5 ms·

Free Market is the US does not contain a well-informed consumer segment. That is the issue of the second sentence. >N.b. Personally, I am much happier knowing

Free Market is the US does not contain a well-informed consumer segment. That is the issue of the second sentence. >N.b. Personally, I am much happier knowing that (almost) all the people potentially plowing into me on the highway carry insurance. Do you live in the US? Where 1 in 7 drivers are uninsured?

hyperbovine 10y ago
> Free Market is the US does not contain a well-informed consumer segment. So the claim boils boils down to, people don't know how to shop around for auto insurance? Forgive me for scoffing. And 1 in 7 is a lot lower than it would be otherwise.
- undersuit 10y ago
  Just because I can buy the same product from a number of different stores doesn't make me a well-informed consumer.
cmdrfred 10y ago
Exactly, and keep in mind many states have moved to a 'no-fault' model. So they don't actually care who is at fault for the accident anymore. So the question becomes, why doesn't everyone just insure themselves (IE. Their own car/medical bills to the level they are comfortable with) rather than insuring everyone else and praying the guy that hit you does the same.
- dsfyu404ed 10y ago
  Affordable and accessible medical care is a prerequisite to that. After the injury aspect is taken out of the picture then it would make sense for everyone to insure as much as they want (e.g. homeowners insurance)
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    If I don't want to be insured for own personal bodily injury, why should I be forced to buy that product in a free market? What if the premium simply isn't cost effective? By forcing anyone to buy a product you are creating a captive market and thus insane prices. Especially when the businesses involved are explicitly allowed to collude[0]. Sounds like a bad deal for everyone but the insurance companies. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarran%E2%80%93Ferguson_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarran%E2%80%93Ferguson_Act
    - dsfyu404ed 10y ago
      My intention was to point out that if the medical side of things was a non-issue it would be much easier for society to get behind the idea of "just insure your own property however much you want"
dsfyu404ed 10y ago
Citation on the 1 in 7? That sounds like it comes from the same people who make any speeding offense on par with DUI and having an at fault accident in most points based systems. One in seven people with a license not having insurance I can see (because they might not have a vehicle) but one in seven vehicle/driver pairs on the road not being insured for that combination seems very high without monkeying around with the statistics.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  It actually sounds like a somewhat outdated (the trend is down and the most recent figure I can find is about 1 in 8 [0], rather than 1 in 7) figure derived from insurance claims (which may systematically misstate the share of drivers or driver/vehicle pairs, but probably is reasonably accurate in determining what people actually care about -- if I need to go after someone for damages resulting from an accident, will they have insurance? -- except to the extent that insured drivers are more or less likely to be in an accident with an uninsured driver vs. an insured driver, all other things being equal.) [0] http://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/uninsured-motorists http://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/uninsured-motorists
  - dsfyu404ed 10y ago
    How do they define "uninsured." My girlfriend isn't on my policy because she never drives my truck. Likewise the vast majority of the time I drive her car it's something along the lines of repositioning vehicles in the driveway. If I were to get in an accident in her car chances are there'd be a bunch of fighting with insurance but our insurance (same company, different policies) would probably wind up paying. Would I count as an uninsured motorist in that hypothetical situation? III has a very obvious incentive to portray insurance as something worth having as opposed to a waste of money (which it will be for most people who don't get into a situation involving medical or large amounts of property damage). I think they'd consider me uninsured in that situation. Reporting rates also have an effect. There's a much higher reporting rate for small accidents with a single uninsured party than for similar accidents in which both parties are insured. If one party is insured it's in that parties interest to maximize documentation unless it's undeniably their fault. If both parties are insured then it's much murkier, damage amount, deductibles, who's at fault, etc, etc. come into play and if the dollar amount is relatively low it's often more faster and cheaper for them to settle the matter without insurance company involvement. Basically, if someone without insurance gets in a parking lot accident the vast majority of people will report it whereas that's not necessarily the case when both parties are insured.

hyperbovine 10y ago

> Free Market is the US does not contain a well-informed consumer segment. So the claim boils boils down to, people don't know how to shop around for auto insurance? Forgive me for scoffing. And 1 in 7 is a lot lower than it would be otherwise.

undersuit 10y ago
Just because I can buy the same product from a number of different stores doesn't make me a well-informed consumer.

cmdrfred 10y ago

Exactly, and keep in mind many states have moved to a 'no-fault' model. So they don't actually care who is at fault for the accident anymore. So the question becomes, why doesn't everyone just insure themselves (IE. Their own car/medical bills to the level they are comfortable with) rather than insuring everyone else and praying the guy that hit you does the same.

dsfyu404ed 10y ago
Affordable and accessible medical care is a prerequisite to that. After the injury aspect is taken out of the picture then it would make sense for everyone to insure as much as they want (e.g. homeowners insurance)
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  If I don't want to be insured for own personal bodily injury, why should I be forced to buy that product in a free market? What if the premium simply isn't cost effective? By forcing anyone to buy a product you are creating a captive market and thus insane prices. Especially when the businesses involved are explicitly allowed to collude[0]. Sounds like a bad deal for everyone but the insurance companies. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarran%E2%80%93Ferguson_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarran%E2%80%93Ferguson_Act
  - dsfyu404ed 10y ago
    My intention was to point out that if the medical side of things was a non-issue it would be much easier for society to get behind the idea of "just insure your own property however much you want"

dsfyu404ed 10y ago

Citation on the 1 in 7? That sounds like it comes from the same people who make any speeding offense on par with DUI and having an at fault accident in most points based systems. One in seven people with a license not having insurance I can see (because they might not have a vehicle) but one in seven vehicle/driver pairs on the road not being insured for that combination seems very high without monkeying around with the statistics.

dragonwriter 10y ago
It actually sounds like a somewhat outdated (the trend is down and the most recent figure I can find is about 1 in 8 [0], rather than 1 in 7) figure derived from insurance claims (which may systematically misstate the share of drivers or driver/vehicle pairs, but probably is reasonably accurate in determining what people actually care about -- if I need to go after someone for damages resulting from an accident, will they have insurance? -- except to the extent that insured drivers are more or less likely to be in an accident with an uninsured driver vs. an insured driver, all other things being equal.) [0] http://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/uninsured-motorists http://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/uninsured-motorists
- dsfyu404ed 10y ago
  How do they define "uninsured." My girlfriend isn't on my policy because she never drives my truck. Likewise the vast majority of the time I drive her car it's something along the lines of repositioning vehicles in the driveway. If I were to get in an accident in her car chances are there'd be a bunch of fighting with insurance but our insurance (same company, different policies) would probably wind up paying. Would I count as an uninsured motorist in that hypothetical situation? III has a very obvious incentive to portray insurance as something worth having as opposed to a waste of money (which it will be for most people who don't get into a situation involving medical or large amounts of property damage). I think they'd consider me uninsured in that situation. Reporting rates also have an effect. There's a much higher reporting rate for small accidents with a single uninsured party than for similar accidents in which both parties are insured. If one party is insured it's in that parties interest to maximize documentation unless it's undeniably their fault. If both parties are insured then it's much murkier, damage amount, deductibles, who's at fault, etc, etc. come into play and if the dollar amount is relatively low it's often more faster and cheaper for them to settle the matter without insurance company involvement. Basically, if someone without insurance gets in a parking lot accident the vast majority of people will report it whereas that's not necessarily the case when both parties are insured.