The insurance industry owns both political parties and all levels of government and forces laws for our protection, that are really for their protection. The government acts as risk managers for the insurance industry, regulating your behavior to mitigate claims.
When it comes time to regulate the insurance industry you don't see politicians getting on that bandwagon until after they check with their masters.
In NJ there is was a court decision that an uninsured motorist cannot collect liability or recover medical costs from a driver who caused the crash because having insurance is a condition of driving in the state. So is having a driver's license, but if I have insurance and no license I can still collect.
Everyone gets to pay for insurance, but just try to collect. If you do, you're dropped and considered a risk. The insurance companies also maintain a data base that share what should be private information.
2006-08-30 05:56:33
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I've been considering insurance a forced tax for two decades now.
It started with car insurance, and extended to liability insurance. Some states are event mandating health insurance, or the state will start fining those who choose not to have it.
Granted, not all states do this. But they are becoming even more rare. The problem is, with so many people suing so many other people, personal accountablity has been thrown out the window. And if someone cannot collect from the target of their lawsuit, they turn to the state to compensate them. So, the state requires people likely to be sued (any drive, any professional, almost any business owner) to have liability insurance.
And most people are happy to carry the insurance, because the risk of being sued is such that they could lose everything as a result of making one small negligent mistake. It's insane.
2006-08-30 05:31:36
·
answer #2
·
answered by coragryph 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Insurance, I know first hand, is an all cash game. I worked in it, I buy it, I gained benefit from it, and sadly, when it was most needed, my family in the past didn't get it or didn't get enough of it. Is it taxation? No, it's risk mitigation. No one puts a gun to your head for you to buy insurance on a car you own outright. You buy insurance on leased or financed cars because they are not yours, and heaven forbid you're in an accident and really injure people, sufficient insurance SHOULD shoulder most of the cost that would REALLY tax the working man.
It is an expensive world to live in. It is a high-risk, high-reward world to live in. It is also a high-skill labor market, and unfortunately, either everyone can't afford to pursue high-skill training/education or does not want to. But you do have the choice to bust your tail for better training/education/opportunity, and not settle for your supposed lot in life. That's America's promise, the 'rags to riches', happens EVERY DAY....so....Yes, insurance companies spend TONS of money on litigating the crap out of those seeking just and fair payments on claims. But insurance companies also do their fair share of paying out claims and then some, when disaster strikes.
The cons of insurance are obvious. They don't make ANYTHING except forms for you to fill out, which cost pennies (maybe more for the research/actuarial work behind it, but cheap nonetheless). For that paper, you pay a handsome fee. If nothing happens, there goes the handsome fee, if something does happen, they are on the hook to pay. They may fight, but often, they just pay.
You pay insurance on homes, because usually you don't own the home outright, the bank does, and they need protection. It comes down to protecting your assets. Conversely, if there was no insurance, there'd hardly be any cars or homes owned by individuals, save for the wealthy. Like a fiefdom. Is that what we really want? I doubt it.
On the flipside, there is a massive litigious 'society' out there aimed at suing every company for every flipping thing they do, make, say or don't do, make or say. That litigation cost drives insurance and product costs up as well. A lawyer may convince you that you have a claim and get a 100 or 1000 others convinced and all of the sudden the insurance company or their clients have a lawsuit on their hands that they HAVE to defend (the judge is the only one that can tell the lawyers to go home and their case has no merit, the defendants MUST engage expensive defense lawyers regardless).
The DOI's of various states were there because in the past, much insurance came from Europe or overseas. Those companies LOVED premiums, HATED claims, so much so that they'd not pay you until you begged them for ANY money (not what you were actually due per the policy, but what you'd be willing to take). You don't want to pay for a $100,000 policy and settle for $10,000 because the company has you over a barrel. That's what state DOI's were for. Now it's a different business, and there are more insurance co's, so rates are much lower than they could be, if there was no competition or regulation.
I understand your point, I'd recommend shopping long and hard for your insurance, you will get good deals, and as for life insurance, there are premium refund policies out there which basically give you back your premiums at the end of the policy tax free.
Remember, you the consumer/voter elect politicians, select banks and insurance co's and hire lawyers too. YOU DO have a say, you just have to talk and act a lot louder and faster to get your point across, but you do have power, just need to creatively use it.
2006-08-30 05:57:44
·
answer #3
·
answered by rohannesian 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Booo hooo hooo. You ain't complaining when you crack up your car and get a couple of grand, a tree falls on your house, you break your leg. You realize if auto insurance wasn't requried donkeys would be driving around like *******, and if they hit you would take off. What if you couldn't pay your mortgage beause you were paying for that fire in your living room? What if you broke your leg riding a bicycle due to nobody's fault but your own, and had no health insurance, or siability insurance?
2006-08-30 07:45:34
·
answer #4
·
answered by JONES99679 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
The insurance company is the devil sir
that's why the doctors oath is named hypocrite LOL
I am withyou on this I think it's immoral illegal and
totally wrong.
Do you know the same fundamentalists bible thumpers preaching every word in the bible is true then turn around and
charge interest on loans? It says in the bible interest is wrong too. So, therefore, noone does what they're supposed to, are you surprised?
I say we all quit paying for insurance and tell em to stick it, that will bankrupt them, leave less murders for the money and they are dishonest anyway ALL LIARS
2006-08-30 05:47:37
·
answer #5
·
answered by eg_ansel 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
You do not have to have insurance.
If you drive a car, you have to have insurance to cover the potential damage you might cause.
There is no requirement by the Government that you have insurance on your house, business, live, not anything.
The Bank may require it if you have a loan though.
Peace!
2006-08-30 05:37:58
·
answer #6
·
answered by C 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
expenses are no longer a function of minimum salary going up, verify the historic data your self. Unfortunatley, i assume you missed the completed area on "appropriate opposition". 2d, for the money spent on the Iraq warfare, a verify for $1500+ ought to take transport of to each guy woman and baby. specific, if all issues are assumed status quo, taxes might desire to circulate up, yet you're neglecting different components of gross sales, alongside with a shrink in expenses. Obama plans to shrink out company welfare it is a great disease costing tax payers billions of greenbacks. Obama additionally plans to shrink out company loop holes, which might herald billions of greenbacks agencies must be paying precise now, yet are ducking.
2016-10-01 02:21:16
·
answer #7
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋