"CoVID-19" is over.

[Sig]

Automobile Insurance is to protect other people from you. Health Insurance is to protect yourself. The reason that health insurance premiums are higher than automobile insurance is because there are numerous claims on health insurance and typically few, if any on automobile insurance.

The second part of your comment is completely correct. What we call "health insurance" in this country is really only partly insurance and in large part just health care.

However the first part is a misconception that is very frustrating and I think why there is so much talking past each other on this topic. If we're going to have an intelligent well meaning conversation about this, we have to both agree that an uninsured person costs us all money. It costs money to treat them when their condition becomes an emergency, as all hospitals must and as all non-sociopath Americans demand, regardless of their ability to pay. It costs us all when the economy suffers from lost days at work for them and those who care for them. And per the topic of this thread, infectious diseases are most definitely something that require treatment of the sick person to protect other people from you.

 

[SunTrader]

It's questionable because we make the insurance mandatory then the insurers get to decide what is required to have the privilege of something that's crucial to the day to day life of most Americans. It's a bit of an abdication of legislative responsibility in that by requiring everyone to have insurance you hand this big chunk of power over to insurance companies and their rules effectively have the same impact as a regulation to anyone who drives, but without the democratic protections we normally have when we pass a law and put it into regulation....

Not everyone. Everyone who wants to drive. Same as they need to pay for gas, repairs etc.

Insurance is just another cost of owning and operating a vehicle.

Insurance companies, banks, utilities, telco and cable companies no doubt are granted a "fixed" limited competition market. This is a fact of life. But until that changes, if ever, whether they are indeed questionable is moot.

 

[Sig]

Not everyone. Everyone who wants to drive. Same as they need to pay for gas, repairs etc.

Insurance is just another cost of owning and operating a vehicle.

Insurance companies, banks, utilities, telco and cable companies no doubt are granted a "fixed" limited competition market. They are a fact of life. Until that changes if ever whether they are questionable is moot.

I never really liked that "not everyone, just everyone who wants to ...." answer, it's pretty deeply unsatisfying. Using that logic we could require everyone wear a tracker showing everywhere they'd been if you wanted to travel more than 10 miles from your home. It's not required for everyone, just everyone who wants to travel more than 10 miles from home. Or a tracker showing everywhere you've been in order to walk on sidewalks. It's not required for everyone, just everyone who wants to walk on sidewalks. You see how one could go on and on with that. Absent a few people living in a few of the dense urban areas, the ability to drive is as necessary to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the U.S. in 2020 to the point that depriving someone of it is effectively a punishment and both seen and used as such, not the withdrawal of a privilege. You take me back to my service academy days with that, where wearing civilian clothes, listening to a radio, and leaving your room to do anything but eat and go to class, and in some cases even being allowed to have a door on your room were "privileges" that you had to earn and could be taken away. After all, it turns out you don't "need" any of those things. Most people find that orwellian, and they find attaching orwellian conditions on the "privilege" of driving to be unacceptable.

Once again, I don't have a problem with insurance or it costing money or even it being indexed to obvious risk factors. I think you missed my point which is not that it costs money or even necessarily that it's required. It's that people rightly question when insurance companies are allowed to establish orwellian requirements that could never be passed by law but have the same impacts as if a law had been passed. That could credibly be claimed to be undemocratic.

 

[Snarkhund]

Didn't know Progressive was owned by Google. I will immediately shop my home, auto and boat around for another company. Thirty minutes on the phone to cut off a few dollars from the leftists. I will do it everytime.

 

[Sig]

Didn't know Progressive was owned by Google. I will immediately shop my home, auto and boat around for another company. Thirty minutes on the phone to cut off a few dollars from the leftists. I will do it everytime.

WTF? Try checking out the NYSE ticker PGR? It's a public company, component of the S&P 500! Does your hate of the other tribe eclipse all reason with you people or are you really just terminally stupid? You better drop them anyway, I mean truth in advertising, their name is "Progressive" so they must be "the leftists" right?

 

[Snarkhund]

WTF? Try checking out the NYSE ticker PGR? It's a public company, component of the S&P 500! Does your hate of the other tribe eclipse all reason with you people or are you really just terminally stupid? You better drop them anyway, I mean truth in advertising, their name is "Progressive" so they must be "the leftists" right?

If Progressive is owned by Google it means I cannot and will not do business with them. I was going to wait until I arrived in Florida but instead I am changing insurance companies TODAY, a couple of days before escrow closing. Yeah my bank is real happy with me right now lol.

My money. My choice.

There is a rather large list of companies I eschew now. If a company I boycott is held by a parent company I extend my scorn to them as well and basically all of their brands.

I mean, do you expect me to buy a pair of Nike running shoes when they support anti-American overpaid leftist athletes who disrespect the flag? Of course not.

 

[Sig]

If Progressive is owned by Google it means I cannot and will not do business with them. I was going to wait until I arrived in Florida but instead I am changing insurance companies TODAY, a couple of days before escrow closing. Yeah my bank is real happy with me right now lol.

My money. My choice.

There is a rather large list of companies I eschew now. If a company I boycott is held by a parent company I extend my scorn to them as well and basically all of their brands.

I mean, do you expect me to buy a pair of Nike running shoes when they support anti-American overpaid leftist athletes who disrespect the flag? Of course not.

Dipshit, Progressive is NOT owned by Google! It is it's own Fortune 500 company traded on the NYSE under the ticker PGR. As I just told you. Unbelievable!

Thanks for at least answering the question as to if you were terminally stupid, the answer is clearly yes!

Definitely don't let the door hit your ass on the way out, we're all better off if someone of your level of idiocy opts out of our society entirely. I hear oxygen is a liberal thing, you better stop using it too.

 

[SunTrader]

I never really liked that "not everyone, just everyone who wants to ...." answer, it's pretty deeply unsatisfying. Using that logic we could require everyone wear a tracker showing everywhere they'd been if you wanted to travel more than 10 miles from your home. It's not required for everyone, just everyone who wants to travel more than 10 miles from home. Or a tracker showing everywhere you've been in order to walk on sidewalks. It's not required for everyone, just everyone who wants to walk on sidewalks. You see how one could go on and on with that. Absent a few people living in a few of the dense urban areas, the ability to drive is as necessary to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the U.S. in 2020 to the point that depriving someone of it is effectively a punishment and both seen and used as such, not the withdrawal of a privilege. You take me back to my service academy days with that, where wearing civilian clothes, listening to a radio, and leaving your room to do anything but eat and go to class, and in some cases even being allowed to have a door on your room were "privileges" that you had to earn and could be taken away. After all, it turns out you don't "need" any of those things. Most people find that orwellian, and they find attaching orwellian conditions on the "privilege" of driving to be unacceptable.

Once again, I don't have a problem with insurance or it costing money or even it being indexed to obvious risk factors. I think you missed my point which is not that it costs money or even necessarily that it's required. It's that people rightly question when insurance companies are allowed to establish orwellian requirements that could never be passed by law but have the same impacts as if a law had been passed. That could credibly be claimed to be undemocratic.

I got to move on but I don't see it as Orwellian tactics, such as high risk drivers (new inexperienced or those with many violations) voluntarily allowing a tracker to be installed to get a reduced rate. I pay less because of it.

Same with being a lifetime nonsmoker my life insurance premiums are lower than someone who is not. The only way I get the discount is by "the other guy" paying more. Wouldn't want it any other way.

This state got rid of its Motorcycle Helmet requirement years ago under Jeb B. I'd be curious to know if rates are different for those who wear and those who don't and how they determine compliance, other than traffic accident reports.

 

[SunTrader]

Dipshit, Progressive is NOT owned by Google! It is it's own Fortune 500 company traded on the NYSE under the ticker PGR. As I just told you. Unbelievable!

Thanks for at least answering the question as to if you were terminally stupid, the answer is clearly yes!

Definitely don't let the door hit your ass on the way out, we're all better off if someone of your level of idiocy opts out of our society entirely. I hear oxygen is a liberal thing, you better stop using it too.

Maybe Progressive owns Google huh huh.

Try this one on Snarky next. Threes the charm.

 

[Sig]

I got to move on but I don't see it as Orwellian tactics, such as high risk drivers (new inexperienced or those with many violations) voluntarily allowing a tracker to be installed to get a reduced rate. I pay less because of it.

Same with being a lifetime nonsmoker my life insurance premiums are lower than someone who is not. The only way I get the discount is by "the other guy" paying more. Wouldn't want it any other way.

This state got rid of its Motorcycle Helmet requirement years ago under Jeb B. I'd be curious to know if rates are different for those who wear and those who don't and how they determine compliance, other than traffic accident reports.

Like I said initially, since I'm in the lowest risk group in almost all respects I personally benefit from aggressive actuaries and tight underwriting. I just also understand why "offering a discount", i.e. charging you more if you don't submit, to tracking is a slippery slope many people are legitimately concerned about. It's fine to say you don't think it's a slippery slope but still acknowledge that mandatory insurance laws give a large amount of power to insurance companies to do things that are normally reserved for democratically elected bodies.

Not sure if wearing a helmet actually saves insurance companies money? Since not wearing one makes a normal injury causing accident into a fatality it might actually save money on medical expenses at least?