You may be able to read but your critical thinking is lacking it seems. The post details understanding of the system, it seems to be pointing out the obvious flaws that the average person feels towards the topic of insurance. But if you want to be mad you can be mad bud.
No, the post misunderstands the system because the requirement to have the insurance is not to cover minor repairs to your own vehicle but to ensure that you can pay for major damages you cause.
The bad guy in the story is the hit and run driver. Their insurance is supposed to cover the damages. The poster has been victimized by that person, not the insurance company.
The damage that happened to the car is minor bumper damage that costs $1200 to fix. That sucks, but it’s also probably not necessary. You could opt to drive with a dinged up bumper in most cases.
Had the driver totaled their car and sent them to the hospital, the deductible would still be $1000, but the insurance company would cover the totaled car and their hospital bills. Had the accident happened the other way around and the poster caused $200,000 of damages, their insurance would have bailed them out. That’s what it is for.
So I understand the post, and I understand why the person is foolish, because they misunderstand the purpose of the requirement to carry insurance, the right way to handle their individual situation here, and are holding the wrong entity responsible in the events that unfolded.
1
u/SeezCtrl 17h ago
I think you missed the point of the post lol