Support NeoGAF

[Blackace]

Does that mean they don't have to pay for the UHC?

BTW, I am also for a flat tax instead of a progressive one. I really don't like that just because I make more, i get a bigger percentage taken from me. Not that I am anywhere near the upper echelon, but I hope to someday be.

In Japan that's what it means. Don't know about Europe.

If you make more you pay more income taxes just based on math. 5% of a larger number is larger. But everyone pays the same %. I am good with that.

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

As far as automobile rip offs are concerned I'd be less enraged with insurance and more enraged about the registration and inspection. That's a real fucking rip off. I have to hunt for a fucking piece to my car that God knows if I'll ever find to make it able to 100% pass the inspection and I could fix it just as well with some fucking tape. But I sure as hell could not afford to stop driving and showing up for work in that time, nor could I afford to get a new car, but I also couldn't afford the ticket either. What a nice catch 22.

That said, since insurance is required it should also be required that insurance companies can't deny payment or drop you after an accident.

You shouldn't be holding together a car with tape, sorry. It's not a rip off, it's to keep people froming say it's good enoough for example if someone's muffler comes off going 90 on the highway since they decided they could just hold it together with tape instead of getting a new muffler. Stop being so cheap.

 

[Seth C]

You should only be insuring yourself against financial losses which, should they come to pass, would be unbearable to you.

Yes, statistically you are paying slightly more than the expected value(dollar value times the probability of it occurring) of the financial loss, but you can afford the premium, while you can't afford to have your mortgaged house burn down.

You mean to say that on average you are paying more than your expected value of financial loss. Some people are therefore paying 1000 of times more than any loss they will actually have.

I understand the point of car insurance, but at the same time I have now paid auto insurance for 13 years and have yet to file even one claim. I've paid more insurance on my current car than I paid to purchase it originally. At some point you just start to feel seriously ripped off. Which we are, of course. Insurance is a hugely profitable business (or it wouldn't exist in its current form), so obviously it is ripping off a lot of people for small sums. That's really what this thread was about, I think.

 

[mrkgoo]

So that we let someone else pick ourselves up.

:lol

 

[Manmademan]

That's like saying you just won the lottery so it would be stupid not to play. You're in the minority.

To be fair, I think my reservations are more for car insurance. Hospital visits are eventually a necessary part of life.

he's saying that IF you were involved in an accident and held liable for injuries to another person, the cost is high enough that it will bankrupt you for years. No bank on earth (ESPECIALLY NOW) is going to give you a loan on the spot for a quarter million or a half million dollars with no collateral.

And speaking as someone who used to work with insurance adjusters (albeit rarely) it's VERY common for accidents to be determined to be 10%, 20%, 30% or even 50% your fault even if you think you did "nothing wrong."

put yourself in someone else's shoes for a minute. Some uninsured clown rolls through a red light/brakes fail/is texting and driving and wipes out not only your car, but cripples your ass so you can't work for a year. throws up his hands and says "oops, I'm not insured and can't pay for that! I never thought it would happen to me!"

THAT'S why.

 

[KHarvey16]

I'm not sure. I'm guessing he's trying to point out that buying products contributes to the profits of the manufacturer of that product, so the money is going to their CEOs. Except that's not comparable with insurance because insurance is mandatory.

Seatbelts, windshield wipers, day time running headlights, catalytic converter...these are all mandatory and you paid for those too. Your muffler falls off and you have to replace it. Hell, if you wanna go outside in public it's mandatory you've spent money to buy clothes.

 

[mAcOdIn]

You shouldn't be holding together a car with tape, sorry. It's not a rip off, it's to keep people say so someone's muffler doesn't come off going 90 on the highway since they decided they could just hold it together with tape instead of getting a new muffler. Stop being so cheap.

It's actually a chipped taillight that I could fix with transparent red tape, not an actual car part, just so happens the tail light isn't made anymore but I've finally found one on the internet, looks like the problem is solved.

There are obviously valid parts to that inspection as well, like windshield wipers, brakes, TIRES, of course the lights need to work even though unfortunately so many in my area refuse to signal but I do think there's elements of BS to the inspection as well.

 

[K0NY]

Buying insurance is placing a wager that something expensive will happen to you sometime soon. The longer you keep buying, the more you are gambling without getting any returns. Life insurance is a guaranteed win because there is 100% certainty that you will die. The problem with this kind of a bet is that the house (insurance company) can come up with reasons to not pay off after years of your dedicated wagering.

Not buying insurance is like playing a game of chicken with your fate. The longer you hold off, the more you save. However your potential for disaster keeps climbing as well. Ultimate win is buying insurance the day before your plane explodes while traveling for business. Your family gets paid from travel, personal life, and business insurance.

True optimists should never buy insurance.

 

[ALeperMessiah]

I don't see what profit has to do with my argument.



I'm not sure. I'm guessing he's trying to point out that buying products contributes to the profits of the manufacturer of that product, so the money is going to their CEOs. Except that's not comparable with insurance because insurance is mandatory.

:lol ok, we should give this stuff to the government because they can operate at healthy deficits while companies can't. Sounds like a great idea.

 

[joethefoo]

I understand the point of car insurance, but at the same time I have now paid auto insurance for 13 years and have yet to file even one claim. I've paid more insurance on my current car than I paid to purchase it originally. At some point you just start to feel seriously ripped off. Which we are, of course. Insurance is a hugely profitable business (or it wouldn't exist in its current form), so obviously it is ripping off a lot of people for small sums. That's really what this thread was about, I think.

Having insurance be non-profit or run by the government will not change this.

The whole concept of insurance only works if the majority of people never collect.

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

It's actually a cracked taillight that I could fix with transparent red tape, not an actual car part, just so happens the tail light isn't made anymore but I've finally found one on the internet, looks like the problem is solved.

There are obviously valid parts to that inspection as well, like windshield wipers, brakes, TIRES, of course the lights need to work even though unfortunately so many in my area refuse to signal but I do think there's elements of BS to the inspection as well.

You could try a junk yard etc. too. A lot of third party companies make things like that unless it's a ridiculously old car which even then would be an antique so they would start making it again. In your case it might be ok but usually people aren't that crafty and wouldn't keep up if the tape falls off since one that tapes gets wet it's worthless...

 

[Manmademan]

Buying insurance is placing a wager that something expensive will happen to you sometime soon. The longer you keep buying, the more you are gambling without getting any returns. Life insurance is a guaranteed win because there is 100% certainty that you will die.

not entirely. as I understand it, "term life" only covers you to a set age/number of years. There's another kind of life insurance that DOESN'T expire that's more expensive and tends to require you to take physicals etc. before you qualify. I have this, but someone else (family plan) takes care of the details and expenses.

The whole concept of insurance only works if the majority of people never collect.

Insurance companies don't make money off of your premiums, they make money on the interest that investing your premiums generates them. If everyone on earth got out of insurance EXACTLY the same amount they put in, the insurance company would still win, as long as everyone doesn't file a claim at the same exact time. (see: huge hurricanes and natural disasters)

 

[GSG Flash]

Seatbelts, windshield wipers, day time running headlights, catalytic converter...these are all mandatory and you paid for those too. Your muffler falls off and you have to replace it. Hell, if you wanna go outside in public it's mandatory you've spent money to buy clothes.

Except, like I said, it's not really comparable because those are products, not services, and it's a one time fee for each of those (until you have to replace them that is) items, whereas insurance is more comparable to paying taxes, where we're paying a monthly fee for a service we barely use.

Someone used a gambling analogy for insurance, and I think that fits the description of insurance perfectly.

edit:

:lol ok, we should give this stuff to the government because they can operate at healthy deficits while companies can't. Sounds like a great idea.

I still don't understand what you're trying to say. What does this have to do with me wanting to pay the government for a mandatory service rather than a company who's sole purpose is profit?

 

[BakedPigeon]

OP just does not seem to grasp the concept of how incredibly fucked he would be if an accident were to happen wether that be automotive, or something medical.

Please do us the favor and make a new thread when it comes back to bite you in the ass, that is all.

 

[Xeke]

Except, like I said, it's not really comparable because those are products, not services, and it's a one time fee for each of those (until you have to replace them that is) items, whereas insurance is more comparable to paying taxes, where we're paying a monthly fee for a service we barely use.

Someone used a gambling analogy for insurance, and I think that fits the description of insurance perfectly.

edit:



I still don't understand what you're trying to say. What does this have to do with me wanting to pay the government for a mandatory service rather than a company who's sole purpose is profit?

Driving a car is a privilege not a right.

 

[KHarvey16]

Except, like I said, it's not really comparable because those are products, not services, and it's a one time fee for each of those (until you have to replace them that is) items, whereas insurance is more comparable to paying taxes, where we're paying a monthly fee for a service we barely use.

Someone used a gambling analogy for insurance, and I think that fits the description of insurance perfectly.

So it's not an argument of principal, simply logistics. Insurance is required and expensive, while those other things are cheap. Frankly I think removing the principal angle really deflates the point.

And yes, they are products. But not product you'd necessarily ever want to buy unless they were mandatory.

 

[Barrett2]

Insurance companies don't make money off of your premiums, they make money on the interest that investing your premiums generates them. If everyone on earth got out of insurance EXACTLY the same amount they put in, the insurance company would still win, as long as everyone doesn't file a claim at the same exact time. (see: huge hurricanes and natural disasters)

This. Insurance rates are basically determined by the investment performance of the insurance companies. Rates have very little to do with the amount of claims, barring a catastrophic event, in which case their insurance would kick in.

 

[daw840]

In Japan that's what it means. Don't know about Europe.

If you make more you pay more income taxes just based on math. 5% of a larger number is larger. But everyone pays the same %. I am good with that.

This I can definitely get behind. A flat percentage is perfect.

 

[GDJustin]

I honestly can't believe I'm typing something so obvious, but here goes:

We buy insurance so we don't have to pay a huge sum of $ if something bad happens to us.

 

[mAcOdIn]

You could try a junk yard etc. too. A lot of third party companies make things like that unless it's a ridiculously old car which even then would be an antique so they would start making it again. In your case it might be ok but usually people aren't that crafty and wouldn't keep up if the tape falls off since one that tapes gets wet it's worthless...

Haha, I tried no one had it, was looking for a cheap window too but I'm going to bite the bullet and buy a new one. Some hoodlums broke into my car and stole the change form the console, lol, how fucking lame is that? I had never driven through a winter without a passenger window and that was the most insanely bit of driving I ever did and won't do it again, luckily that weather's over and I have time to find a good deal, but Jesus, I'm surprised that without the passenger window I would pass inspection but if there's a chip on the taillight it fails. The one day it got cold and had freezing rain here the defroster could not keep the temperature inside the car above freezing and the rain would freeze instantly against the windshield. Fucking crazy, had to pull over and walk home despite the damn thing being in perfect working order. Far more dangerous than the chip on the taillight that still worked and could be covered with epoxy, tape, whatever.

I really need to find those punks for the total hell they put me through for my soda money.

 

[GSG Flash]

Driving a car is a privilege not a right.

And I'd much rather it be a privilege that's not dependent on for-profit companies

So it's not an argument of principal, simply logistics. Insurance is required and expensive, while those other things are cheap. Frankly I think removing the principal angle really deflates the point.

And yes, they are products. But not product you'd necessarily ever want to buy unless they were mandatory.

It's a mixture of both actually. Yes the stupid amounts of money these companies charge us plays a part in my argument, but like I said before, I'd be more content paying the same amount to the government rather than to these companies, mainly because I trust the government more (or atleast the Canadian government, even with Harper).

 

[Steriletom]

You mean to say that on average you are paying more than your expected value of financial loss. Some people are therefore paying 1000 of times more than any loss they will actually have.

I understand the point of car insurance, but at the same time I have now paid auto insurance for 13 years and have yet to file even one claim. I've paid more insurance on my current car than I paid to purchase it originally. At some point you just start to feel seriously ripped off. Which we are, of course. Insurance is a hugely profitable business (or it wouldn't exist in its current form), so obviously it is ripping off a lot of people for small sums. That's really what this thread was about, I think.

No doubt that most people will pay more in premiums than they will ever claim. The collective is assuming the risk(and marginal cost) that something unbearably expensive will happen to a single individual of the whole. People buy into insurance on the off chance that it is they, and not someone else, who will have a hurricane destroy their trading fleet, simply because they can afford the additional insurance cost with little burden to their standard of living, but they would be ruined should disaster befall them.

Theoretically, there should be no gain for the insurance companies on the premium; any profit should be derived from investing the premiums before they have to be repaid. Whatever the collective pays into the insurance should eventually make its way back to the collective in the form of payouts on claims during the lifespan of the policy, but I've always assumed that insurance companies still have a small percentage somewhere in the premiums that makes its way into their pockets.

 

[Manmademan]

I honestly can't believe I'm typing something so obvious, but here goes:

We buy insurance so we don't have to pay a huge sum of $ if something bad happens to us.

the flip side is that (assuming that everyone is not a douchebag like OP) as a driver, I don't have to hope and pray and cross my fingers that if I get hit, said driver is responsible enough to have tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars laying around in the bank to pay for hospital and repair bills.

I just have to hope he has enough to be paying for basic liability on his car, which is by NO MEANS expensive.

 

[nestea]

Yeah, I agree that if a person is legally required to subscribe to a service to be able to drive, the government should offer it's own low rate alternative for competition. It'll never happen as long as we have lobbyists, but it's the right thing to do.

 

[nyprimus2]

 

[KHarvey16]

Isn't it a little ridiculous to expect any insurance company to balance, even approximately, what it takes in with what it pays out?

 

[Barrett2]

Theoretically, there should be no gain for the insurance companies on the premium; any profit should be derived from investing the premiums before they have to be repaid. Whatever the collective pays into the insurance should eventually make its way back to the collective in the form of payouts on claims during the lifespan of the policy, but I've always assumed that insurance companies still have a small percentage somewhere in the premiums that makes its way into their pockets.

Insurance companies increase their apparent profit margins by lobbying state governments to decrease capital reserve requirements. When the capital requirements are lowered, the companies can take the excess and count it towards their revenue, I can't remember the specifics, but thats basically the gist of it.

This leads to more rate fluctuation, since more and more companies will face greater financial strains due to even mild increases in claims. This is what leads to rate increases for the most part.

 

[BakedPigeon]

I just have to hope he has enough to be paying for basic liability on his car, which is by NO MEANS expensive.

Which brings us back to the point that driving is a privelage not a right. If you can't be responsible enough to cover your ass and others then you just dont drive at all.

 

[mAcOdIn]

Yeah, I agree that if a person is legally required to subscribe to a service to be able to drive, the government should offer it's own low rate alternative for competition. It'll never happen as long as we have lobbyists, but it's the right thing to do.

I don't think we have to go that far but I do think that the government should regulate the industry better so that companies can not drop you to save money or refuse to pay for coverage you paid for over little technicalities.

 

[Manmademan]

Which brings us back to the point that driving is a privelage not a right. If you can't be responsible enough to cover your ass and others then you just dont drive at all.

I agree with this totally.

 

[Barrett2]

I don't think we have to go that far but I do think that the government should regulate the industry better so that companies can not drop you to save money or refuse to pay for coverage you paid for over little technicalities.

Insurance is actually one of the least regulated industries in America. The Federal government is not allowed to regulate the insurance industry, it is against the law for the Federal government to regulate insurance companies. And most state governments have practically zero regulation, aside from capital requirements.

Insurance is actually by far one of the sleaziest and amoral industries in the country.

 

[unomas]

Like Chris Rock said Insurance should be called " In case shit", but what about if shit doesn't happen? Shouldn't we get our money back?

 

[Blackace]

Like Chris Rock said Insurance should be called " In case shit", but what about if shit doesn't happen? Shouldn't we get our money back?

So by this logic insurance should only cover what you put in?

If you just buy a car and have insurance on it for 3 months you are covered for about $400...

 

[KHarvey16]

Like Chris Rock said Insurance should be called " In case shit", but what about if shit doesn't happen? Shouldn't we get our money back?

Excellent business model .

 

[Vormund]

put yourself in someone else's shoes for a minute. Some uninsured clown rolls through a red light/brakes fail/is texting and driving and wipes out not only your car, but cripples your ass so you can't work for a year. throws up his hands and says "oops, I'm not insured and can't pay for that! I never thought it would happen to me!"

THAT'S why.

Pretty much. Some idiot lady wiped out 4 cars that were parked on the street (mine being the first hit) Not sure if she had insurance.

My insurance company took care of it and chased her for money. I didn't have to worry about anything other than waiting for my car to be fixed. I'd estimate the damage total among the 4 cars to be 70,000. She'd be paying that for a while I bet.

edit: I just remembered something. If you buy a new car in Australia now, I don't think the dealership will give you the car until you have some insurance. (Well mine wouldn't release it to me anyway) Apparently someone wrote their car off driving out the dealership and didn't have insurance.

 

[-PXG-]

In case shit happens...

 

[Tarazet]

Ever since my little bitty $130/year renter's insurance policy saved me from $12,000 worth of headaches in an apartment fire, I've been a believer. I carry insurance for everything.. I have uninsured motorist insurance, I have a special rider for my piano on my renter's insurance, I have return of premium life insurance, and though I can't afford health insurance for my partner at the moment, I have a hospital indemnity on him in case of emergencies.

 

[boo7z]

Like blackjack or roulette or anything else, over the long run, aren't we losing five cents for every dollar we put in? Wouldn't it be a better idea just to forgo insurance and take out a loan in case anything bad happens? What's the logic in it?

For catastrophic events...

 

[LCfiner]

This is kinda why I made the thread. I just got a ticket for driving without insurance. It's incredibly expensive, but it's a hell of a lot cheaper than not paying for insurance for the past year.

If you continue to drive without car insurance you are, sorry to say, incredibly stupid.

You hit someone and your life is over due to the damages you have to pay. It's not like you can just take out a huuuge loan if that happens.

At first, I thought this was gonna be about life insurance or home insurance. optional stuff. but car insurance? jesus. there are so many car accidents every day than insurance is absolutely necessary.

 

[Cyan]

Buying insurance is placing a wager that something expensive will happen to you sometime soon.

Well, no, not really. It's more of a hedge against something expensive happening to you. You're not expecting something to happen, you're simply making it so that if it does, it really doesn't matter.

 

[Kintaro]

Ever since my little bitty $130/year renter's insurance policy saved me from $12,000 worth of headaches in an apartment fire, I've been a believer. I carry insurance for everything.. I have uninsured motorist insurance, I have a special rider for my piano on my renter's insurance, I have return of premium life insurance, and though I can't afford health insurance for my partner at the moment, I have a hospital indemnity on him in case of emergencies.

There's this story. Then the Ike story on the last page.

My main issue with insurance companies is terrible customer service. Just dreadful for the most part.

 

[Tarazet]

not entirely. as I understand it, "term life" only covers you to a set age/number of years. There's another kind of life insurance that DOESN'T expire that's more expensive and tends to require you to take physicals etc. before you qualify. I have this, but someone else (family plan) takes care of the details and expenses.

You have to take a physical to get most term policies, too.. before I finally found a company that would give me a policy at a good price (ING), I had my arm stuck three times for blood samples.