I mostly agree with Scott on that we can't protect people from all the shit that might happen. Here in Norway this over-protection is sometimes taken to ridiculous levels. There are however a few things I believe we should protect people from - like stupid drivers.
Cars are heavy chunks of metal that goes at high speed, are potentially very dangerous, and they are everywhere. If a car causes serious damage to an innocent person, the driver is responsible for financing a large portion of the hospital bill and necessary rehabilitation. Do you disagree? If you do, I don't know what to say to you.
Let's say there is a driver with a low income who chooses not to pay insurance because he consider himself a good driver. However, one day he miscalculates his abilities, falls asleep behind the wheel and mows down 10 pedestrians that are all crippled for life. Maybe he is himself crippled and looses his ability to work. He will never be able to pay up, however much he dedicates his life to that task. In such cases everyone would be better off if he had been forced to pay insurance.
Here in Norway we have several levels of car insurance (I have no idea how this works in the US). I have the lowest and cheapest level which suits me fine, but I think there should have been a an even lower level for those who wished. I am now insured against vandalism that other people cause to my car, and the insurance company throws in a free car rescue service. That suits me just fine, but I think people should be able to get an even cheaper insurance without those options. However, I strongly believe that there should be a mandatory insurance against damage that the driver of a car causes others.
I am not so sure that letting people carry all the responsibility will make them more careful. Warnings of the dangers of driving are easily forgotten, but money talks. I believe that paying those irritating insurance bills once or twice a year is a good reminder that driving a car is dangerous, and that hazardous driving can be very, very expensive. Paying the insurance gives you an incentive to think about safety and how you drive. In this country you also get large fines for breaking safety rules like speeding and not using safety belt. People will generally ignore such rules until their wallet is threatened. Mandatory insurance is a reminder that affects you on a very real and personal level, and is thus not so easily forgotten. This is of course not the main point of insurance, and some people may not be affected in that way at all. The point I try to make is that I think the attitude of "responsibility makes careful drivers" is too simplistic. The culture of safe driving is a complex issue.
I think the fact that insurance companies are greedy and evil is a whole different discussion that has more to do with price fixing and other violations of consumer rights.
I mostly agree with Scott on that we can't protect people from all the shit that might happen. Here in Norway this over-protection is sometimes taken to ridiculous levels. There are however a few things I believe we should protect people from - like stupid drivers.
Cars are heavy chunks of metal that goes at high speed, are potentially very dangerous, and they are everywhere. If a car causes serious damage to an innocent person, the driver is responsible for financing a large portion of the hospital bill and necessary rehabilitation. Do you disagree? If you do, I don't know what to say to you.
No, I don't disagree. If you cause damage with your car, you are responsible and should pay.
Let's say there is a driver with a low income who chooses not to pay insurance because he consider himself a good driver. However, one day he miscalculates his abilities, falls asleep behind the wheel and mows down 10 pedestrians that are all crippled for life. Maybe he is himself crippled and looses his ability to work. He will never be able to pay up, however much he dedicates his life to that task. In such cases everyone would be better off he had been forced to pay insurance.
Yes, this is a basic problem, and I only have one answer. Make it very difficult to get a drivers license and make it so poor people can't drive. This solution works everywhere that has functioning and efficient mass transit. The problem is that in the US if you can't drive, your life is ruined. It is essentially impossible to transport yourself to work if you can not drive. No matter how we decide to fix this problem I see only two ways it can go. Either we leave things as is, or we go through a time where things are much worse in order to get to a place where things are much better.
If you hit a 5 year old girl and make her a quadriplegic, you will be liable for damages in the millions of dollars. Is this likely? No. Is it possible? Absolutely. Assuming that you don't have sufficient assets to pay such a large judgment, should we ban you from the road?
Requiring someone without any meaningful assets to have insurance isn't exactly a bad idea. And no... I don't subscribe to the "stuff happens" viewpoint. Our tort system has plenty of problems, but this is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The problem with Scrym's argument that we need to make things "hurt" is that innocents may be hurt. Stuff happens, I agree. But some people also cause stuff to happen. In that case, any innocent derserves to be compensated.
For example, let's assume that I am 100% fire-safety minded, and some arsonist comes along and burns my house. Are you saying that I shouldn't have insurance to recover from such a thing? I'd say you never owned a house! I should also have the right to sue the arsonist. I doubt, though, that they would have sufficient assets for me to be made whole.
The primary issue I take with mandatory "no-fault" insurance. I'd be more ok with the state requiring liability insurance for damages -caused- by me, but not damages -to- me. That insurance is actually very cheap, and while I personally don't want it, I can understand the argument for requiring it.
It's the best of both worlds. You have to have this insurance to drive. Anyone you harm is covered, but you're not forced to spend the money to protect yourself.
The real problem here is that many accidents are caused by uninsured motorists who are driving illegally in the first place. No law will remove them from the roads short of jailing them. They have no other means of transport.
Do we subsidize their ability to harm others with their poor driving skills? Do we take away their ability to travel (to work/school/training/etc...)? Do we deport them? Do we kill them?
If you hit a 5 year old girl and make her a quadriplegic, you will be liable for damages in the millions of dollars. Is this likely? No. Is it possible? Absolutely. Assuming that you don't have sufficient assets to pay such a large judgment, should we ban you from the road?
Well, there's a lot more to it than that. This is not a simple matter. It has to be determined if you are actually at fault, and if so how much fault are you liable for. For the sake or argument let's say you are indeed held liable for more than you are worth. Yes, your life should be ruined, financially speaking. At least it will serve as an example to others. You should have thought about that before you screwed up.
To understand why that is fair you must understand the definition of fault. If something is your fault that means that it happened as a result of your actions or gross negligence. If you didn't screw up in some way, it would not have happened. Therefore you deserve to pay the price of whatever harm was created because of you. If it was not because of you, it would not be your fault. And because I know there will be an inevitable argument about this topic I must say that if someone lives up to the standards of due diligence, then they should not be found negligent.
Requiring someone without any meaningful assets to have insurance isn't exactly a bad idea. And no... I don't subscribe to the "stuff happens" viewpoint. Our tort system has plenty of problems, but this is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The problem with Scrym's argument that we need to make things "hurt" is thatinnocentsmay be hurt. Stuff happens, I agree. But some people alsocausestuff to happen. In that case, any innocent derserves to be compensated.
Let's say you are innocently writing a paper when your faulty Dell laptop explodes and burns you. You should be compensated. Dell hurt you, therefore they must pay. Let's say you are walking out in the woods and there's a sudden unexpected thunderstorm. You get hit by lightning and spend a lot of time in the hospital. Is it anyone's fault? No. Are you innocent? Yes. Where should the money come from to pay for your medical care? Your wallet. If you chose to gamble on insurance, that's your own perogative. If you have insurance and you get hit by lightning you can feel good that you won your bet. That doesn't mean that I should not be free to bet that I won't be struck by lightning.
For example, let's assume that I am 100% fire-safety minded, and some arsonist comes along and burns my house. Are you saying that I shouldn't have insurance to recover from such a thing? I'd say you never owned a house! I should also have the right to sue the arsonist. I doubt, though, that they would have sufficient assets for me to be made whole.
If an arsonist comes and burns your house, then you should be able to take everything he owns until you can pay the damages. And yes, if you bet on insurance you can pay for the damages with your "winnings". Maybe you think betting on insurance is a good idea, good for you. I should have the freedom to not bet on insurance. If I bet that my house will not be burned down by arsonists, and it is, tough shit for me.
I'm not saying insurance should exist. I'm not saying that you shouldn't be allowed to buy insurance if you think it's a good idea. I'm saying that insurance is gambling. I personally do not want to bet that bad things will happen. I do not think it is a good investment of my money. I do not think the government should force me to gamble. The end.
Yes, this is a basic problem, and I only have one answer. Make it very difficult to get a drivers license and make it so poor people can't drive. This solution works everywhere that has functioning and efficient mass transit. The problem is that in the US if you can't drive, your life is ruined. It is essentially impossible to transport yourself to work if you can not drive. No matter how we decide to fix this problem I see only two ways it can go. Either we leave things as is, or we go through a time where things are much worse in order to get to a place where things are much better.
Then we agree on what the problems are, we just disagree on the solutions. As a foreigner with radical political views I vote for your last alternative, although it's practically impossible in a democracy. And what kind of changes do we want?
Just to give you another perspective on this issue, I give you a "short" description of how things are done here in little, rocky, partly socialistic and stinking rich Norway. In large areas people are completely dependent on cars as we are few people who traditionally live far apart in small settlements with lots of rocks or water in between. It is very idyllic in many ways, but of course very unpractical for modern living. I believe we have the world record of length of public road per inhabitant. It's all very expensive.
We are rich from oil production, but gasoline now costs about $4.70 per gallon because of environmental taxes. This tax money is supposed to subsidize public transport, but I believe it is mostly used on maintaining roads. Expensive gasoline is supposed to keep car usage and pollution down, and it works to some extent. There is also a tax on new cars (if you can't afford the car, you won't pollute either) which favours small cars and practical family cars with low gas consumption, and makes sports cars and SUVs very, very expensive. In addition, there is a yearly road tax at ~$200 per car. Some big roads have an additional road tax at ~$3 for each pass.
If you can afford to own and drive a car in Norway, you would probably not complain too much about paying insurance as it's peanuts in comparison to taxes.
All these taxes are of course very unpopular even though half the population are more or less social democrats who support environment friendly politics. Personally I want to double the gas price, at least in densely populated areas, and subsidize mass transit more, but I'm more lefty than most. As with the roads, maintaining railroads is expensive. Currently I pay less for gas driving alone in my old Mazda over the mountains between Oslo and Bergen (500km) than I would have to pay for a student discount ticket on the train, and that's just wrong politics in my view.
We have quite strict traffic rules and many campaigns for safer driving, and I think it works fairly well. There is always some idiot, but the traffic feels safe, and the speed limits are reasonable (mostly 80km/t ~50mph, up to 100km/t ~62mph which is suitable for our narrow and curvy roads).
I didn't tell all this for the purpose of discussing Norwegian politics here, nor do I expect USA to adopt our ways, but I want to make a few points: 1. Things can be done in different ways than you are used to. Think outside the frame. 2. Strict traffic rules and campaigns for safe driving works. You can change habits. 3. Even in a country where most people are completely dependent on cars, it is possible to keep traffic and pollution down with taxes. Those taxes can be used on many good things like public transport, but that is a socialistic viewpoint that I know is not very popular in the US.
I think there should be mandatory insurance to protect other people. If someone else gets injured (not the driver of either car), then they shouldn't be stuck with huge medical bills just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. However, I don't think that there should be compulsory insurance for property: if you hit my car, then I can try to get money from you either from insurance or you personally, but if I don't it doesn't really matter. However, if you hit my child, it is a bit more important that I get the money.
We need the auto insurance industry to take some tips from the life insurance industry.
Give me a car insurance plan worth $XXX that, if I avoid needing to file a claim I can cash out the policy in the future.
What I will never understand is how insurance companies can declare a profit one year and then major losses the next. The way I see it, if someone has a $1M policy and has only paid $25K worth of premiums that policy is still in the hole by $975K, thus there is no profit!
Ahhh... Now that my car's fully paid off and I've dropped most of my useless coverage, I have to admit that my insurance isn't the $60/month I had predicted.
Ahhh... Now that my car's fully paid off and I've dropped most of my useless coverage, I have to admit that my insurance isn't the $60/month I had predicted.
It's actually $61.
So whats going on with you getting a motorcycle? I vaguely remember you mentioning your going to get one on an old episode.
I'm still looking into it. There's a good chance I'll take some lessons this fall. With the coming winter, I can't see myself making a move to purchase one until spring.
It really depends on how gas prices go. My primary motivation is to save money on gas during my commute, but also to have a bit of fun. If gas remains relatively cheap, I might hold off.
Comments
Cars are heavy chunks of metal that goes at high speed, are potentially very dangerous, and they are everywhere. If a car causes serious damage to an innocent person, the driver is responsible for financing a large portion of the hospital bill and necessary rehabilitation. Do you disagree? If you do, I don't know what to say to you.
Let's say there is a driver with a low income who chooses not to pay insurance because he consider himself a good driver. However, one day he miscalculates his abilities, falls asleep behind the wheel and mows down 10 pedestrians that are all crippled for life. Maybe he is himself crippled and looses his ability to work. He will never be able to pay up, however much he dedicates his life to that task. In such cases everyone would be better off if he had been forced to pay insurance.
Here in Norway we have several levels of car insurance (I have no idea how this works in the US). I have the lowest and cheapest level which suits me fine, but I think there should have been a an even lower level for those who wished. I am now insured against vandalism that other people cause to my car, and the insurance company throws in a free car rescue service. That suits me just fine, but I think people should be able to get an even cheaper insurance without those options. However, I strongly believe that there should be a mandatory insurance against damage that the driver of a car causes others.
I am not so sure that letting people carry all the responsibility will make them more careful. Warnings of the dangers of driving are easily forgotten, but money talks. I believe that paying those irritating insurance bills once or twice a year is a good reminder that driving a car is dangerous, and that hazardous driving can be very, very expensive. Paying the insurance gives you an incentive to think about safety and how you drive. In this country you also get large fines for breaking safety rules like speeding and not using safety belt. People will generally ignore such rules until their wallet is threatened. Mandatory insurance is a reminder that affects you on a very real and personal level, and is thus not so easily forgotten. This is of course not the main point of insurance, and some people may not be affected in that way at all. The point I try to make is that I think the attitude of "responsibility makes careful drivers" is too simplistic. The culture of safe driving is a complex issue.
I think the fact that insurance companies are greedy and evil is a whole different discussion that has more to do with price fixing and other violations of consumer rights.
Requiring someone without any meaningful assets to have insurance isn't exactly a bad idea. And no... I don't subscribe to the "stuff happens" viewpoint. Our tort system has plenty of problems, but this is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The problem with Scrym's argument that we need to make things "hurt" is that innocents may be hurt. Stuff happens, I agree. But some people also cause stuff to happen. In that case, any innocent derserves to be compensated.
For example, let's assume that I am 100% fire-safety minded, and some arsonist comes along and burns my house. Are you saying that I shouldn't have insurance to recover from such a thing? I'd say you never owned a house! I should also have the right to sue the arsonist. I doubt, though, that they would have sufficient assets for me to be made whole.
It's the best of both worlds. You have to have this insurance to drive. Anyone you harm is covered, but you're not forced to spend the money to protect yourself.
The real problem here is that many accidents are caused by uninsured motorists who are driving illegally in the first place. No law will remove them from the roads short of jailing them. They have no other means of transport.
Do we subsidize their ability to harm others with their poor driving skills? Do we take away their ability to travel (to work/school/training/etc...)? Do we deport them? Do we kill them?
To understand why that is fair you must understand the definition of fault. If something is your fault that means that it happened as a result of your actions or gross negligence. If you didn't screw up in some way, it would not have happened. Therefore you deserve to pay the price of whatever harm was created because of you. If it was not because of you, it would not be your fault. And because I know there will be an inevitable argument about this topic I must say that if someone lives up to the standards of due diligence, then they should not be found negligent.Let's say you are innocently writing a paper when your faulty Dell laptop explodes and burns you. You should be compensated. Dell hurt you, therefore they must pay. Let's say you are walking out in the woods and there's a sudden unexpected thunderstorm. You get hit by lightning and spend a lot of time in the hospital. Is it anyone's fault? No. Are you innocent? Yes. Where should the money come from to pay for your medical care? Your wallet. If you chose to gamble on insurance, that's your own perogative. If you have insurance and you get hit by lightning you can feel good that you won your bet. That doesn't mean that I should not be free to bet that I won't be struck by lightning.If an arsonist comes and burns your house, then you should be able to take everything he owns until you can pay the damages. And yes, if you bet on insurance you can pay for the damages with your "winnings". Maybe you think betting on insurance is a good idea, good for you. I should have the freedom to not bet on insurance. If I bet that my house will not be burned down by arsonists, and it is, tough shit for me.
I'm not saying insurance should exist. I'm not saying that you shouldn't be allowed to buy insurance if you think it's a good idea. I'm saying that insurance is gambling. I personally do not want to bet that bad things will happen. I do not think it is a good investment of my money. I do not think the government should force me to gamble. The end.
Just to give you another perspective on this issue, I give you a "short" description of how things are done here in little, rocky, partly socialistic and stinking rich Norway. In large areas people are completely dependent on cars as we are few people who traditionally live far apart in small settlements with lots of rocks or water in between. It is very idyllic in many ways, but of course very unpractical for modern living. I believe we have the world record of length of public road per inhabitant. It's all very expensive.
We are rich from oil production, but gasoline now costs about $4.70 per gallon because of environmental taxes. This tax money is supposed to subsidize public transport, but I believe it is mostly used on maintaining roads. Expensive gasoline is supposed to keep car usage and pollution down, and it works to some extent. There is also a tax on new cars (if you can't afford the car, you won't pollute either) which favours small cars and practical family cars with low gas consumption, and makes sports cars and SUVs very, very expensive. In addition, there is a yearly road tax at ~$200 per car. Some big roads have an additional road tax at ~$3 for each pass.
If you can afford to own and drive a car in Norway, you would probably not complain too much about paying insurance as it's peanuts in comparison to taxes.
All these taxes are of course very unpopular even though half the population are more or less social democrats who support environment friendly politics. Personally I want to double the gas price, at least in densely populated areas, and subsidize mass transit more, but I'm more lefty than most. As with the roads, maintaining railroads is expensive. Currently I pay less for gas driving alone in my old Mazda over the mountains between Oslo and Bergen (500km) than I would have to pay for a student discount ticket on the train, and that's just wrong politics in my view.
We have quite strict traffic rules and many campaigns for safer driving, and I think it works fairly well. There is always some idiot, but the traffic feels safe, and the speed limits are reasonable (mostly 80km/t ~50mph, up to 100km/t ~62mph which is suitable for our narrow and curvy roads).
I didn't tell all this for the purpose of discussing Norwegian politics here, nor do I expect USA to adopt our ways, but I want to make a few points:
1. Things can be done in different ways than you are used to. Think outside the frame.
2. Strict traffic rules and campaigns for safe driving works. You can change habits.
3. Even in a country where most people are completely dependent on cars, it is possible to keep traffic and pollution down with taxes. Those taxes can be used on many good things like public transport, but that is a socialistic viewpoint that I know is not very popular in the US.
Give me a car insurance plan worth $XXX that, if I avoid needing to file a claim I can cash out the policy in the future.
What I will never understand is how insurance companies can declare a profit one year and then major losses the next. The way I see it, if someone has a $1M policy and has only paid $25K worth of premiums that policy is still in the hole by $975K, thus there is no profit!
It's actually $61.
It really depends on how gas prices go. My primary motivation is to save money on gas during my commute, but also to have a bit of fun. If gas remains relatively cheap, I might hold off.