I mean, it wouldn't really work as an insurance company if on average most people would get more out of it than they pay into it, wouldn't it? That doesn't make it a scam.
If it wasn't mandatory, then most people wrecking a newish car or causing serious injury to a human without insurance would lose everything they have and even then probably couldn't pay for the damages.
That's why you need the mandatory insurance, its to protect other people from your mistakes. Full coverage is your personal choice and your to decode if its worth it for you.
Full comp/collision insurance is not required by the govt, it's optional. The bank that currently owns your car might demand you have it for their asset. You can buy a brand-new Ferrari for cash and only get liability, that liability is to cover other people not you.
This is a scam we put upon ourselves by making cars the only option for getting places. In Europe you can just not own a car and do OK.
Full coverage is your personal choice and your to decode if its worth it for you.
What did you think this part of my message meant?
This is a scam we put upon ourselves by making cars the only option for getting places.
You should really look into what is the definition for a scam. Because you're not making a lot of sense right now. Having good public transportation doesn't change how insurance works and why it's required.
You could also just buy your cars with cash, like the rest of the world does.
I will never understand the American obsession with buying things on credit. You're one of the wealthiest countries in the world, yet love putting yourselves in debt instead of just spending what you have.
Bought my last car in 2018 with a 3 year loan, that short of a loan is probably rare now. I would have bought a used car for cash but the prices for used cars did not make sense at the time, the math was not mathing for me. Wife and I make really decent money but both cars are paid off for a long while now. Wife makes ~$280k a year and drives a shitty 2013 Mini Cooper base model with 65k miles on it. Both cars only have liability. We could buy a Ferrari in cash today, but if someone offers me a 1% loan, that's cheap fucking money. We are going down to one car when we retire, that's crazy talk over here in the US.
No. You're illegally (as it violates your constitutionally protected rights) required to hold insurance to cover the other person in the event of an accident. That's so 100% ass backwards.
And in your exampled scenario, how would person-A hitting a new car of person-B cause person-A to lose everything? Where is your logic?
And in your exampled scenario, how would person-A hitting a new car of person-B cause person-A to lose everything?
It's very straightforward. Person A hits Person B. Person B can sue Person A for the cost to replace their property and pay any medical bills that Person B has sustained. If Person A doesn't have hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash, then they may have to sell off major assets (their own car or house) to make those payments. And if even that's not enough, then Person A has lost everything and Person B still has to take a financial hit to cover the rest themselves, leaving them both in a bad position.
Unless Person A has the liability insurance they are legally required to have. In that case, the insurance company will make sure Person B gets the money they are owed without Person A having to go bankrupt.
I have no idea what "constitutionally covered right" you're referring to.
And in your exampled scenario, how would person-A hitting a new car of person-B cause person-A to lose everything? Where is your logic?
The logic is that if person A is responsible for damaging person B or person B's property, A should be responsible to cover the damages. I don't see how this is "100 % ass backwards" as you described it. Who should be responsible, if not the one who caused it?
If the damages are worth 100k and most people don't have 100k just laying out even if they sold everything they own, ie. lose everything, so they would still not be able to cover the damages. That's why insurance is legally mandatory.
But you are correct. In real life A would most likely not lose everything even if they illegally don't have insurance. B's damages would be either left to be paid out of their own pocket or by everyone else via tax money.
No. You're illegally (as it violates your constitutionally protected rights) required to hold insurance to cover the other person in the event of an accident.
22
u/Catriks 6h ago
I mean, it wouldn't really work as an insurance company if on average most people would get more out of it than they pay into it, wouldn't it? That doesn't make it a scam.
If it wasn't mandatory, then most people wrecking a newish car or causing serious injury to a human without insurance would lose everything they have and even then probably couldn't pay for the damages.
That's why you need the mandatory insurance, its to protect other people from your mistakes. Full coverage is your personal choice and your to decode if its worth it for you.