4 ms·

The problem is when you combine "mandated" with "for profit". The two should never go together. If it's mandated, I want exactly zero of my dollars going toward

by hypeit 3y ago

The problem is when you combine "mandated" with "for profit". The two should never go together. If it's mandated, I want exactly zero of my dollars going toward executive compensation, dividends, stock buybacks, advertising, sales... You're currently paying for that neat little 3d animated gecko under threat of US law.

sokoloff 3y ago
In 32 of the 50 states, you can post a surety bond instead of buying the otherwise state-mandated auto insurance. That list includes my state. I buy auto insurance because it's more convenient (and cost-effective) than going through the bond posting process, arranging my own claims-handling and legal representation in the event of a loss, etc. I pay $1220/yr for insurance for two cars and two drivers (and for coverage well above the state minimums and excellent customer and claims service). IMO, it would be crazy for me to turn down that deal.
- pc86 3y ago
  Especially when the alternative is half a million dollars cash sitting in an account you can't legally access for anything else, or use as collateral for anything else, and you won't realistically have half a million dollars cash ever. I looked into a surety bond specifically for auto insurance thinking I might be able to earn a bit of interest on $100-200k cash, get a small dividend, and "break even" in half a dozen years or so. The reality was pretty grim, basically if you're not already actively searching for things to do with 6 or 7 figure sums, it's not worth the time, and that's ignoring the logistics of having someone available for the claims processing side.
ejb999 3y ago
the government doesn't mandate home insurance - the mortgage companies do - if you can pay cash for your house, the govt is not going to mandate you to insure it. If someone (a bank) owns 80% of the equity in your house, better believe they are going to make you insure it.
selectodude 3y ago
The mandate is for driving a vehicle on public roads, which is absolutely not a right. You can decline paying for-profit companies for insurance by not driving. The healthcare argument is different and reasonable. The lack of a taxpayer-funded health scheme in the United States combined with making it illegal to opt out of being alive (and requiring health insurance) is nonsense.
mindslight 3y ago
Food is provided by for profit companies, and buying food is mandatory for the sheer majority of people. Yet on the whole it's mostly a functioning market with mostly stable prices, apart from the recent spikes of trumpflation. The problem is lack of competition, both in pure number of companies due to consolidation, and also widespread collusion between what should be independent companies in the form of adopting the same business policies, software, and even surveillance databases (aka customer records).

by hypeit 3y ago

sokoloff 3y ago

In 32 of the 50 states, you can post a surety bond instead of buying the otherwise state-mandated auto insurance. That list includes my state. I buy auto insurance because it's more convenient (and cost-effective) than going through the bond posting process, arranging my own claims-handling and legal representation in the event of a loss, etc. I pay $1220/yr for insurance for two cars and two drivers (and for coverage well above the state minimums and excellent customer and claims service). IMO, it would be crazy for me to turn down that deal.

pc86 3y ago
Especially when the alternative is half a million dollars cash sitting in an account you can't legally access for anything else, or use as collateral for anything else, and you won't realistically have half a million dollars cash ever. I looked into a surety bond specifically for auto insurance thinking I might be able to earn a bit of interest on $100-200k cash, get a small dividend, and "break even" in half a dozen years or so. The reality was pretty grim, basically if you're not already actively searching for things to do with 6 or 7 figure sums, it's not worth the time, and that's ignoring the logistics of having someone available for the claims processing side.

ejb999 3y ago

the government doesn't mandate home insurance - the mortgage companies do - if you can pay cash for your house, the govt is not going to mandate you to insure it. If someone (a bank) owns 80% of the equity in your house, better believe they are going to make you insure it.

selectodude 3y ago

The mandate is for driving a vehicle on public roads, which is absolutely not a right. You can decline paying for-profit companies for insurance by not driving. The healthcare argument is different and reasonable. The lack of a taxpayer-funded health scheme in the United States combined with making it illegal to opt out of being alive (and requiring health insurance) is nonsense.

mindslight 3y ago

Food is provided by for profit companies, and buying food is mandatory for the sheer majority of people. Yet on the whole it's mostly a functioning market with mostly stable prices, apart from the recent spikes of trumpflation. The problem is lack of competition, both in pure number of companies due to consolidation, and also widespread collusion between what should be independent companies in the form of adopting the same business policies, software, and even surveillance databases (aka customer records).