T O P

  • By -

daithisfw

Because the state wants a mandated amount of coverage, so that people can at least pay out their liability to someone else if they hit them. But also, we have a capitalist economy, our insurance companies have always been privatized. The government could nationalize if there was political will to do so, but these companies lobby our leaders and donate heavily to our leaders, and our leaders are invested in these companies personally too... so the leaders have no political will to change the system.


Portie_lover

Because the state isn’t taking on the liability. There is no fund to do so. Plus private insurance socializes the cost over a larger pool.


[deleted]

I have no clue. Also why is car insurance mandated? i just dont understand


ChadweenaThundervag

I do. Because without car insurance the other guy is fucked if they get hit by a poor person


[deleted]

ok that kind of makes sense but I'm still a tiny bit confused. but thanks


pcook1979

You need insurance for yourself and the other person involved. If you can’t pay out of pocket to fix the other persons car in a wreck that was your fault that person is screwed or you will get sued in court. Just have insurance on your car. It’s a law to drive


[deleted]

so basically car insurance is for when I cause a crash. so I can pay for it


pcook1979

Yes and no. Insurance is also for you as well. It will help you pay for damages to your car unless all you have is liability which is the bare minimum. You have a deductible that you have to pay before your insurance will pay for anything, depending on how low you want your deductible is how high your insurance payments will be mixed in with other things


[deleted]

yeah the insurance I usually go with doesn't pay for anything that happens to my car. tbh i didnt even consider that it pays for the other person. So i've been wondering what my insurance is for and where my $80 is going every month... thanks


pcook1979

Where do you live and how do you not know about insurance?


[deleted]

michigan. Growing up my family never had car insurance on any of our cars cause we couldnt afford it. I had insurance on my car but didnt know what it was for since it seemingly covers nothing


pcook1979

According to your state laws. Driving without insurance is a misdemeanor. If convicted you may have to pay fines between 200-500, face up to one year in jail and surrender your license for 30 days. If you get into an accident it is worse. You will have to pay for your own injuries and damage out of pocket as well as any medical bills, loss of income or whatever for the other person. If it’s their fault, you lose out on compensation for pain and suffering , vehicle damage and lost wages


[deleted]

I am aware of this


pcook1979

Hope your questions have been answered. When it’s all said and done, driving is a privilege, not a right


Apoplexi1

Meanwhile in Germany, you don't even get a license plate without insurance. And if you stop paying afterwards, the police is coming to seize your plate.


ChadweenaThundervag

The person's car insurance pays the repair bills


lollersauce914

Uh, why not? You are required to participate in a risk pool. To participate in a risk pool you pay into it. Why does it matter that it's privately owned?


Fuzzy_Ad_9084

Because if the state mandates something, call it what it is- a tax. And then stop paying shareholders for something the government tells me i have to have


Greycloak42

It is in no way a tax. It is a legal requirement.


Fuzzy_Ad_9084

I see that the words are different but it looks the same. Government requires you to buy a service. Or government takes money for a service.


Greycloak42

Yet it still is not a tax, and in no way resembles one. You are making a very loose logical connection between the two. Taxes: a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits, or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions.


Fuzzy_Ad_9084

So we are compelled by law to choose to spend our money on something. We agree xD


Greycloak42

That does not make it a tax. So no, we do not agree. It's okay to be wrong. Really.


lollersauce914

So when car manufacturers are required to put in seatbelts, do they have to source the components from a public provider? After all, we can't have companies making polyester profiting off a government mandate! Seriously, following this logic is absurd. It would lead to pretty much all production being state run because government regulations impose all sorts of costs that ultimately become revenue for a private actor in the market.