I failed to mention that the Mexican drivers don't have insurance and many have accidents in our city. As such guess who foots the entire bill? And guess whose insurance premiums go up. This is the same with health insurance, those who work and pay their insurance have to subsidize those who don't want to work and are used to being coddled by the Leftist government (Demoncrats) in order to get votes from them.

(03-10-2017 02:22 PM)DexterDevil Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 11:13 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 11:05 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 10:49 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  no, that is NOT HOW INSURANCE WORKS. Maybe in LibturdLand, but not in reality.

You would b*tch and moan if this method were applied to your auto insurance, unless you are aa sh*tty driver, in which case you would be thrilled that good drivers are subsidizing your careless ass.

Right. The healthy do in fact subsidize the sick, but--people who are more likely to use insurance pay more than those who are unlikely to use it. The problem now is the young (who are unlikely to use health insurance) are being charged far too high a rate while the older Americans are being charged unnaturally low rates. It's causing the young to simply pay the penalty because it's waaaay less than paying for insurance they don't think they really need. That decision by millions of younger Americans is causing Obama Care to collapse.

Correct. The healthy subsidizing the sick is how Obamacare works, which is why Obamacare is not insurance. Its redistribution.

This would be like auto insurers having to cover existing damage on someone's car when they totalled it without insurance. Welp, totalled my car, I guess I need to purchase insurance for a month so I can get it repaired.

Another simile of auto insurance is having to purchase parts of the insurance you dont need. If you own a 2000 Plymouth Voyager, you probably dont need "customization" coverage on your vehicle, because it has no customization. But you have to pay for it anyway, to help lower the coverage rate for those who want it.

Hate to say it but you are in a way subsidizing the bad drivers, specially if you live in a high risk area (high number or accidents, cars stolen, common natural disasters, etc. all drive your rate up), it's certainly not as bad as health insurance though. Not an expert on the insurance side of things but am on the collision repair side.

It depends on the coverage, but the effects are limited to the state level, and in some states, down to the zipcode level.

My liability coverage rate is not subsidizing anyone else. It is based on my risk as a driver.

My uninsured motorist is subsidizing lawlessness. If the state (or the county or city) cracks down on uninsured drivers, then that will also drop. But the higher rate for uninsured motorist is limited to the area of lawlessness. I live in the rural area, and my rate for uninsured motorist is much less than those who live in the city.

(By the way, Alabama already has real time insurance verification, and TN and MS are in the process of installing it. That will help on those rates.) The whole premise behind uninsured motorist is to cover someone elses accident. If everyone has liability insurance, there is almost no need to uninsured motorist.

For things like Comp/Collision, the rates are more set to the year, type of vehicle, and likelihood of natural disasters in the area. Those risk factors are what drives the costs up. Stolen vehicles really doesnt impact the rate much, because the number of people with comp/collision versus the number and value of stolen vehicles is usually really small. One small hail storm can cause more in claims than an entire year of stolen vehicles.


The point being, I'm not subsidizing bad drivers in NJ. I may pay more for my rates in my state, but I have recourse, by demanding the state take action. I cant make people in NJ do diddly squat.