You wouldn't hate it if you got into an accident that was the other person's fault and you had to make a claim against your insurance. Better yet, if you didn't have collision coverage and you had to try to collect yourself against a scumbag in small claims court. A judgement against someone with no assetts means nothing! That's why there is mandatory liability insurance asshole.
You wouldn't hate it if you got into an accident that was the other person's fault and you had to make a claim against your insurance. Better yet, if you didn't have collision coverage and you had to try to collect yourself against a scumbag in small claims court. A judgement against someone with no assetts means nothing! That's why there is mandatory liability insurance asshole.
What's so messed up about the laws? Is it a bad thing to have compulsary auto insurance, so if someone runs you over there'll be someone to pay for your medical bills? Is it a bad thing to have compulsary EL insurance, so the same thing will happen if you get injured at work?
As for the prices - well, insurance companies are businesses - they want to make a profit *and* pay their employees. The prices are going up because the prices the insurance companies have to pay are going up. And this is the fault of ... everyone.
Punitive and discriminatory damages have been shooting through the roof for years now. Lawyers fees are going up. Ambulance chasing lawyers are persuading more people to make claims, and juries are awarding higher and higher awards for these claims. Which insurance companies have to pay out. So, the insurance companies have to pay out more in claims, and more for their reinsurance, and they pass that cost back to .... you.
what goes around....
(disclaimer - I am an underwriter)
Regs
Lifer
- Aug 9, 2002
- 16,665
- 21
- 81
Rant Time!
I say bad drivers should stay the fawk off the roads and the people who steal cars should have their fingers chopped off.
Really, the arrogance of these people. "I just seem to be a target for bad drivers!" No, you're horrible, you cause more accidents than Bush Jr. eating snack food! People who run or rush traffic lights should have their license suspended before they cause a death. Screw this "failure to obey traffic signal" shite. Running a red light isn't accidental, it's stupidity and careless.
And do not tell me Auto Insurance companies have clean hands in all this! They are scummy and as corrupted as Enron. They take your money and spend it in the stock market, I don't know where you get this "Claim Pool" BS. Once you do file a claim it takes 2-6 months to process for some company's. Why? Because they bank interest off the claim. Example, It took 6-8 months to get my claim settled after a woman ran a red light almost killing me in front of 4 witness's (stated on the police report I gave to them) .
Auto insurance is expensive in NJ for a reason, I agree (stated in my other post), but I pay x2.5 times as much for insurance then the actual bank payments for the car itself. I pay 130 for the car loan and 310 for auto insurance a month, makes sense for a driver with a clean record? No. Since when did auto insurance become more expensive then the car itself?
Most of you who are arguing likely pay no more than a grand a year for auto insurance with a comfy or some what benefiting full time job. I goto school, work full time, and I'm responsible for 2 student loans and a car loan. Try to balance that while paying 400 a month just to travel 20 miles each day!
Give me 300 dollars a month for my troubles for the next 2-3 years, and then I might actually consider digesting your comments.
I say bad drivers should stay the fawk off the roads and the people who steal cars should have their fingers chopped off.
Really, the arrogance of these people. "I just seem to be a target for bad drivers!" No, you're horrible, you cause more accidents than Bush Jr. eating snack food! People who run or rush traffic lights should have their license suspended before they cause a death. Screw this "failure to obey traffic signal" shite. Running a red light isn't accidental, it's stupidity and careless.
And do not tell me Auto Insurance companies have clean hands in all this! They are scummy and as corrupted as Enron. They take your money and spend it in the stock market, I don't know where you get this "Claim Pool" BS. Once you do file a claim it takes 2-6 months to process for some company's. Why? Because they bank interest off the claim. Example, It took 6-8 months to get my claim settled after a woman ran a red light almost killing me in front of 4 witness's (stated on the police report I gave to them) .
Auto insurance is expensive in NJ for a reason, I agree (stated in my other post), but I pay x2.5 times as much for insurance then the actual bank payments for the car itself. I pay 130 for the car loan and 310 for auto insurance a month, makes sense for a driver with a clean record? No. Since when did auto insurance become more expensive then the car itself?
Most of you who are arguing likely pay no more than a grand a year for auto insurance with a comfy or some what benefiting full time job. I goto school, work full time, and I'm responsible for 2 student loans and a car loan. Try to balance that while paying 400 a month just to travel 20 miles each day!
Give me 300 dollars a month for my troubles for the next 2-3 years, and then I might actually consider digesting your comments.
There in lies the problem. Isn't insurance more tightly regulated by the govt. in other countries? Im curious. I'm a firm believer in insurance and healthcare be more of a public service, and not a business.
I sprain my ankle, go to the hospital, wait for 3 hours, lay on a bed for another hour, have a doctor come in and look at it for 5 minutes, tell me its sprained, gives me an air cast...total bill..$1500. Thats messed up. This obviously has something to do with the high cost of medical insurance.
Yes, of course they take your money and invest it, that's how they can make money. The "Claim Pool BS" is a fact, it's called "Reserves", and it's tightly regulated. Look it up for yourself on Google, it's not BS.
You were obviously dealing with a sh!tty company. That's one of the reasons some companies charge more than others for the same product. It is a service industry! You pay more for better service!
What I pay or what others pay and their views should have little to do with it. The facts are the facts. If you're unhappy with the situation in your state, talk to your local Congressman or Senator, just educate yourself first. Don't go off half cocked like you did here, you won't get a sympathetic ear.
Well, medical insurance is *very* tightly regulated here in the UK - the government does the whole thing
The cost of health insurance in the US is, frankly, shocking - even with the extra tax we pay, it still seems cheaper. Still, if you need outpatient work done in the US, the waiting time is much smaller, right? I suppose you get what you pay for. With what Americans pay, you should get waited on hand and foot!
or "the Common Pool". That and equitable premiums are the bedrock of the insurance industry (so says my text book
)
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,550
- 940
- 126
Me:
36 year old male
Vehicle: 2003 Nissan Maxima SE
Insurance: USAA
Cost: $630/year
Mrs. Maximus:
36 year old female
Vehicle: 1994 BMW 325i
Insurance: USAA
Cost: $490/year
Full coverage on both vehicles. We had a claim on the BMW recently, she was rear ended (not her fault obviously) and it was nice to have a decent rental car and have her car repaired without having to pay a dime for it.
36 year old male
Vehicle: 2003 Nissan Maxima SE
Insurance: USAA
Cost: $630/year
Mrs. Maximus:
36 year old female
Vehicle: 1994 BMW 325i
Insurance: USAA
Cost: $490/year
Full coverage on both vehicles. We had a claim on the BMW recently, she was rear ended (not her fault obviously) and it was nice to have a decent rental car and have her car repaired without having to pay a dime for it.
That's who I have my insurance through as well. So, are you the military officer, or is it an immediate family member?
I don't honestly know what my insurance is for each car. I think I pay less than $100 for a 98 Town and Country Van and my 00 Dodge Intrepid. They've always been a very good company for me, but they limit their policy holders to officers and their immediate family. In the last couple of years I think they created another company within USAA for NCO's. Their reasoning is that by insuring only officers, almost all their clientele are college educated, white collar folks which are less likely to have claims because they are more responsible than their lesser educated contemporaries, and it is a business model that has worked very well for them. I always look forward to my refund check a couple of weeks before Christmas. It seems like it's usually a couple hundred dollars or so, but it depends on what kind of year they've had.
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,550
- 940
- 126
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Uhh... that's why I purchase the optional (and NOT required by law) Uninsured motorist coverage and full coverage collision/comprehensive. Because even though it is a law, people still drive around uninsured. Amazing how that happens, that everytime idiots like you pass or support a stupid and ill-conceived law for your own "convenience," people just go right out and break it!
But thanks for calling me an asshole. I'll remember not to support your personal convenience and greed again in the future.
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,550
- 940
- 126
BTW-We live in Southern California (San Diego) which probably adds to our premiums a bit I suspect.
If you don't mind paying for protection, I don't see why you'd have a problem with everyone else having to pay too. If you can afford to have a car then you should be able to pay for insurance.
I don't think people should have to pay more to cover when other people can't be bothered to get covered. If they aren't prepared to be responsible for their own actions then they shouldn't be allowed to drive.
Oh, and the fact that someone breaks a law doesn't make it worthless. After all, we've had laws against murder and robbery for a long time, but that doesn't seem to have stopped them.
Ok Vic ,,,,I am weak minded when I believe I need to have insurance? Well from reading your posts it looks like you think Insurance is a Necessity also...
I am really glad you showed your true colors
I think you should request a nick change to ....Vic the prick which would suit you just fine
Oh One more thing next time you tell me to STFU you can go fvck yourself ,you'll get more pussy that way
Have a nice day.
Ausm
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
It means that you're either too lazy or too cheap to purchase uninsured motorist coverage, so you support a law that (for example, where I live) tows the car and automatically suspends the license of anyone who forgot their proof of insurance card at home.Originally posted by: jemcam
It also targets poor people, because all insurance companies use credit ratings when figuring premiums. The worse the credit, the higher the premiums, the less likely they are able to afford them, the more likely they are then to drive uninsured because often no car = no job = no food.
I could go on and on about how terribly ill-conceived mandatory auto-insurance laws are. I'll leave it at this. A couple of years ago I switched from Allstate to Progressive (saved a buttload). Allstate, in what I can only describe as a act of pure spite, reported that I was uninsured to the Oregon DMV (even though I had told my Allstate agent about the switch and why I was leaving them). The Oregon DMV promptly sent me a letter of intent to suspend my license (without court order) because they had "reason to believe" that I might be uninsured. I had to go down to a DMV office and wait 2 hours in line in order to provide them with my proof of new insurance (there was no gap) to keep from having my license suspended (which would have been without court order, proof, or cause on their part).
Yep. "Great" law. Thanks.
Originally posted by: Vic
It means that you're either too lazy or too cheap to purchase uninsured motorist coverage, so you support a law that (for example, where I live) tows the car and automatically suspends the license of anyone who forgot their proof of insurance card at home.Originally posted by: jemcam
It also targets poor people, because all insurance companies use credit ratings when figuring premiums. The worse the credit, the higher the premiums, the less likely they are able to afford them, the more likely they are then to drive uninsured because often no car = no job = no food.
I could go on and on about how terribly ill-conceived mandatory auto-insurance laws are. I'll leave it at this. A couple of years ago I switched from Allstate to Progressive (saved a buttload). Allstate, in what I can only describe as a act of pure spite, reported that I was uninsured to the Oregon DMV (even though I had told my Allstate agent about the switch and why I was leaving them). The Oregon DMV promptly sent me a letter of intent to suspend my license (without court order) because they had "reason to believe" that I might be uninsured. I had to go down to a DMV office and wait 2 hours in line in order to provide them with my proof of new insurance (there was no gap) to keep from having my license suspended (which would have been without court order, proof, or cause on their part).
Yep. "Great" law. Thanks.
My point was that if they didn't have a law requiring people to have liability insurance, there would probably be a lot more people that don't have it today. That was my only point. I never said anything about uninsured motorist coverage or Oregon DMV policies. Tell me again how I'm too lazy or cheap? Oh, and keep it on topic this time.
Thanks Regs, I don't mind debating with people or helping to educate them on certain matters that I happen to know a lot about as long as they don't distort facts or can keep an open mind.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
I wish my product was required by law.
And for Ausm and others who don't get it, it's simple (perhaps too simple?).
- No privately-sold commerical product should ever be required by law.
- If you don't like a product, don't buy it. No one should ever be forced to buy a product (see above).
- Because I believe the 2 above does not mean that I think the product in question is without value (quite contrary in this case).
- Only a morally and ethically bankrupt person would compare the issue in question with laws against murder and robbery.
Anything more?
And for Ausm and others who don't get it, it's simple (perhaps too simple?).
- No privately-sold commerical product should ever be required by law.
- If you don't like a product, don't buy it. No one should ever be forced to buy a product (see above).
- Because I believe the 2 above does not mean that I think the product in question is without value (quite contrary in this case).
- Only a morally and ethically bankrupt person would compare the issue in question with laws against murder and robbery.
Anything more?
Originally posted by: Vic
I wish my product was required by law.And for Ausm and others who don't get it, it's simple (perhaps too simple?). - No privately-sold commerical product should ever be required by law. - If you don't like a product, don't buy it. No one should ever be forced to buy a product (see above). - Because I believe the 2 above does not mean that I think the product in question is without value (quite contrary in this case). - Only a morally and ethically bankrupt person would compare the issue in question with laws against murder and robbery. Anything more?
thanks for the ad hominem
I think my comparison is quite valid. You stated that it was a stupid law and implied that it was worthless because "people just go right out and break it! ". People break all the laws we have - that doesn't make them worthless.And in answer to your points 1) and 2) No one is required to buy motor insurance. If you don't like it, don't buy a car
Driving is not an inalienable right. If you can't handle the responsibility that comes with driving, don't drive.
Have a nice day
Originally posted by: dpm
Originally posted by: Vic
I wish my product was required by law.And for Ausm and others who don't get it, it's simple (perhaps too simple?). - No privately-sold commerical product should ever be required by law. - If you don't like a product, don't buy it. No one should ever be forced to buy a product (see above). - Because I believe the 2 above does not mean that I think the product in question is without value (quite contrary in this case). - Only a morally and ethically bankrupt person would compare the issue in question with laws against murder and robbery. Anything more?
thanks for the ad hominem
And in answer to your points 1) and 2) No one is required to buy motor insurance. If you don't like it, <EM><STRONG>don't buy a car
</STRONG></EM>Driving is not an inalienable right. If you can't handle the responsibility that comes with driving, don't drive.
Have a nice day
Nice job dpm! BTW, you don't have to have insurance if you can prove fiscal responsibility to the state. No, it's not easy, you do have to be a millionaire, but why expose all your assetts if you can afford insurance? Insurance's purpose is to do just that: protect your assetts. Like I said earlier in this post, a judgement against someone with no assetts is worthless.
Someday you'll understand Vic. When you have more assetts or you see first hand just what tragedies arise from people without insurance, you'll think the $300 or so per month is a bargain in hindsight.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter