If the Supreme Court overturns "Obamacare" does this also overturn auto insurance?

[MelissaWV]

The type of accidents that cause major medical bills is a low probability. Thats why the real costs are low. As you stated, you are basically paying for a new car by covering this type of incident. I think this is too high, especially considering you have never caused an accident.

Insurance should be saving you money, not costing you money.

The flaw in your logic is that you will not have a total loss before you've saved up enough money to replace your vehicle and compensate yourself/someone for the property damage involved.

 

[tttppp]

The flaw in your logic is that you will not have a total loss before you've saved up enough money to replace your vehicle and compensate yourself/someone for the property damage involved.

I really have no idea what you are trying to say here.

 

[No Free Beer]

i wouldnt be surprised if it given the okay by the SC because it could be considered a "tax"

 

[tttppp]

i wouldnt be surprised if it given the okay by the SC because it could be considered a "tax"

I agree. But they shouldn't be allowed to hide taxes. They should be transparent.

 

[MelissaWV]

I really have no idea what you are trying to say here.

Earlier you stated that you tallied up all the money you'd paid into your insurance, and it was more than enough to buy a vehicle.

Was it more than enough to buy a replacement vehicle...

... a month into it?
... a year into it?

Insurance's only big benefit is in the short term. I can buy a policy and then, by some freak coincidence, get into a wreck on the way home. If coverage was bound, I will be covered to the extent of the policy's terms. If I had just put away the money I put down as my first premium payment, and gotten into an accident, I would have... very little to put towards medical bills and a vehicle replacement.

Your calculations don't seem to take that into account.

 

[tttppp]

Earlier you stated that you tallied up all the money you'd paid into your insurance, and it was more than enough to buy a vehicle.

Was it more than enough to buy a replacement vehicle...

... a month into it?
... a year into it?

Insurance's only big benefit is in the short term. I can buy a policy and then, by some freak coincidence, get into a wreck on the way home. If coverage was bound, I will be covered to the extent of the policy's terms. If I had just put away the money I put down as my first premium payment, and gotten into an accident, I would have... very little to put towards medical bills and a vehicle replacement.

Your calculations don't seem to take that into account.

I believe in your lifetime, the amount of money you spend on car insurance can probably buy you 3-4 new cars. Yes insurance provides you the benefit of being covered today. However, odds are you are not going to total 3-4 cars in your lifetime, so statistically speaking you are not saving money from car insurance.

 

[thedude]

I believe in your lifetime, the amount of money you spend on car insurance can probably buy you 3-4 new cars. Yes insurance provides you the benefit of being covered today. However, odds are you are not going to total 3-4 cars in your lifetime, so statistically speaking you are not saving money from car insurance.

Insurance should be called "in case shit". To Melissa's point, in case shit happens the day you start saving the money will you be able to afford the costs of the damage to the other's person and property? You assume that everything will balance itself out over the course of one's lifetime. This is poor foresight and a bit ignorant. The court will not allow you to pay for such damages over the next 20+ years at your convenience. Furthermore, you are not taking into consideration that if you secure a loan to pay for the damages to the other person or property that there will be additional interest owed. This is the only alternative I could think of (assuming you have not saved enough) to pay what the insurance would as fast as the insurance would. Now going back to the idea of "in case shit", Chris Rock said it best, "Now in case shit don't happen, shouldn't I get my money back?" This is the real issue up for debate in regards to insurance. There is the convenience fee and the processing fees, but I should get the majority of my money back. I did not sign up under a group benefit policy where I agree that my payments would be used to cover another. Alas, this is the response one would receive, unfortunately.

Running in circles here with tttppp...

 

[tttppp]

Insurance should be called "in case shit". To Melissa's point, in case shit happens the day you start saving the money will you be able to afford the costs of the damage to the other's person and property? You assume that everything will balance itself out over the course of one's lifetime. This is poor foresight and a bit ignorant. The court will not allow you to pay for such damages over the next 20+ years at your convenience. Furthermore, you are not taking into consideration that if you secure a loan to pay for the damages to the other person or property that there will be additional interest owed. This is the only alternative I could think of (assuming you have not saved enough) to pay what the insurance would as fast as the insurance would. Now going back to the idea of "in case shit", Chris Rock said it best, "Now in case shit don't happen, shouldn't I get my money back?" This is the real issue up for debate in regards to insurance. There is the convenience fee and the processing fees, but I should get the majority of my money back. I did not sign up under a group benefit policy where I agree that my payments would be used to cover another. Alas, this is the response one would receive, unfortunately.

Running in circles here with tttppp...

You are missing the point. Insurance in theory should be less than the amount you have to pay if shit happens. It would be less if we were not being scammed. I realize it does provide some value in that it can cover you if you got in an accident today. I get that. But still insurance should be much cheaper than the if shit happens scenario, and its not.

 

[Keith and stuff]

Why should anyone be forced to pay into a private business by law? If the Supreme Court rules that mandated healthcare purchase is unconstitutional what does that say and do to mandated auto insurances?

There are no federal requirements to have personal automobile insurance if you live in a state. I do have auto insurance, but it is by choice as there is no law requiring me to have auto insurance. I could drop it any time I want.

 

[WhistlinDave]

Can't you show a certificate of bond or something, showing that you have enough money to cover the minimum amount required by your state?

I don't know about other states, but here in California, you have a choice of putting up a surety bond, or of purchasing insurance. I forget what the amount of the minimum bond required is ($50,000. ?), but it's way more money than most people have laying around. So for all intents and purposes, the average person is required to purchase insurance if they want the privilege of driving (legally).

I do see that as quite different from the requirement of Obamacare though. Not saying it's right or wrong, but driving a car is not something you have to do. If you don't want to buy car insurance, you don't have to drive. While it's a pretty crappy choice, fact is, you do nonetheless have a choice in the matter. On the other hand, breathing is something you have to do. Under Obamacare, if you breathe, you have to purchase insurance. So with Obamacare, there is no choice.

 

[MelissaWV]

You are missing the point. Insurance in theory should be less than the amount you have to pay if shit happens. It would be less if we were not being scammed. I realize it does provide some value in that it can cover you if you got in an accident today. I get that. But still insurance should be much cheaper than the if shit happens scenario, and its not.

Just to be clear, I agree with you on that. Insurance should cover the driver against the unforeseen, not the other drivers and other property. If they do not have insurance, and you hit them, they should be able to sue you for damages. If they'd had insurance, maybe they wouldn't have had to (their policy would have covered their vehicle, etc.). You, in turn, might have an umbrella policy to protect your assets in case you're sued.

Remove the Government from the equation, and it all becomes a matter of covering your own butt for a few hundred bucks.

 

[WhistlinDave]

I once read a really interesting article about an alternate model to replace insurance. It would be an individual savings/credit account. Kind of like a debit/credit card.

So instead of paying insurance premiums, you pay some of your earnings into your savings account. If you happen to get ill, then you pay for your healthcare out of this account. If you happen to exceed the amount you have saved up, then your expenses are paid for you, and you owe.

There would of course be kinks to work out, like what happens to your credit balance or debit balance when you die--pass along to heirs? Absorbed into the system?--and what about people who don't earn anything. Somebody would need to figure out how things like that are handled. But in general, it struck me as a really intriguing idea if all the details could be worked out. And I think the same thing could be done for car insurance and most other types of insurance.

 

[Keith and stuff]

Which is why No-Fault insurance is the best answer, not mandatory insurance. But most people don't like the idea of not assigning fault. They rabidly want other people to pay through the nose for mucking with their lives.

No fault punishes people for doing nothing wrong so it is bad. Requiring auto insurance is bad. The best option is not requiring auto insurance in the first place. That's how things work in New Hampshire, where I live. Heck, in 2009, a bill to require auto insurance was proposed in NH. The Democratic controlled House Transportation Committee voted 18 to 0 against the bill. There is no case to be made that requiring auto insurance for the average driver is useful.

3/16/2009 Committee Report: Inexpedient to Legislate for Mar 24 CC (vote 18-0); HC 22, PG.665
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bil...umber&txtsessionyear=2009&txtbillnumber=HB179

 

[Erentheca]

It would be an interesting study to find out how mandatory auto insurance affects the price of auto repairs.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

It would be an interesting study to find out how mandatory auto insurance affects the price of auto repairs.

It is all one package:
auto parts are regulated>regulations cause cars to go up in price >parts become more expensive>most modern repairs have to do with emissions testing>government enforces emissions (makes you get repairs you otherwise dont need)>insurance agencies know they have people by the balls because of the pricing racket +mandated auto insurance

 

[Keith and stuff]

It would be an interesting study to find out how mandatory auto insurance affects the price of auto repairs.

I don't know if there is a direct connection. There is 1 state that doesn't require auto insurance, New Hampshire.

Does NH have the lowest auto repair costs? I don't know but I doubt it. After all, there are a bunch of factors at play here, including how much mechanics make. I don't know about mechanics specially, but generally, pay is higher in NH than most other states.

There was a survey that looked at auto repair costs for a check engine light.


Lowest Average Check Engine Light Total Car Repair Costs by State – 2011
(Source: CarMD.com Corp., CarMD® Vehicle Health Index™)
http://corp.carmd.com/Page/Detail/214?subId=215

Ranking State Labor Parts Total Bill
1 Indiana $107.85 $176.10 $283.95
2 Maine $113.65 $175.91 $289.56
3 Wisconsin $108.95 $180.95 $289.90
4 Iowa $112.59 $177.32 $289.91
5 New Hampshire $101.19 $191.47 $292.66
46 Arizona $129.18 $233.47 $362.65
47 Montana $136.00 $228.29 $364.29
48 California $130.54 $237.32 $367.86
49 Utah $138.21 $240.33 $378.54
50 Wyoming $141.48 $247.70 $389.18

Other Key Findings:
The top five states with the highest car repair costs are from the West, including Wyoming, Utah, California, Montana and Arizona. This can partially be attributed to higher amounts of airborne dust. By putting off replacing air filters in western states, vehicle owners put their vehicles’ mass air flow sensors at risk. On average, this is a $400 repair.

Three of five states with the lowest car repair costs are from the Midwest, including: Indiana, Wisconsin and Iowa. Rounding out the most affordable states for auto repair are Maine and New Hampshire from the Northeastern U.S.

 

[Lindsey]

Auto insurance is a requirement to use state built roads/highways. If there was a private road network available....

We get harassed by the township, if the cars parked in our driveway aren't insured, registered and inspected. I spent nearly $500 to keep a car legal last year that didn't see a single mile on any state built road/highway.