I see. You're better than everyone because you say so. Very convincing. Did you read my post? They NEVER paid a claim (after decades of being insured and driving) so what's their cost? Once again, patting yourself on the back. You're so wonderful, in your own mind. I've tried Allstate, Geico, Progressive. They're all crooks. They're all running a scam. When you advertise as much as they do, the money has to come from somewhere (your premiums). Why would these companies be touting these programs so much unless they had an angle to screw the customer? Once you read the fine print, terms and conditions, you see how useless they really are. Am I reading music, because it's rare to see someone toot their own horn this much. I guess this is the end result, me good you bad. Another convincing argument for the car insurance scam. Thanks for telling me what I know. Insurance, by definition, is a ponzi scheme. It is a legal ponzi scheme (like the current financial industry in general). I guess you just can't accept the system is crooked, fraudulent, and intentionally deceptive. It's probably why you think there is no way to improve it. I see. These private companies are "entitled" to a profit and are "owed" my money and "deserve" this captive market. Yeah, this makes sense. To protect people, forcibly take their money, or rather, only the financially wealthy are safe drivers or "deserve" to drive. Yep, that sure sounds like the United States to me. It's common sense that I pay premiums for decades and get nothing back, including when there has been a collision? It sounds like you think car insurance is some kind of lottery where the money magically comes from somewhere when something catastrophic happens. For every person who benefits (like yourself) there are many more who don't (like myself). The current system of socialized car insurance - private profits/social losses - certainly isn't working for huge swaths of Americans, despite your personal experience. As far as nationalizing insurance, I specifically did not mention that. Nationalizing means government control. In my solution, individuals could set up insurance pools to protect themselves. The government's only responsibility would be to check that these pools meet minimum liquidity and operating reserves. There would be no profit and there would be no government control, only oversight. The entire "profit motive" would disappear and you could really focus on providing safe roads and coverage of drivers. Says who, the car insurance lobby? Believe it or not, people did drive cars before car insurance and in many countries do it today. Yet, their societies have not collapsed. Why, what difference would that make to this discussion? This is rather naive, but predictable. You think private, for-profit companies are there to take care of you? You think their responsibility is to you and not their shareholders, lenders, executives, and employees? If government can't handle the blame, maybe they shouldn't have the responsibility. And you think you are paying for my screw-ups. I think it's the other way around. My money is going to subsidize your low premiums.
No, I said I was being responsible. Yes. That's what prompted my response. Er, seems there was probably a reason. Can you be a bit more specific. What kind of claims were you making? If you say so. I've had Progressive and never had a problem receiving compensation for a claim, including hail damage, and damage associated with a storm that blew part of my house onto my car. Home owners would not cover, but the auto did. I have GEICO right now for my Motorcycle insurance. I've never been happier. Inexpensive, easy to deal with, and every responsive. Any my rates drop every year. Businesses advertise. That's how they get customers and make money. Insurance is a business. I advertise. Are you saying that I am taking money from my customers by doing so? I'm not sure I follow you. Dude, you are seriously confused. Insurance is a business. They advertise to get customers. So do I. That's what being in business is all about. Really? Care to provide some examples of this "fine print" that is so useless? WTF are you talking about? You are all over the place. No, you irresponsible. Me responsible. Are you that bad of a driver? We're only seeing one side here. What's the other side of the equation. Why did three insurance companies refuse to fulfill claims to you? Were you trying to defraud them? Were they ridiculous claims? What? I give up. You've obviously screwed yourself somehow? Do you have too many DUI's, or accidents? What exactly? Can you please be honest here and describe the other side of the equation? No, its not a Ponzi shceme. Again, you obviously do not know what a Ponzi scheme is. I suggest looking up Charels Ponzi. How is it crooked? If you could provide a specific set of examples to support your claim I might be more inclined to listen to you. So far, all you have proved is that you are pissed off at insruance, the financial industry, and anyone that has a better driving record than you. Duh... They are a BUSINESS. Do I now need to define Business for you? No one is forcibly taking your money. You don't have to drive. You don't have to pay for insurance. If you do however, you really should. What on earth are you talking about? What on earth does the US have to do with this? Each individual state makes their own laws defining the procurment of insurance, or proof of financial responsibility. The Federal Government has nothing to do with this. What? Are, its not a bank. Its not an investment. Its insurance. If you are looking to get a return on an investment, buy realesate or stocks or something. No, its not a lottery and its not magic. Inurance is like mutually assured destruction (see Cold War). You buy it hoping you never need to use it. Its there in the unlikely event that you need it. Benefits? I don't look at insurance as a benefit. I look at it as protection from the envitable. If you are looking to benefit from insurance, that is porobably why you've never seen a claim. What have you been doing, calling in every door ding? There is nothing socialized about it. Gee, but aren't you saying that there is government control right now? You can do that now dude. Its called "financial responsibility". In states where insurance is required, you can file financial responsiblity and do just what you describe. However, do keep in mind, you can be sued. The nice thing about insurance is, you cannot be sued. Without a profit, how on earth do you expect to be able to pay out claims as the rate of inflation and cost of living are adjusted over time and costs go up? BTW, Ponzi schemes do NOT have a "profit motive", or a "profit". They pay people with new investors money. I thought you said insurance was a Ponzi. Seems you are more confused than I first thought. Insruance pre-dates the automobile. However, a nationalized requirement that all cars be insured did not occur until 1930. What are they? Privet, for-profit, or Ponzi? Come on, you're just going in circles now. Its to everyone. Its a business. Again, if you need help understanding how a business makes money, please let me know and I would be happy to help you understand. Bleh... [/quote] Yes, I am paying for your screw ups. And I am paying for you when I buy uninsured or underinsured on my policy. I'm paying for slackers that do not want to pay for their own insurance. My premiums are low because I have not made frivolous claims, have a clean driving records, have multiple cars, combined my auto with my home, am married, over 35 and have never missed a payment. One area I will disagree with in the determination of rate setting is people's credit scores. I think it is utter bullshit to use someone's credit rating as a metric in determining an insurance rate.
I'm not going to quote your whole post. The general idea I get is you think you're better than me and that's why you deserve lower premiums and better service from the insurance companies. It seems you just can't conceive someone doing everything properly and still being screwed over regularly by insurance companies. That's okay. I know your type but you obviously don't understand my argument. I've figured out a workable solution to deal with the insurance scam that works very well for me. These are contingencies and backup plans developed over time in response to government and insurance company extortion-like behavior. In fact, my strategy depends on people like you who love to live with their ideas that private, for-profit companies actually are a positive good when providing a social benefit. You seem to have the luxury of living in ignorance until that one day hits when you realize everything I said was right. Your loss.
No, I don't think I am better. I think that I am being responsible by buying insurance and am calling you irresponsible for not. Nothing about better or worse, right or wrong. You've got yourself convinced the whole world is against you. So of course, anyone with an opinion that differs from your mind altered state of governmental conspiracy must be better than you. Someone might find statements like this to be hypocritical when it comes to who thinks they are better. Get some insurance. Or at the very least take a safety course.
If you say so. He's just a mad kid. None of his posts indicated why his claims were denied, or gave anyone any idea of the OTHER side of the story. His driving record, age, and other factors that are likely playing into the equation. Instead all he did was tell us how the government and insurance lobbies conspire to make him grab his ankles. And, oh, that I am "better" than him because I bend over. What a load.
What's the solution? Have everyone drive without insurance. You can in fact drive in some countries south of the border without insurance but if you hit anybody you will be put in jail until you guarantee that you can cover the damages. Car repairs and medical are at most 30% of US costs, so the system works.
Follow the law, I guess... Or not. Last I heard the government says I can't strangle people on DP. The solution to that is I don't strangle people. Solution to no insurance is don't drive. But you know us people that "think we are better"... we don't care.
You can get 7 days in jail and a 500 dollar fine for a first offense no insurance charge where I live. Granted the 7 days and 400 dollars of the fine are suspended pending completion of a 6 month insurance monitoring program (30$ every two weeks and a trip to the courthouse to show proof of insurance) but still it seems a pretty heavy punishment for forgetting to pay a bill one month. I really have no problem paying for car insurance at all I just think some of the penalties for things have gotten harsher where I live right around the time money started getting tighter. I expect a lot of people are going to end up in jail around here over driving without insurance.
I gave a solution, and surety bonds are not viable to me because they are still heavily dependent on the profit-motivated insurance lobby. Instead of having an impenetrable, centralized, opaque, private bureaucracy forcing people to pay for so-called protecting our safety on the roads... why not have a public, transparent, transitory, collective pool of voluntary payers into a democractic system to protect the roads. The other poster loves the corporate bureaucracy so in their mind, anything they do is the only and BEST solution. From my experience (and tens of thousands in my community alone), insurance companies and laws are leeches designed to reallocate funds from our communities to those who enjoy lower premiums, higher coverage, and better service. Insurance is not some unlimited pot. Someone has to pay. Unfortunately, it is me and my community paying for leeches like the other poster.