have no job and no car. :rollinglaugh:

/sarcasm

Nobody said anything of the sort. Just because 40% of the country own weapons and are capable of defending themselves, should we assume we don't need armed police officers to defend against criminals? Mandating insurance protects us from the deadbeats who refuse to be financially responsible when they drive their cars. Furthermore, you don't need insurance to drive, you need proof of financial responsibility, which can be demonstrated in the form of a bond of $50k here in Texas (just under the minimum levels of insurance). Thus, you're not being forced to buy anything, but buying insurance is a helluva lot cheaper than posting a bond.

It's not a right, freedom of MOVEMENT is covered by your right to liberty, but curtailed by the property rights of others. You can move wherever you want however you want on YOUR LAND. You can't walk through my house without my say-so, and you can't drive a car on public roads without the say-so of the public.

Transportation is not a right because it requires action on the part of other people. People have a right to life, liberty, and property, meaning they have a right to be free of physical, political, and material harm. To assert a "right" to transportation is to deny the property rights of whoever provides that transportation.

Yeah, in PA for example you only need medical liability insurance (pretty pricey too), but if you don't have property liability insurance, you can't make claims against other people who hit YOUR car who do have such insurance. This model was necessary(I lived in DE growing up) because the deadbeats would refuse to get property coverage, get into an accident, and then collect on the insurance of responsible citizens. Ultimately though people will stop buying property liability because there's no point in paying for insurance if your fellow mortorists; a) can't benefit from it and b) won't insure you're property from their recklessness.

Jesus, it's like talking to a 10th grader. A right and a freedoms are two different things. Amendment I is based on the right to liberty outlined in the natural rights model. You have the freedom to print what material you like, but printing such material is not a RIGHT because that would mean you'd be entitled to print your paper even if you had no money to do it. A right is an entitlement, a freedom is an unmolested opportunity based on such entitlements.

So move. Simple as that. I move across the country for months on end to work catastrophe claims. It's not that hard.

Society has a right to know that you can cover damages you cause while driving on PUBLIC roads.

So where you live is so isolated that there's no work within walking distance? How do you get mail or buy groceries without a car to drive to the post office or grocery store? Amazingly you have internet access and have managed to secure a computer, where did you acquire these items? Grocery store, post office, electronics store, all places to work that are apparently within walking distance. Oh wait, but what if you had no legs, were blind, and have psoriasis? Come on, suck it up, be an adult, and take care of your ****.