AArdvark wrote: ↑
Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:38 am
Actually what I want is the choice NOT to have insurance. I will always have health/car insurance, it'd be foolish not to have any. But I want it to be by choice, not forced upon me by a government. What good is a free county without choice.
Operating a motor vehicle upon a public highway is a dangerous activity which can result in injury or death. Operators who have been trained in the proper use of a motor vehicle reduce that risk substantially which is why you must have a license to operate a motor vehicle on public highways. If you have a large enough private property you can drive a vehicle without a license which is why on large farms and ranches the kids are taught to drive a pickup truck or other equipment as soon as they can reach the pedals and steer; that's at 11 or 12. The law even permits them to drive without a license on public highways when immediately crossing from one farm plot to another. Nor does the vehicle owner have to have tags or insurance on vehicles restricted to private roads or lands.
Concomitant with the danger of operating a motor vehicle on public highways is that people make mistakes. They have accidents. People get injured. Property gets damaged. Medical bills and repairs have to be made. While your automobile insurance will pay for damages to your car if you have an accident, the true purpose of our auto insurance scheme is to ensure that there is money available if you injure someone else, and to cover the difference between what any particular accident damages are and the amount collected from that particular driver.
It also means that when you carry insurance, if you make a mistake, that one mistake does not bankrupt you. Around 2000 I rear-ended a car on I-95, which struck another car, which struck another car. At the time I was carrying $100,000 in multi-car coverage, much higher than the state minimum of $35,000. The clerk at GEICO asked me if I wanted to know how much the accident cost. I said yes. Just over $32,000. If I hadn't had insurance there would have been no way I ever could have paid that off.
Carrying insurance means that the innocent driver or pedestrian or homeowner whose car, body, or building is damaged or injured by the negligent driver can be made whole by compensating them for their loss. Insurance is relatively cheap because most people who carry it do not have accidents.
Let's take California where there are about 2,000 accidents a day
on average. To cover the cost of the 720,000 accidents each year, probably 14,000,000 people pay premiums. All those who drive accident-free subsidize the cost of damages in accidents.
Mandatory car insurance means the operators of vehicles pay the cost of injuries to innocent persons who are injured as a result of negligence. Which to me, seems fair.
Otherwise, what do we do for the pedestrian who is injured and has expensive medical bills if we don't require motor vehicle owners to carry insurance? It would be reasonable to make insurance optional but if you don't carry it you can't sue if someone hits you, but what do we do about compensating innocent people for injuries and damages? And could people even afford insurance if it wasn't compulsory so that almost everyone carries it?