Car Insurance Myth

[Nemo128]

I felt it my duty as an AHer to dispell a myth I saw at the end of the health care thread...

"Why should someone be MADE to pay for something they don't want or be fined? There is no product or service out there like that. Sure I have to pay car insurance, but I choose to drive, I also get the privilege of driving where ever I want to go. If I choose not to drive and not have insurance, I am not fined for it."

This is actually incorrect for anyone that has licensed children, in NJ at least.

If your child gets their license, they are automatically added to your driver's policy and your premiums will without question be drastically increased because of it. Companies no longer allow exclusions on policies, meaning you can't even specify that your child will not be driving your vehicles and that they will not be covered in the case of an accident.

Your child may choose to never drive and simply wants the license to have a longer driving record on paper for getting lower premiums when they do choose to drive, you may choose to never let them drive your vehicles, but them simply getting a license gets you greeted with a nice premium hike. So yes, you can choose to not let your child drive, you can choose to not insure them as a driver, but the insurance company won't let you do that.

I wonder how gun lovers would feel if they had to pay for gun licenses for everyone in their household who has no intention of ever touching the guns...

 

[jeffsg4mac]

Well I personally feel that is unconstitutional as well and I wonder why it has not been challenged in a court of law yet. If I had the money I would try. Progressive tried to do exactly that to us with our oldest son. He had his own car and got his own insurance and they still would not take him off the policy because he lived in our house. I had to cancel and go with GIECO. Got a much better rate with them anyway. I also did not pay progressive the extra money they wanted for his part either.

With states doing what VA just did it may set a precedent and we might get some of these things cleared up. One can only hope. The VA bill just signed had bipartisan support by they way.

 

[jeffsg4mac]

I wonder how gun lovers would feel if they had to pay for gun licenses for everyone in their household who has no intention of ever touching the guns...

Gun licensees are unconstitutional unless it is a licence for a dealer or fully auto weapons, but you know that

 

[itschris]

Well I personally feel that is unconstitutional as well and I wonder why it has not been challenged in a court of law yet. If I had the money I would try. Progressive tried to do exactly that to us with our oldest son. He had his own car and got his own insurance and they still would not take him off the policy because he lived in our house. I had to cancel and go with GIECO. Got a much better rate with them anyway. I also did not pay progressive the extra money they wanted for his part either.

With states doing what VA just did it may set a precedent and we might get some of these things cleared up. One can only hope. The VA bill just signed had bipartisan support by they way.

A private company can and should do what they want (within reason and the letter of the law of course). However, we as consumers have the exact same right and you exercised yours and I applaud you for doing it. That's the way it should work. We don't need the government coming in and dictating what and how much someone's salary should be, how they charge, etc. Consumers will decide that.

 

[Nemo128]

A private company can and should do what they want (within reason and the letter of the law of course).

Um...

We don't need the government coming in and dictating what and how much someone's salary should be, how they charge, etc. Consumers will decide that.

This is pretty contradictory. Companies should follow the law, but laws are only right if they agree with your beliefs? And within reason... whose reasoning? Subjectivity in law and justice is a pillar of a collapsed society.

 

[cujobob]

A private company can and should do what they want (within reason and the letter of the law of course). However, we as consumers have the exact same right and you exercised yours and I applaud you for doing it. That's the way it should work. We don't need the government coming in and dictating what and how much someone's salary should be, how they charge, etc. Consumers will decide that.

In theory, yes. The power private companies have is much greater than ours which creates an imbalance, imbalances are bad. Government controls are done by elected officials which come from the consumers. If we don't like their policies, we can change the officials out (value of public perception). We can't do that with private companies...they can do as they wish and there are too many restrictions in place to prevent proper competition. Competition SHOULD fix the companies from having too much power...but that's not how it works in reality. This is one of the biggest problems with Health Insurance, as an example.

There is no way to have proper competition. Lobbyists, money, monopolies, and various types of intellectual property protection get in the way.

 

[annunaki]

I felt it my duty as an AHer to dispell a myth I saw at the end of the health care thread...

"Why should someone be MADE to pay for something they don't want or be fined? There is no product or service out there like that. Sure I have to pay car insurance, but I choose to drive, I also get the privilege of driving where ever I want to go. If I choose not to drive and not have insurance, I am not fined for it."

This is actually incorrect for anyone that has licensed children, in NJ at least.

If your child gets their license, they are automatically added to your driver's policy and your premiums will without question be drastically increased because of it. Companies no longer allow exclusions on policies, meaning you can't even specify that your child will not be driving your vehicles and that they will not be covered in the case of an accident.

Your child may choose to never drive and simply wants the license to have a longer driving record on paper for getting lower premiums when they do choose to drive, you may choose to never let them drive your vehicles, but them simply getting a license gets you greeted with a nice premium hike. So yes, you can choose to not let your child drive, you can choose to not insure them as a driver, but the insurance company won't let you do that.

I wonder how gun lovers would feel if they had to pay for gun licenses for everyone in their household who has no intention of ever touching the guns...

By not drive, I meant choosing not to have a car. What the health care bill does is just that. It would be like making those choosing not to own a car, pay auto insurance.

 

[NicolasKL]

By not drive, I meant choosing not to have a car. What the health care bill does is just that. It would be like making those choosing not to own a car, pay auto insurance.

If you never drive a car, it's impossible for you to crash your car into someone and cause them financial (and/or physical) harm.

If you never have health insurance is it impossible for you to get sick and cause others financial harm? It's not only possible, it's virtually guaranteed.

 

[MidnightSensi]

Interesting.

Not trying to argue it, but, just curious...
What happens if you own a Ferarri, Porsche and F650 (to tow your giant boat).... then the insurance company is going to insure your kid driving those? Or does it just mean they CAN hike your insurance for having a driving kid? Because, I would think in some cases (like a sports car), they'd want to not have to accept the liability of a 16 year old.

I guess I could see it working for them if the family is driving a Jeep, but, what about the people with insane cars or motorcycles?

 

[Serj22]

Common sense would say that no 16 year kid (even my own) WILL EVER touch the steering wheel of my Ferarri or anyone's Ferrari if they have one (I don't either, but if I did). Therfore it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to hike the insurance, because it is phisically impossible for the kid to drive the car. Everyone knows that.

 

[MidnightSensi]

Common sense would say that no 16 year kid (even my own) WILL EVER touch the steering wheel of my Ferarri or anyone's Ferrari if they have one (I don't either, but if I did). Therfore it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to hike the insurance, because it is phisically impossible for the kid to drive the car. Everyone knows that.

Haha, I guess what I'm saying is if they hike the rate right when your kid gets their license, and list the kid on the drivers policy, then it would be hard to deny coverage should the kid decide to take a joy ride and wad the thing up, or worse someone else.

I'd just think that as an insurance company their would be some exceptions. They couldn't possibly charge enough to cover a 16 year old on the policy of a Carrera GT or something.

Or, maybe to move away from the sports car analogy, I have a truck with air brakes. A kid would need a special license to drive my truck...

I guess I could see it with the family Buick, but I imagine places where it would be in the insurance companies interest to deny coverage.

 

[10010011]

We don't need the government coming in and dictating what and how much someone's salary should be, how they charge, etc.

Sure but the companies that come to mind are companies that got bailouts from the government.

How is that any different then if say Donald Trump bought GM and then said to their CEO "You're fired"?

Would conservatives still be outraged?
Would it be heralded as just another Donald Trump power grab?

No, it would be considered a good business decision.

 

[10010011]

In Washington state you are required by law to have car insurance to drive a car. But if you have a really bad driving record every insurance company in the state can turn you down.

Why can the state mandate that I have to buy a product from a private company but not mandate that the same companies have to sell it to me?

If the government is going to mandate it then the government should provide at least one option that nobody can be turned down for.

 

[Davemcc]

Now you are witnessing the slippery slope. You accept that the gov't can dictate that you have auto insurance if you own a car, as well as the type and amount of coverage you require. Now that precedence is set, it is used as an argument to justify compelling people to also buy health insurance, including the type and amount of coverage you are obligated to buy. But wait, there's more. Because you are already on the slope, the majority of the population will eventually be covered under federal health care and you will move to a single payer system. It is Obama's stated goal. Once the gov't is the sole provider of health care, the gov't will then try to alter your lifestyle and habits to their preference, i.e. diet, exercise, vices, etc. in the name of reducing the cost of health care. It will be in the form of direct laws of prohibition or more prominently increased taxation on non-conforming choices, i.e. conform or pay through the nose.

None of it is constitutional, per se, and it is not in keeping with the values of liberty and a free society but it will be justified by your tacit acceptance of each step down the slope. In the name of doing what's best for you, your government will reach ever deeper into your life, career and wallets to serve it's own interests. By the time the last person on this board dies, the U.S. will be a socialist republic and liberty will be an academic concept.

 

[gmichael]

Sure but the companies that come to mind are companies that got bailouts from the government.

How is that any different then if say Donald Trump bought GM and then said to their CEO "You're fired"?

Would conservatives still be outraged?
Would it be heralded as just another Donald Trump power grab?

No, it would be considered a good business decision.

If Don used the taxpayers money for the buyout, h.ll yeah.

 

[raffin]

Now you are witnessing the slippery slope. You accept that the gov't can dictate that you have auto insurance if you own a car, as well as the type and amount of coverage you require. Now that precedence is set, it is used as an argument to justify compelling people to also buy health insurance, including the type and amount of coverage you are obligated to buy. But wait, there's more. Because you are already on the slope, the majority of the population will eventually be covered under federal health care and you will move to a single payer system. It is Obama's stated goal. Once the gov't is the sole provider of health care, the gov't will then try to alter your lifestyle and habits to their preference, i.e. diet, exercise, vices, etc. in the name of reducing the cost of health care. It will be in the form of direct laws of prohibition or more prominently increased taxation on non-conforming choices, i.e. conform or pay through the nose.

None of it is constitutional, per se, and it is not in keeping with the values of liberty and a free society but it will be justified by your tacit acceptance of each step down the slope. In the name of doing what's best for you, your government will reach ever deeper into your life, career and wallets to serve it's own interests. By the time the last person on this board dies, the U.S. will be a socialist republic and liberty will be an academic concept.

This.

I keep hearing that the national healthcare program isn't Socialism. Maybe yes and maybe no - as it stands right now. Does anyone really think there will be a specific moment in time when the majority of Americans realize that we've become a Socialist country??? That slide has already begun, it's just a matter of degree. By the time a significant percentage realize it, it will be too late to do anything about it.

 

[Shock]

"I disagree with your point and intend to express mine as fact!"

Every single thread that was anything to do with laws/government.

 

[Nemo128]

You accept that the gov't can dictate that you have auto insurance if you own a car, as well as the type and amount of coverage you require.

Accept? This thread was intended to dispel a myth about the auto insurance industry that was stated in another thread, not to advertise the acceptance of it or start a political thread about the constitutional implications of it.

"I disagree with your point and intend to express mine as fact!"

Every single thread that was anything to do with laws/government.

Yep, as usual...

As usual, this thread about one matter had to be diverted to political opinions. I was hoping to get some other viewpoints about how other states operate, as this is how it works in NJ which I originally stated. Thanks to the couple people who actually stuck to the topic. *back to Gaming Central*