1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/12152/why-not-universal-car-insurance/

Why Not Universal Car Insurance?

March 11, 2010 by

With universal mandates, insurance companies no longer compete for multiple clients, but for just one — this is called a monopsony. The amount of eligible insurance companies quickly dwindles. FULL ARTICLE by Jonathan M. Finegold Catalan

{ 78 comments }

Predrag March 11, 2010 at 6:01 pm

A well-written article. Even many non-economists see mandatory car insurance as overpriced and often unnecessary.

Overpriced March 11, 2010 at 6:18 pm

Of course it’s overpriced. If you “must” buy it, they can charge whatever they want.

Russ March 11, 2010 at 7:05 pm

Why not universal car insurance?! Please, don’t give them any ideas!

Jim March 12, 2010 at 2:56 am

Many states already have mandated car insurance — not so different than the mandated insurance in the Health Bill. It’s done nothing to reduce costs.

Florida has a government run “insurer of last resort” for homeowners insurance. The result — many private insurer don’t sell homeower’s insurance anymore and the government insurance is going broke.

If the lawmakers just looked at what’s already been done before, they would see that most of the proposed insurance bill won’t work over the long term.

Telpeurion March 11, 2010 at 7:17 pm

In California you cannot drive without car insurance… A policy that hurts the poor, like me. I think not having insurance makes me just that more careful about getting in an accident. Not only will it be out of pocket, BUT I will be prosecuted if they find out I do not have the ‘insurance’.

Russ March 11, 2010 at 8:34 pm

Even in an ancap society, the owners of the roads could require that you have insurance in order to drive on their roads. This may “hurt the poor”, but it would hurt the other person if you are uninsured and hit and severely injure a person.

nate-m February 28, 2011 at 3:25 am

poor people need insurance more then the rich people do. They are much less likely to be able to afford to cover another person’s costs in a accident.

One of those things I always think about when driving is what would the roads and traffic be like in a ‘ancap’ type society.

I always imagine them being much narrower roads, but also very numerous. Also they would often lie at the edges of people’s property since most people are not going to be happy with roads bisecting their property, but would like to take advantage of the extra income roads may provide and would like to have easy access to commercial centers. There would probably be a lot less of them paved, and generally be poorer quality. But there would be many more numerous and less traffic congestion as a result.. if one roads was stopped up people could always choose a dozen different roads. It would be easier to just go ‘as the crow flies’ from one area to another, but at slower speeds and smaller vehicles.

But big ‘interstate’ style roads would develop were there was a necessary convergence. Like in mountainous areas and bridges across large rivers.

Also medium and short distance air travel would be much more common and much cheaper. I know that currently every rural town has a airport near buy, often for agricultural purposes. Those would be much more public then they are now.

Interesting to imagine.

Gil March 11, 2010 at 9:04 pm

The poor shouldn’t get that sort of sympathy. They can get privileges when they get a job.

James March 12, 2010 at 5:51 pm

You can have a job and still be poor.

boo March 28, 2010 at 12:10 pm

well what if i was hit by a drunk driver and am poor because of it and cant get a job because of it.so they put u on ssi disablity and have the goverment because the seventy year old lady that hit me insurance didnt pay enough to cover the hospital bills.and lets not mention the years of pain and alll the rest that i have to deal with because of this wreck.and the treament at the hospital after.but does that give the goverment the right to tell me that i ahve to have insurance or they will put me in jail cause im poor due to getting hit b a drunk?in my moments of clarity sometimes i think wow how sad.we have given the goverment the right to put us in jail if we dont pay a private company or corporation money.isnt that what insurance companies r?a private co.well i say if u dot pay me.boo inc… u go to jail..wtf?ur telling me if i dont pay for some fat cat executive to vaca in the bahammas i get to go to jail?and continue to go to jail just to drive?wow this isnt the usa i thought it was suppose to b.i was born and raised here and i hate it.the usa spends 75% of all the money spent on military of all the countries in the world.but cant pay for dental services for someone on ssi disability.if joe dont build the bomb suzy cant go to the nice school.and if joe builds it u have to use it.so joe gets overtime.so joes wife can drive that bmw.made in china.wtf america?wtf?

Franklin August 3, 2010 at 3:26 pm

I’m all for giving them sympathy. In fact, I will double, no triple, your sympathy. Ante up.

buck November 9, 2010 at 2:58 pm

Car insurance is a slobs way of getting the masses to get civil and to have no car in america is…well just creepy just not cool just sub human…..so no car insurance no car well that there stuff is a privilage just ask a cop.He will tell you all you need to do is go to school and get a job like his other wise your sub human.

Fred March 11, 2010 at 11:04 pm

I’m from Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Ontario has a government managed insurance program. On a Sunday, my 1998 Volvo S70 was totaled in an accident; damage was $23,000, all passengers were unhurt (Thank you Volvo!). Forty three days later I recieved a cheque for $3450 and returned the rental car provided by my policy. Cost for the rental was about $1750. There were also 2 towing charges and auto body assessment charges. In reality, the claim could have been settled the next day, saving at least $1700. Insurance rates in Ontario are going up. Now, I wonder if the formula is based on a percentage of the claim costs? In Ontario I think the poor are only getting poorer. Insurance is mandatory in Ontario. However, Ontario also has a government funded agency which covers the costs for accident victims involved with uninsured motorists. Uninsured motorists are put on a time payment plan.

Martin March 12, 2010 at 5:03 am

As always, a very one sided article on Mises. The author claims his opinions to be facts without giving reasons. I am happy to live in society where hard working people do not lose everything they worked for, just because no company would insure them on account of a genetic disease.

And I just love to read comments like “The poor shouldn’t get that sort of sympathy. They can get privileges when they get a job.”

One thing you are all sure of is that everybody could become rich if they just worked hard enough. Yeah right.

Eric M. Staib March 12, 2010 at 5:19 am

More unique, creative thoughts from the left! *eyeroll*

frank March 12, 2010 at 5:42 am

Martin – are you taking the time to fully digest the teaching of the Mises institute? You say:

“One thing you are all sure of is that everybody could become rich if they just worked hard enough. Yeah right.”

This statement is yours and not a quote (as far as I know) from any scholars on this site. What does “everyone…. [becoming] rich” mean? Raising everyone’s standard of living? We suggest here that free-markets are the best way, by far, of raising everyone’s standard of living. Here is a (non-austrian) free-market economist stating this very clearly:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A

If by “rich” you mean in proportion to the rest of the members of the economy, are you saying that there are other ways to become rich in western societies other than by working hard? I would agree 100% – as would I think everyone writing for this site? Here is one statement of this (of hundreds) on this site:

http://mises.org/daily/4125

This is why Austrian’s advocate property rights (especially hard money), free markets and minimal government. You say:

“I am happy to live in society where hard working people do not lose everything they worked for, just because no company would insure them on account of a genetic disease”

Me too. However, what if there are just too many programs providing people with access to such resource depleting/consuming activities? What if the labour and resources economy wide start to run out? What would happen then? (Hint: recession.)

In a free market, the resources can be reallocated constantly so as to optimize their productivity – in programs like the one you propose were you “just do it whatever”, this is not possible. Have you heard of “opportunity costs”, of the “Broken Window”, of the “seen” and “unseen”?

You think this is harsh? I do too – but life is harsh, and you can continue to live pretending the current “economy” is not the ponzi scheme it is or you can get back to reality. Doctors do triage every day – a doctor claiming every person and every disease is a priority is debasing the word and meaning none are a priority. This doesn’t mean he doesn’t care about those second in line, it is just a simple recognition that time and resources are not infinite. Or do you think doctors should operate a “cab rank rule” (as applies to barristers in the UK), which says you treat people as they arrive? What strategy exactly do you think doctors – faced with too many patients for their available resources – should do? (Do you think these resources should be just made available no matter what? If so, I refer you to my comment above.)

Predrag March 12, 2010 at 6:47 am

Being one sided is not necessarily a bad thing. It gives you the opprtunity to present the other side. But, your presentation is fairly unclear. If you could elaborate, that would be great.

Inquisitor March 13, 2010 at 4:37 am

I think your claim that it is “one-sided” is borne of one-sided leftism. Now what? BTW, I wouldn’t want to live in a hard-nosed society either. Guess what – it’s called philanthropy and the free market, both better provisioners for human need than ANY statist scheme/scam.

Inquisitor March 13, 2010 at 4:45 am

BTW the reason he does not give ‘reasons’ is because he assumes people are familiar with economics. If you’re not (i.e. of how subsidising a good affects its price/quality), then yes, it will be a mystery to you, sadly.

Phil July 24, 2010 at 12:14 pm

“…everybody could become rich if they just worked hard enough…”Are you sure with this statement? Worked hard is not enough to become rich. I work harder than majority of people in my town, but I am not rich :-)

mpolzkill July 24, 2010 at 12:28 pm

Yeah, I worked like a Japanese beaver on my giant gold-plated tricycle and the whole thing just about put me in the poor house.

Jonathan Finegold Catalán March 12, 2010 at 9:52 am

Martin,

What propositions, in particular, did I not provide evidence for?

Predrag March 12, 2010 at 12:03 pm

Fred, I feel your pain. I live in Kitchener. Up until recently, I had an ’85 BMW 318i. For about two years, I paid around $300 per month because the car was “too old”, even though my friend, mechanic, and I made the car run like a clockwork. But, even paying $300/month was better than spending $10,000 on a newer car that would serve me equally well, and still paying $150+ in insurance. Also, you get attached to it when you know every part on it. I waited till there was a need for a bigger car to replace it.

Doug March 12, 2010 at 3:17 pm

Uh, in case you hadn’t noticed, insurance itself is a form of socialism. You pay premiums, which are the equivalent of taxes, then when you have an auto wreck, the community of the insured people, via the insurance company, pays all the costs of your negligence. If you really are against socialism in all forms, you will not purchase any insurance, other than the bare minimum required by law, and will voluntarily pay all costs above and beyond the amount you’ve paid in premiums. Then you can truly take the high road without looking like a hypocrite.

Railing against “government insurance” is like saying you are against “socialized socialism” – it is redundant and if you are against the one, you are against the other.

Jonathan Finegold Catalán March 12, 2010 at 3:41 pm

Doug,

I’m not sure why you consider insurance a “form of socialism”. Premiums are not a tax, because you pay the premium voluntarily. That’s like saying the premium you pay to join a gym is a tax, and that obviously is untrue.

In a free-market, and in any market really, an individual would purchase insurance because that individual believes that there is a high risk of having whatever he is insuring himself for happening to him. For example, I choose to insure myself and my automobile because I feel there might be a high risk of having my car totaled. I pay a monthly charge, and a premium, to have my insurance company cover all damage costs on my car and on the victim’s car. Over the long-run it may turn out that I paid the insurance company much more than what the accident cost me, but the fact remains that while I have the ability to pay a large sum of money over a long period of time, I might not have been able to afford the damages done during the accident all at one time.

The bottom line is that insurance is voluntary. Voluntary insurance can in no way be “socialistic”.

Doug March 13, 2010 at 3:08 am

Last time I checked, automobile insurance was mandatory, at least in the state in which I live. I am not allowed to drive a vehicle without purchasing insurance. Whether or not I have a wreck, I have to pay the insurance and, if I stop driving without having had a wreck, I don’t get that money back. Instead the money I contributed to the pool was used to pay for the wrecks caused by other, less responsible and less careful, drivers.

That is exactly how taxes and socialism work – you pay into the pool according to your ability and take out according to your “need”.

Now the government is trying to pass a law that will make me purchase health insurance, whether I want to do so or not. If I don’t, I will be fined. If I refuse to pay the fine, I will get carted off to prison. If I resist arrest, I will be killed. THAT is the essence of socialism in all its basic forms – confiscation of assets against the will of the owner and the use (or threatened use) of violence to enable the confiscation, and finally, the further enrichment of an already wealthy corporate entity, which has its tentacles woven throughout the government to create the very laws that allow it to grow fat off the labor of the masses.

Socialism, whether in its fascist or communist form, always winds up putting large amounts of public assets into the hands of the few “elites”, either party or corporate bosses.

Jonathan Finegold Catalán March 13, 2010 at 2:19 pm

Doug,

I am afraid you are missing the point. You are not describing an insurance market in a free-market, you are describing a mandatory insurance system as prescribed by state law. An insurance market in a free-market cannot be socialistic. You said insurance is inherently socialist, and it is not.

Fred March 12, 2010 at 5:04 pm

Real insurance is not socialism. Purchasers of insurance are pooled and their premiums are based on actuarial probabilities making the provision of insurance an entrepreneurial venture.

The actuarial expected life spans and health issues of smokers and non-smokers differ. In Ontario, Canada they both pay the same “health care premium”. Smokers and non-smokers pay different life insurance premiums. The reason for the preceding situation is that health care premiums, as paid in Ontario, Canada, are not insurance premiums (essentially a tax as you stated). The lifer insurance premiums are insurance premiums and are based on actuarial probabilities. The lifeco either profits or loses based on its underwriting policies hence it is an entrepreneurial venture.

Inquisitor March 13, 2010 at 4:40 am

Voluntarily pooling money at premia determined by the insurance agency in accordance with its risk is socialism… how? Do you enjoy fabricating things? Insurance may (or may not be, depending on circumstances) a more efficient market mechanism for dealing with risk. I honestly despair when I see how horribly mediocre some people’s understanding of markets is… Insurance in fact comes with highly tiered price structures… and is guided by the profit motive in directing resources. It’s highly capitalist, as such.

JAlanKatz March 12, 2010 at 5:45 pm

Fred, I’ve often wondered exactly how that works. If it’s by self-reporting, what is the incentive for a smoker to tell the truth? If not,how do they do it? Do they have agents whose job is it follow random customers to see if they smoke or not, or do they inspect the home, etc.?

Fred March 15, 2010 at 6:29 pm

I think the incentive to tell the truth when you obtain a life insurance policy would be your autopsy results. If you said you didn’t smoke and evidence of smoking was obtained during autopsy (to determine cause of death) your beneficiaries would not recieve the payout.

Predrag March 12, 2010 at 6:13 pm

If it is voluntary, it is not a tax.

mpolzkill July 24, 2010 at 12:37 pm
Khwarizmi March 12, 2010 at 8:20 pm

The United States has infant mortality rates far in excess of those documented in countries ranging from socialist Cuba to capitalist Australia. An emotional attachment to a very selective “free market” philosophy can only be maintained by misrepresentation or denial of the comparative evidence, or by the categorizing of the poor in U.S. parlance as “trash” or “losers,” unworthy of treatment due to their own laziness or personal misfortune. Only when they “get a job” in an economy intentionally screwed by the deregulated actions of banksters, for example, can such lower-caste people be deemed worthy of even mere “sympathy,” according to one poster above.

I don’t see anyone complaining about “socialized warfare” with regard to the U.S. military, which has, of course, a mindblowing budget mulcted from people who actually produce things.

Regarding the allocation of “welfare”, y’all need to put things in perspective:
http://i.imgur.com/C5hAo.gif

Regards,
Leon,
Australia

Jonathan Finegold Catalán March 12, 2010 at 10:44 pm

Leon,

It’s important to remember that the United States’ health insurance system is very far from that of a free-market. Costs have been driven up, from costs of service to costs of drugs. Knowing the universal healthcare system in Spain, I concede that for a small amount of time a universal healthcare system can work effectively. The problem, as outlined in this article, is that these monopolies are untenable over the long-run, and also drop in quality—as we can see in countries which have had universal healthcare systems for long periods of time.

Like I allude to in the article, looking for empirical evidence in support of universal healthcare by looking at infant mortality rates, et cetera, are at best misleading. A free-market in healthcare would churn out better results than both the United States and countries with full universal healthcare systems.

I understand that the above will not persuade you, but I hope that giving you my perspective makes you more perceptive to the message of the article.

By the way, if you don’t think that we criticize public militaries then I invite you the search the Mises Dailies archived.

Khwarizmi March 13, 2010 at 11:22 pm

Jonathan,

Thank you for the polite response.
You are right to assume that your paragraphs would not persuade me, for there is no evidence to which I can refer other than the Spanish system, which you concede works, if only for “a small amount of time.” I would be happy to scrutinize the performance of a more stable and completely deregulated model, if you can point me to one.

Following my recent death-defying impact with a truck, I found myself looking at the experience through the lens of the Austrian health care model, “the best health care system in Europe in 2007,” and what came into focus for me looked like better health care with lower expenditure. I didn’t worry too much about the damage to my car, the cost of my insurance premium, or the pros on cons of abstract economic theories at that point. I was just glad to be alive!

Anyway, I will keep my eyes open for articles critical of the military funding algorithm here at mises.org, and apologize for attacking a strawman.

Regards,
Leon.

Jonathan Finegold Catalán March 14, 2010 at 12:29 am

Leon,

Just to specify, the Spanish model works horribly. 50% of the population in Madrid uses private insurance instead. Myself, I went without a year without insurance at all, because the state refused to cover me and socialization had made the private option so expensive.

I’m sure that if I was covered by the Spanish system, and something horrible happened to me and I was “saved” through their public healthcare network I would believe it to be sufficient enough, as well. Unfortunately, that still does not address the moral and economic arguments against socialized insurance programs.

Inquisitor March 13, 2010 at 4:42 am

Please read some materials on this site before accusing us of nonsense promulgated by conservatives… we’re anti-war and the current system is not a free market ergo no one blames all the poor for their failings based on the hindrances imposed by a fascist/corporatist/quasi-socialist system.

newson March 13, 2010 at 5:18 am

http://bit.ly/19RkaF

yeah, the el lider maximo would never lie about health care, and michael moore is an honorable man.

newson March 14, 2010 at 9:30 pm

michael moore = leni riefenstahl

Scott D March 15, 2010 at 1:08 am

“The United States has infant mortality rates far in excess of those documented in countries ranging from socialist Cuba to capitalist Australia.”

This one makes me extremely angry any time it is trotted out because it is so devious. What is pushing up the infant mortality rate in the US is low birth rate, acknowledged in this report:
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=6219&type=0

“Low birthweight is the primary risk factor for infant mortality and most of the decline in neonatal mortality (deaths of infants less than 28 days old) in the United States since 1970 can be attributed to increased rates of survival among low-birthweight newborns. Indeed, comparisons with countries for which data are available suggest that low birthweight newborns have better chances of survival in the United States than elsewhere. ”

Doesn’t that strike you as odd? Babies in the highest risk group for infant mortality have a BETTER chance for survival in the United States? Somehow that doesn’t seem to jive with the propaganda that we’ve been fed telling us that babies die because our health care system sucks.

Oh, but it gets better. If you read further in that report, we find out that the reason for the high infant mortality in the US is that more low birth weight babies are born. In fact, a baby born with low birth weight is 37 times more likely to die within 28 days than one with normal weight, here: http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/34415043/Effect-of-low-birth-weight-on-infant-mortality-Analysis-Using-Weibull-Hazard-Model

37 times more likely to die. Keep that number in mind. That’s 97% of infant mortality attributable to a single cause.

“Aha”, the vigilant socialist says, “those low birth weights wouldn’t be happening if our medical care didn’t suck so much!” Not quite. There are many risk factors for low birth weight. Smoking, multiple births, alcohol, and socioeconomic background can all be risk factors. The biggest overall factor is teenage pregnancy. Guess which country has the highest rate of teenage live births. Anyone?
http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/repcard3e.pdf

Take a look at page 6. I would have liked to have had more recent data, but scattered references seemed to suggest that there was a slight increase in the last 10 years. The next closest nation, the UK, has only about 60% as many, and it drops off quite a bit more after that. Much of the difference can be attributed to a higher rate of abortion in those nations, especially among teens.

So, in essence, if universal healthcare in the US is going to tackle the problem of infant mortality, its first task will be to prevent teen pregnancy while promoting more abortions among this troubled age group.

Do you understand why I’m angry now? They lie. They know the facts, or they would if they studied it for any reasonable amount of time, but cherry pick the truth to present the picture they want to promote. It is sickening.

Eric March 12, 2010 at 8:32 pm

The only similarity between auto and health insurance is that they are both called insurance. One covers damage you cause by voluntarily using a large unecessary vehicle in a reckless manner. The other attempts to insulate you from the outrageous cost of medical care you can not refuse. If you don’t want to buy auto insurance you can always ride a bicycle instead, but in medical care there are no options other than paying a lot of money one way or another. Emergency medical care is similar to fire fighting, which was socialized long ago because in an emergency, the person needing the service is at an extreme market disadvantage. Often a private fire company would give a building owner without fire insurance the choice of selling the building on the spot for a fraction of its value or watching it burn. A better extortion model is to get the government to force the fire company to put out all fires, but allow them to bill as much as a building is worth. Not only do they get more money, but theres no choice. That’s the business model hospitals use. Medical bills aren’t based on time and resources consumed, they are based on the number of dollars a person is worth.

Some argue that it is the government causing high medical costs through regulation, but the regulators in government service come from the industry and hope to return to it. Regulations that increase costs are great for business when people have no choice but to accept services, and it’s great to use government authority on both fronts. Doctors know plenty of ways to save money, but they are not allowed to do anything but the “proven best” by lawyers, the AMA, and the government. Just as there is an industry designed to cash in on the misfortune of patients, there is a similar industry to cash in on the misfortune of doctors.

The problem with a market approach in medicine is that the business model is the same one used by kidnappers, extortionists, and private fire companies. Emergency care should be socialized like fire fighting. Longer term medical care should be on a cash basis, with the option of using cheap old fashioned medicine and not only the latest and greatest. The medical industry started using government to its own advantage 50 years ago, so there will be no government solution.

Jonathan Finegold Catalán March 12, 2010 at 10:49 pm

Eric,

I think you missed the point of the article. It was not meant to compare auto and medical insurance as insurance models, per sé. The analogy only meant to compare the two assuming both were completely socialized. In other words, the article gives an economic argument on why government monopolies are fiscally untenable and a moral argument on why they are theft.

Under the current system, you are right that the medical market works through extortion. That is not bound to happen in a free-market thanks to an economic factor known as “competition”—this competition has been done away thanks to all the government interventions in the health care market since Roosevelt’s New Deal. You mention this in your comment:

Regulations that increase costs are great for business when people have no choice but to accept services, and it’s great to use government authority on both fronts.

You are absolutely correct, which is why government regulation needs to be abolished. This does not reflect on the “market approach”, only on the socialized approach. With this said, I invite you to re-read the article, now understanding that the point was to describe the economic disadvantages to government monopolies.

KingofthePaupers March 13, 2010 at 3:23 am

Jct: With computers, we can do large database self-insurance. No one pays premiums but when there’s a fire, everyone chips in, not work like on a work bee, but a credit. See: http://johnturmel.com/abprogs.htm for how large database self-insurance can be done.

Clayton March 14, 2010 at 4:35 pm

Can you imagine how expensive car insurance would be if it included oil and filter changes? Tires? Free diagnostics?

I point that out to people who comment how expensive health insurance is. I often say that in a free market, I would prefer to buy health insurance that only covered unpredictable and prohibitively expensive things like unexpected cancers, car wrecks, broken bones (I don’t have a manual job), etc.

I don’t need insurance to cover check ups, penicillin, etc.

I was recently in a car accident and I had to pay out of pocket (to keep receipts to provide to the other guy’s liability insurance) and was amazed how inexpensive it all was. $105 for the checkup (would be $70 if I had to really pay for it myself, but they charged more because it is to a 3rd party) and the pain killers and muscle relaxers were only a total of $34. I guess with my copay they would have been $10 or something.

Point is, when you insure “day to day” expenses like a check up or an oil change, the prices of check ups and oil changes would go through the roof.

Health care is expensive because we have too much health insurance already. If people paid cash out of pocket it forces price competition and reduces paper work expense.

matt marksbury April 22, 2010 at 1:27 am

Requiring a person who drives to carry auto insurance is understandable, because of the risk you may harm someone or damage there property, but requiring someone to carry Individual Health Insurance is not right. Will a sick person ever cause damage to someone else then have there health insurance pay the damages, no.

Johnathan A April 26, 2010 at 4:10 am

Good article. The insurance premiums have become important criteria for every one. May it be a health insurance or auto insurance it has became a rule that every one have to do pay it. I have a new BMW car and its one best car compared to other brands of cars. The car insurance classic plan provides you all insurance benefits such as agreed cover for your vehicle, protection against liability to third party damages, protection against fire, theft and accident in addition to breakdown cover and many other benefits.

Premium Health Insurance May 11, 2010 at 6:27 am

If universal health care passes why do we need car insurance?

loan modification attorney Florida June 18, 2010 at 11:49 am

Thomas J. Sherwood is an expert loan modification attorney Florida and can help you save your home from foreclosure by reducing your interest rate, lowering your monthly payments, and in some cases even reducing your principle balance owed.

Dubjohnston July 7, 2010 at 11:34 pm

Hi Webmaster,

Today we have got your web-blog on search engines, and read your web-blog and it is very good and informative, please keep it up.

Thanks,
Corwin

carinsuranceq July 14, 2010 at 2:04 am

hmm…interesting post :)

Pregnancy Advocate July 26, 2010 at 9:23 am

I could not agree more with Doug; That is exactly how taxes and socialism work – you pay into the pool according to your ability and take out according to your “need”.

Now the government is trying to pass a law that will make me purchase health insurance, whether I want to do so or not. If I don’t, I will be fined. If I refuse to pay the fine, I will get carted off to prison. If I resist arrest, I will be killed. THAT is the essence of socialism in all its basic forms –

Pretty soon the government will simply outright PAY for abortion, no more pregnancy rights. Already children under the age of 17 can have an abortion WITHOUT their parents being made aware of it through “government” abortion clinics. Government because in my opinion the government supports these clinics openly through its current socialism goals.

Brian July 26, 2010 at 7:52 pm

Hi Jonathan,

I really enjoyed your article even though some missed the point as you’ve pointed out. I really liked this quote in particular, “The new culture has become more about the “right” to have opportunities made available for you, rather than the right to make opportunities for yourself.” Well said, my friend.

Have a great day, Jonathan!

Brian
Shaklee Distributor

e39 m5 July 28, 2010 at 3:12 pm

I’ve often thought that the “required” status of car insurance is a cash grab too. I think the article is good, but it misses the point of the “bank account” approach. Shouldn’t insurance be a shared pool of the ‘average’ insured cost over time?

NYC Tow guy August 3, 2010 at 2:50 pm

This sounds like a very bad idea.

Glendale Auto Insurance Quotes August 4, 2010 at 1:57 pm

Fred, I feel your pain. I live in Kitchener. Up until recently, I had an ’85 BMW 318i. For about two years, I paid around $300 per month because the car was “too old”, even though my friend, mechanic, and I made the car run like a clockwork. But, even paying $300/month was better than spending $10,000 on a newer car that would serve me equally well, and still paying $150+ in insurance. Also, you get attached to it when you know every part on it. I waited till there was a need for a bigger car to replace it.

This is what I plan to do with mine. Getting a new car nowadays is just too expensive and like you said, you grow fond of the car (well, at least men do) and want it to run forever (again, men only).

Atlanta Auto Insurance Quotes August 4, 2010 at 6:07 pm

Uh, in case you hadn’t noticed, insurance itself is a form of socialism. You pay premiums, which are the equivalent of taxes, then when you have an auto wreck, the community of the insured people, via the insurance company, pays all the costs of your negligence. If you really are against socialism in all forms, you will not purchase any insurance, other than the bare minimum required by law, and will voluntarily pay all costs above and beyond the amount you’ve paid in premiums. Then you can truly take the high road without looking like a hypocrite.

Ha, good point. I never looked at it like that before.

Leonard Robbins August 25, 2010 at 7:03 pm

As an independent life insurance agent, I believe these issues have no clear correct answer. I guess it’s human nature to want others to pay for something you think of as unnecessary. I am constantly amazed by calls I get for life insurance from people on dialysis or some other life threatening situation. Only then do they feel their “rights” are violated.

California Life Insurance

monica12 August 26, 2010 at 6:53 am

Interesting……you make a valid point. I believe there should be universal car insurance and quote rightly said for students in particular. Ou government does nothing to help students who cant afford to pay much and it is left to the parents to fork out money for them which by the way I think isnt great.

My point is this yes I agree but then there needs to be a set crietria too.

At Compare quotes, as a student you are able to find some great information on getting auto insurance discount plus how to exctly do this, not to mention some great deals on
auto insurance

Car Insurance advisor September 7, 2010 at 7:56 am

I am a student and I pay very high insurance rates with a clean driving record. My rates are high because I am a 22 year old male driver. I am in a high premium group because of my age and gender. I pay for, and attend university full time, and pay for my car insurance. Having large car insurance payments is a much larger burden for a student to pay versus a non-student that does not have the added expense for school. Some government help would be nice here because the educated will contribute alot more money on average back to the government in their lifetime… yet we struggle to get started.

rocky robbin September 12, 2010 at 2:24 pm

If quality and great savings are what you are looking for look no further – we are the best. affordable seo services

wyne November 16, 2010 at 6:18 am

INSURANCE

We’re known for our friendly and personal service. Using our resources you don’t have to deal with multiple insurance companies to find the best rates. We do that for you. To find out more visit our Services page on how we work for you.

auto injury claim December 16, 2010 at 7:28 pm

Thank you for sharing your idea with us. It sounds great that the car insurance could be universal in the future. However, the rules are quite different among the countries, it will be difficult to apply it.

lawyer perth December 16, 2010 at 9:10 pm

It is really an excellent idea that we could apply the universal car insurance, so that we could share the information all over the world.

injury lawyers victoria December 16, 2010 at 9:13 pm

Thank you for providing us the interesting topic for us to discuss. It is no doubt that the car insurance is essential for most of us. We should compare with different companies then we could make the final decision.

ביטוח January 5, 2011 at 10:30 am

Now in days Insurance is very important for the busy life.I saw your blog.It is very nice and interesting.Mainly your insurance point is like me.Thanks…………

ביטוח January 22, 2011 at 7:16 am

Insurance helps us to recover from the cause of accidental damages and losses. When the automobiles are taken into the account, they often meet with the accidents resulting huge loss of money. The Coles Insurance found to be the top online resource center that helps you in selecting the right car and motor insurance policy. They provide you the car insurance quotes from the leading car insurance companies.

law firms sydney January 24, 2011 at 6:45 am

Thank you for sharing the information with us. It is no doubt that the insurance companies and law firms are increasingly important in our life today. They could protect our rights and reduce our damage in the future. Furthermore, we could ask them for the professional advice.

save your home February 2, 2011 at 10:18 am

You had a tremendous numbers of comments here that may help us researchers.Nowadays in this declining global economy situation there are plenty of people searching for answers to their problems such as how to pay their mortgages, how to prevent homes to foreclosure and some other things that has a money matter.

Berrigan Doube Lawyers February 7, 2011 at 10:03 pm

Most of the insurance companies can offer universal car insurance. But it is pretty expensive and the output you gets back if any thing happens is very low

essays term papers February 10, 2011 at 1:18 am

Your work is very good and I appreciate you and hoping for some more informative posts. Thank you for sharing great information to us.

about car insurance February 28, 2011 at 12:49 am

From my experience it is much better to contact car insurance agency for information and see what they offer to us, we compare it with another several companies.

By the way, thank you for another essential article.

lawyer perth March 18, 2011 at 12:32 am

Get the lawyer advice before making your decision! you will be always safe!

Insurance Roswell April 1, 2011 at 10:47 am

At least some type of basic coverage is better than nothing! Yes, the costs can hurt the “poor”.. but I agree with a previous comment.. what about the other individual(s) involved? Either all those driving need to be covered or none. It’s all subjective and of course it’s unfair to whoever you’re asking.

pellet mills May 9, 2011 at 3:33 am

Why Not Universal Car Insurance? This is a interesting question.In my oppinon, it is a good way to protect the car and the people in saving

Ecklusiv Reisen June 9, 2011 at 10:20 am

interesting article from you

Universal Garage Remote June 20, 2011 at 11:06 pm

Monopsony is new term to me. I didn’t know about it until I have read your article. Thank you so much. It was very helpful and informative. Great article.

Oregon Insurance Quote October 18, 2011 at 8:42 pm

What about trying Independent Insurance Agents? The independent companies work harder than the big companies to keep customers and they cost less in premiums each month customers.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: