Poll of the Day > Insurance is basically just gambling, why should people be required to buy it?

(+) Yeah! (+)

"I think it should be up to each individual to consider their options, assets, and risk before making the decision to buy any type of insurance, including health and automotive.

There are people who have been driving for decades without a single accident, people who have never had to visit a hospital in their life, and yet they have to throw away their hard earned money for insurance month after month? Sad.

We as a society should accept the nature of insurance as a form of gambling and not force the burden of it on our more perceptive, prepared, and healthy neighbors who have no real need for it.

If misfortune (or more likely ineptitude) strikes a person who doesn't have the appropriate insurance or outside means to deal with their situation, the course of action is obvious. They decided not to take the bet against their luck and now must pay up.

That is the fatal flaw in the system today, that the "losers" aren't forced to pay their dues despite wanting to enjoy the comforts their bet provides them up until they lose. This blatent unfairness is unacceptable.

If a person makes the deliberate choice to not purchase, say health insurance, and they come down with an illness that is beyond their means to pay for, they should be refused treatment even if it means their death. If a person causes an accident while having no auto insurance, they should have their possessions sold until the balance of the damage is met. If someone does not have the assets to equal the amount they need in a case involving a second party, they should be imprisoned and put to work until they have worked enough to pay for the damages (plus interest, since the gov would have to foot the bill at first). If that person happens to die or abscond with debt, the debt should be transferred to their next of kin, it is not the job of society at large to absorb it for their sake.

If only things could be run like so I'm sure the country would be much better off."

Could someone refute this for me?
---

Dreaming_King posted...

Could someone refute this for me?

Most of the ills insurance covers are those that cannot be attributed to a single faultor. It takes two to get in an accident, someone who eats unhealthy due to lack of funds is at the whims of market forces they can't control, contagious disease gunna contaje.
---

In a perfect world it would probably be cheaper if people just saved up instead of giving that money to an insurer, and we'd have to agree that the guy that owns the Lamborghini pays for the Lamborghini when it crashes.

Now what percentage of the population saves money?

---

^^I think everyone is well aware of those things (or should be anyways) though. If they don't take them into account when deciding if they should get insurance, why should it be the problem of society to cover for them later?
---

Because people demand that other people pay when someone else wrecks their own car, which proxies to insurance. That's dangerous when there are $30,000 cars on the road.

I don't really know exactly how it works, but I imagine it's inconvenient for your insurance company when your "car assaulter" has no insurance, and your own insurance has to foot the bill, which led to this rule. @Jen0125

Yes, I think it's dumb. But no, no matter how well you drive everyone's prone to making mistakes, and not having insurance is gambling.

---

What a unique and original topic.

Because liability insurance is a necessity since, even if bankruptcy laws were repealed in cases that insurance might cover, the person STILL might not have enough assets to cover the damage. If you have $30k in damages and the person only has $5k or $10 in assets, the fact that you're getting everything they have is still going to leave you in the hole. Conversely, when you're leasing or taking a mortgage, your lender is going to want you to get insurance because they have a financial stake there.

Don't want to pay car insurance? Don't drive. Don't want to pay for home insurance? Don't get a mortgage.
---

Aaantlion posted...

If you have $30k in damages and the person only has $5k or $10 in assets, the fact that you're getting everything they have is still going to leave you in the hole.

That was mentioned in the OP. Why not just have them work off the balance in a government run detention work facility? The government pays the balance up front for the other person and then makes the money back with interest from the person responsible.
---

Why am I paying for firefighters to save other people's burning house? Why am I paying for cops to investigate other people murdering other people? Why am I paying for maintenance on roads I never use? Why am I paying for subsidies to farmers growing vegetables I don't eat? Everything should be pay per use.
---

That's called Libertarianism, and it's a joke.

All civilized societies have taxes.

---

Yellow posted...

That's called Libertarianism, and it's a joke.

All civilized societies have taxes.

Jesus said to pay your taxes, checkmate atheists!
---

The only kind of auto insurance that's legally mandated is liability insurance. Which makes sense because most people have no assets so if you hit and injure or kill someone in your car they are legally entitled to compensation. I don't see an issue with that.
---

Let's put this another way.

Lets say there is Law Insurance that covers legal fees in general. The naive impression is that it keeps litigation between parties fair since both party attorneys can just charge to insurance. However, you can make the argument that law-abiding citizens will never need it... "only criminals need law insurance"
---

Dreaming_King posted...

Aaantlion posted...

If you have $30k in damages and the person only has $5k or $10 in assets, the fact that you're getting everything they have is still going to leave you in the hole.

That was mentioned in the OP. Why not just have them work off the balance in a government run detention work facility? The government pays the balance up front for the other person and then makes the money back with interest from the person responsible.

Because that's both impractical and, at the moment, explicitly unconstitutional under the 13th Amendment. And in the case of large debts, it also means that taxpayers are on the hook for a substantial amount of money that many individuals may not be able to cover through their slave labor in their remaining lifespan. And again, there's an easier solution: If you don't want the insurance, don't fucking buy the goods or services that necessitate it. There are very few things where it's mandatory, everywhere else it's just common sense.

VeeVees posted...

Why am I paying for firefighters to save other people's burning house? Why am I paying for cops to investigate other people murdering other people? Why am I paying for maintenance on roads I never use? Why am I paying for subsidies to farmers growing vegetables I don't eat? Everything should be pay per use.

Pay-per-use is impractical, it would really need to be more of a subscription model (with the exception of toll roads). And the only issue with firefighting is that a blaze at one location can affect neighboring structures.

And, tbh, paying for firefighting in principle wouldn't be much different than paying for other kinds of insurance.

Yellow posted...

That's called Libertarianism, and it's a joke.

All civilized societies have taxes.

Even libertarianism can have taxes. More importantly, libertarianism would likely work no worse than anything we have now.
---