2007-09-25 06:45:15 · 13 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
No.
Most insurance companies give people a lower rate...but not a rebate.
2007-09-29 02:55:38 · answer #1 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As a matter of public policy, no. Then wouldn't you have to extend it to all manner of insurance product or any other public good? I home school my children. Shouldn't I get a rebate on my taxes (I don't and there is no provision to do so in my state)? I don't make claims on my home insurance for trivial little things, shouldn't I get a rebate on that?, etc. This is too sticky an issue and extends in too many directions.
On the other hand, if an insurance company wants to provide that as an incentive in order to attract those people to their products who believe that they won't use the insurance more power to them.
2007-09-25 06:50:32 · answer #2 · answered by Matt W 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
My first mind would say hell yea! But if we did that then when you do have an accident there would not be any money left to pay your damages. What would might be nice if the companies had an excess of cash at year in to pay their policy holders a dividend or lower insurance for the next year
2007-09-25 06:52:37 · answer #3 · answered by Obama2009 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
on the grounds that drivers' licenses are state-issued, this might properly be a state rely, in spite of the very undeniable fact that the federal government can effect the states via threatening to withhold Federal street money (the way they did to get each state to develop the eating age to 21). briefly, there's a philosophical distinction right here. driving is a priviledge granted via the State and whilst driving, one has a duty not in easy terms to himself, yet to others on the line. Making vehicle coverage needed might properly be considered as a value of taking part in this priviledge, area of a electorate duties for th ordinary protection of others. wellbeing care is a private concern. Requiring a guy or woman to purchase a product for his own own use looks to many like requiring all electorate to purchase vehicle coverage....no rely if or not they force or not. Somewill argue that the requirement will convey down the charges linked with the uninsured getting care in emergency rooms and so on, however the comparable might desire to be suggested for needed vehicle coverage. think of how quotes could bypass down if all non-drivers have been compelled to purchase policies to boot. So lower back, there's a philosophical concern previous the "will it convey down costs" question.
2016-11-06 08:30:01 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well if you got a rebate then insurance prices would prolly be go up.
2007-09-25 06:49:25 · answer #5 · answered by Marshall 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Should people who never win at the casino get a refund? Should you get a refund if your raffle ticket isn't pulled? If you don't go to the gym after buying a membership should you get your money back? If your parents send you to college and you sleep through your classes do your parents get their money back? If you don't drink a gallon of milk can you take it back to the store after it goes bad? If you spend the year buying lotto tickets and don't win should you get your money back?
2007-09-25 06:56:10 · answer #6 · answered by Nianque 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Absolutely yes. I think it would be far. And the ones that over use it should have rate increases.
2007-09-25 06:49:23 · answer #7 · answered by ♥ Mel 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Well, that would be nice, but I think what would be better is if you don't use it for a long time, then have to use it then your rates shouldn't go up.
2007-09-25 06:52:36 · answer #8 · answered by outsider_27 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Good idea.
I Cr 13;8a
2007-09-25 06:59:34 · answer #9 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We should if we were forced by law to purchase it.
2007-09-25 06:52:21 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋