Auto Insurance is a Fruadalent Enterprise. How do you stop participating?

Originally posted by TheKingsVillian
reply to post by wishful1gnorance

 

The problem is worldwide and is not limited by borders and names.
But other than that I agree with you.

I concur, however I cannot begin to wrap my 25 year old mind around global policy and am not going to attempt to here, at least not at the moment. I can only deal with the American system, it's something I'm presented with and have some idea about it. I have no first-hand perspective on the rest of the world's fraudulent systems, but there is certainly room for that discussion here as well.

reply to post by Goldcurrent

I agree, that it CAN work for some, but the majority suffer in that system.

I don't really feel like that is true at all. Maybe if you had some statistic to back that up. The majority of people I know don't have a very large cost at all. Maybe if you said the majority of people under 30 or the majority of unsafe drivers sure. why shouldn't they? They are the ones causing the majority of accidents.

Why should someone who's 24 years old who's never had an infraction, pay a ridiculous sum to drive, just because they fall in the age bracket of 16-25?

Because statistically they are more likely to cause a serious accident, get in more accidents drive irresponsibly and based solely on their age they are inherently less experienced at driving. My counter to that argument is why should older, experienced drivers have to pay a higher rate just so that a minority of young "safe" drivers (as opposed to the majority of young inexperienced/unsafe drivers) can have a lower rate?

Here, a 16 year old could easily insure 3 vehicles for under $2000 a year. I was using $1500 as a benchmark as the highest premium on a new luxury vehicle/sports car.

They could here as well, they would just have to be a covered in their parents insurance, as most 16 year old's are.

My parents who are in their 60's pay about $60 a month for their two new $30k+ luxury SUV's. That's $720 a year for 2 drivers on two brand new luxury cars. They also have 50 or so years of responsible driving to back that rate up.

The $2040 number I gave in my last post is for 2 people on 3 cars. It would be much less but my wife has a knack for getting into fender benders, drives in a large city and commutes about 100 miles a day combined to and from work. all things that raise the likely-hood of being involved in an accident.

OP has to pay 2400 a year for an old beat up half tonne?

The OP has also had multiple driving infractions. Their rates could be lower without those. When I was 25 I was paying about $110 a month for my brand new 30k mazda 6. Also the OP lives in a country with a much greater and denser population thus increasing their likely-hood of being involved in an accident. How many people live in your country? I can't imagine that the rates would be the same if your population was around 310 million.

Anyhow, I am not trying to get into a debate with you. It is obvious you like how your country does things and it is obvious I feel the same about how mine does things. We can go back and forth until we are blue in the face. I just wanted to give you my examples as usually people only hear the outrageous prices but for every one of those there are hundreds of fair prices.

IF A MOD IS READING THIS THREAD, COULD YOU PLEASE EDIT THE FIRST LINE OF THE OP TO SAY THAT THE THREAD HAS BEEN SUMMARIZED ON PAGE 6, FOR NEWER READERS. ty I can no longer edit it.

Certainly I want to leave room for the discussion of why the Auto-Insurance industry is not fraudulent, because many people disagree, or at least see it as a necessary evil. However for the remainder of the thread let's ASSUME IT IS FRAUDULENT, UNLESS you want to discuss NEW perspectives on why it isn't and your argument is NOT something REPETITIOUS.

I want to redirect the conversation towards either, new policies for the adjudication of Auto-insurance or complete separation from the Auto-insurance policies. This is not a thread I had primarily intended to focus on me. It should be about what we as either individuals (which I think we've covered the majority of individual opportunities), or what we can do as a whole.

The Individual Separation ideas discussed so far, are (chronologically):
-Only buy auto-insurance when you need it for registration
-Get a horse and buggy (which later someone suggested you'd still need tags for)(also not realistic for apartment dwellers)
-Just follow the rules
-Start a cash bond with the DMV at a single payment and then no more.
-Bicycle or run (not realistic for the commuters or where public transportation is not available)
-Pay as you drive insurance
-Move to NH where Auto-insurance is optional
-Stay with the system through working with corporations
-Shut up, stop complaining
-Play the game? Pay less state and federal taxes....
-Get a Smaller Vehicle
-Get a motorcycle
-Get the Bill of Sale when purchasing vehicles, if possible. Showing ownership by other means than through the DMV.
-Foregoing Citizenship or at least formally retracting previously signed documents where you sign over rights.
-Find a loop-hole in the system
-Forgo unneeded expenses and go into debt.
-Walk
-Escape with High Education
-Move to a rural area where there are no police.
-respectfully decline to acquiesce to their system.
-work within their system
-Just don't pay it
-Bicycle
-Reduce fuel bill
-close bank accounts, buy land, live there
-JRedBeard has a lot of good ideas on PAGE 4, half way down. But since it's a combination I'll let you read what he had to say
-expatriation www.pacinlaw.org...
-If you can't afford it, you can't drive, so you're screwed
-Buy an RV, insure it only when you need to move it (available only in certain states). One of the best ideas yet, at least for being off the grid.

Mass Ideas:
-Using non-profit crowd funding to back any enterprises for the people.
-Changing Privilege to Right to drive in every context of the law, formating and editing laws as necessary.
-Creating policies where it is required to be given your Bill of Sale when buying any car.
-Auto insurance should be only bought to cover yourself (i think there are some flaws to this, but OhZone has some good points)
-Government sold insurance, at a low flat rate that covers everyone to the extent which they need. (Socialism, but seriously not the worst idea, at least for this issue, maybe between this and combination of OhZone's idea)
-Removing insurance completely (saying it would create a greater incentive to drive cautiously out of fear of losing everything)

If I missed any I apologize. I'll edit them if you let me know. I hope this summation helps readers just now picking up the thread to jump into the conversation. The Goal should be to add to the existing list of ideas.

are there any states left

that don't require auto insurance??

or county where its the dirt cheapest in the whole country

for those who are actually STAYING in USA

reply to post by sageofmonticello


Very well articulated, I agree that the system does work for many people. I think one additional thing to consider is the profiling that goes on in police departments, and the fabrication of charges simply to create revenue in the system. This is something I have seen occur and has happened to me. Many driving violations are victimless crimes and usually fall with in the range of safe driving standards. Like going 10 over on the highway when it's empty. There should be more discretion when it comes to the police enforcing laws, there shouldn't be quotas officers need to meet for # of tickets issued in a given time period. This all leads to points on an individual's license and I think it's blind to lump all drivers with points on their license into the 'bad or reckless' drivers category and make them pay for it more than they already have by paying court costs. I most certainly understand the idea behind paying a higher premium if you have been in an accident, but not necessarily if you've had a few minor moving violations.

reply to post by wishful1gnorance


Um.....it's pretty simple. Start riding a bike, or a scooter. Problem solved...You'll save money on gas too.

Gas prices in Germany are about 10dollars for a gallon. (German's who own a car pay about 1.60euros average a liter) Gas prices will just keep increasing in the future, and as far as my options go, I will have to find a job near my hometown and take the train there everyday. Depending on how far I have to travel, Die Bahn ticket will cost anywhere from 100euros-150euros.(In the Saarland and Rheinpfalz area) Much, much cheaper than driving a car. Sure, there will be some downsides, but who cares. If you are willing to give up the little things for a good gain, then go for it.

I understand that the USA is also not littered with train stations. =/ Maybe start riding the bus!

reply to post by benrl


so i guess you consider riding a horse or a bicycle a privledge too? cuz with all the cyclists out there it's only a matter of time before they have to pay ins. too

ride a bike

insurance is a scam of sorts, the actuaries can almost always hit the profit point the company wants

why ?

we are predictable

very predictable.

if it wasn't required by law, nobody would have it, and you'd be singing a different tune if someone rear ended you and totaled your ride and gave you whiplash

you know it's true

Originally posted by wishful1gnorance
reply to post by sageofmonticello

 

Very well articulated, I agree that the system does work for many people. I think one additional thing to consider is the profiling that goes on in police departments, and the fabrication of charges simply to create revenue in the system. This is something I have seen occur and has happened to me. Many driving violations are victimless crimes and usually fall with in the range of safe driving standards. Like going 10 over on the highway when it's empty. There should be more discretion when it comes to the police enforcing laws, there shouldn't be quotas officers need to meet for # of tickets issued in a given time period. This all leads to points on an individual's license and I think it's blind to lump all drivers with points on their license into the 'bad or reckless' drivers category and make them pay for it more than they already have by paying court costs. I most certainly understand the idea behind paying a higher premium if you have been in an accident, but not necessarily if you've had a few minor moving violations.

I am right there with you. We have certain stop signs in my neighborhood where the police will camp out all day and wait for rolling stops. I think this is absolutely ridiculous. These are essentially one or two car an hour, neighborhood roads. In my opinion a rolling stop, is a stop. I mean what is unsafe about slowing your speed from 25mph to less than 1mph, seeing that all is clear and going? Absolutely nothing.

It is a racket. Officers have discretion but choose not to use it. They have been unleashed on a public in an effort to raise funds. Safety is their cover story, much like a mafia family may have a restaurant as their "front". Courts are another money maker. I my state they will pull you over for speeding, give you a ticket then if you go to fight the ticket an officer will offer you a deal where it is not reported to insurance if you just pay the ticket.

It is clear the only reason to do this is to convince anybody with a good case to simply pay the money. Many do simply because they can get things over with. The other option is to deny the deal and take another day off in the future ad go back to court up to 3 or more times before finally speaking to a judge.

Officers over zealously enforcing arbitrary laws that have caused no harm when broken is a real problem. Fabricating charges is too. You should give your car insurance a call and ask them if there is any actions you can take to reduce your rate. Taking a few hour long defensive driving course is usually good to save 10% or more. I agree though, it is a racket in many locations and it is not always fair or even just.

reply to post by Needalight

I understand that the USA is also not littered with train stations. =/ Maybe start riding the bus!

Not many bus stations here either unfortunately. It just is not cost effective to have public transportation in the majority of areas. The ones that do exist are extremely inefficient and constantly late. Try keeping a job and riding a bus everyday to work... I give it a month before getting fired. If you live outside of a city, generally there is no public transportation options, not even cabs to call, your only options are to drive a motor vehicle of some sort or literally walk or bike 20+ miles a day or more to get around.

Also just to add to the discussion (not directly a reply to Needalight) Those who are saying move to a location such as a city where a car is not necessary, doesn't city tax basically end up costing whatever the savings in insurance will be? My wife works in Philadelphia and her city tax, even as a non-resident is much more than her car insurance.

Originally posted by daddio
reply to post by AmethystSD

 

Read my post. Insurance is a scam. Sorry but if people had no insurance, just think how cautious they would be then, and how responsible. KNOWING that they could lose everything. THAT is responsibility. Not being disrespectful, but I have driven without insurance as a young man for years, no accidents, and not because I was lucky, because I paid attention and was careful. Stupid should hurt and badly.

A surety bond at the local credit union, it would cover health, car, home and everything else. BUT the government needed a bed buddy and the insurance company was born, it IS a scam. Sad but true. Wish I could explain the whole of the scenerio so everyone would understand it but don't have the time.

The first person credited with suggesting an insurance system like the one we have today was Benjamin Franklin. He argued that when one person is unlucky and has a devastating loss, it ruins them. He said that we should find away to spread out that risk among everyone, in order to indemnify those who suffer the loss, and that way people don't have to loose the farm because of one fire. Indemnify means to make equal, to put things back the way they were. I agree with him, in that I'd rather pay into an account with a large group of people, knowing that if something horrible happens I'm covered, rather than just take my chances.

You say you weren't lucky and that your avoidance of accidents was due to your vigilance alone. It's likely that you have been a responsible driver, but it is still very easy to be unlucky and have an accident. There are a lot of ways to have an "at fault" accident with no real negligence on the part of the driver. One example is driving on black ice. The thing is, without auto insurance, you are not just gambling with your own life, you are gambling with someone else's life as well.

I'm not saying the system is perfect. There are a lot of things wrong with overall system, I just think that the insurance system usually works well and is comparatively pretty efficient and fair, not counting its ties to the credit system or the medical system that has hugely inflated prices.

I understand now, that the OP has higher insurance because of tickets, which he feels he got unfairly. But, the law enforcement system being corrupt is not the fault of the insurance system. Instead of asking why the insurance system is punishing you, ask why the law enforcement is corrupt and how to deal with that. The insurance system sees your tickets and thinks that you are a high risk. It's usually a reasonable assumption to make, and statistically it is an assumption that works.

I didn't bring the quotes into this post from the person who was saying that insurance companies make profits. But I do have a reply for that. I worked in property and casualty insurance for a time. P&C means mostly home and auto with umbrella policies and sometimes boats or RVs, that sort of thing. Our company was very large and had a very efficient pricing system. Whenever we collected more premiums than we paid out, we had a rate adjustment to make the premiums more competitive. More competitive prices means more sales. Most of the profit the company made was from investing the premiums before they were paid out. I'm not just quoting a boss, or a company handbook when I say this. I saw firsthand rate reductions, and I saw the emails between the higher ups concerning investment strategies. I don't know that all companies do things the same way, but if they don't, then their prices are going to be higher.

I don't expect to be coming back to this thread later, because I don't believe that this discussion has anything to do with understand how insurance actually works, or getting it to work better, or learning to work within the system.

great thread!!! It certainly IS fraud... there shouldnt be profits involved in such a service. I've paid upwards of 30000$ on insurance, have never been in an accident or even had a traffic ticket. I witnessed a drunk driver back into my car in a parking lot from the deck of my apartment, and it took me over a year to claim 500$ in damages. Saddest thing of it all, is that the offender was under the same insurance company as me, yet it still took over a year. Pathetic.

I think auto insurance is necessary, but there shouldn't be profits involved. It should be government regulated as a service for the people.

reply to post by wishful1gnorance


If you are 25 and have paid 20K in insurance then I would say you need to shop your insurance around.

Now, you can approach this the way a large corporation would. A company stands to make billions on a product but said company knows to produce this product will result in a polluted river. The exposure of polluting the river is 250 million (if caught)...see where I am going?

At 25 you have yet to have an accident but you have already spent 20k on insurance. A minor "fender bender" may cost you 3-10k?

Do the math.

Have your vehicle registration and inspection due at the same time.

just sayin..

Originally posted by Needalight
Gas prices in Germany are about 10dollars for a gallon. (German's who own a car pay about 1.60euros average a liter) Gas prices will just keep increasing in the future, and as far as my options go, I will have to find a job near my hometown and take the train there everyday. Depending on how far I have to travel, Die Bahn ticket will cost anywhere from 100euros-150euros.(In the Saarland and Rheinpfalz area) Much, much cheaper than driving a car. Sure, there will be some downsides, but who cares. If you are willing to give up the little things for a good gain, then go for it.

I understand that the USA is also not littered with train stations. =/ Maybe start riding the bus!

There is no busing system in town. It's also not possible for me to ride a bike everywhere I need to go, simply based on time constraints. I need to have a vehicle, but not auto-insurance. Public transportation would be nice, yet it's not available.

So all of you who hate insurance would buy a new vehicle with no warranty as well? I mean insurance is a scam right?

Originally posted by wishful1gnorance

I'm sure they have pretty deep coffers to reach into if they actually decided to do the right thing.

Absolutely. They are required by law to have legal reserves to be able to pay out their share for whatever state they're in.

I'd go so far to say that the reason there aren't more accidents is because people drive around vary cautiously not just to avoid infractions but to avoid rising premiums due to accidents.

Yes! That's why I avoid accidents.. LOL Also because I don't want to deal with the insurance company, the other guys insurance company, dent my new car, or have my car in the shop with me having no way to travel.

Even by what you said it shows the correlation, sure there are automatic adjustments that are made, but at that moment before raising premiums (mid-payment? seems like they would have to wait until the policy term was up) their profit would be affected.

Yeah I took this from my economics degree. If someones making a large profit margin, and another company can easily enter the market, then they eventually will, and have cheaper premiums. You can switch carriers anytime you want.

5% profit seems fictitious to me. That just simply can't be right. That would have to mean that nearly 50% (made up number, but I think I'm in the ball park) of their customers were in accidents, or they payed huge bonuses to executives. It doesn't seem in a business like that there are too many constant overhead costs.

It's a business, and to run a business you have expenses. Have to pay state filing fees, pay employees, rent, utilities, have money set aside for claims. Think of yourself as a business. You earn revenue (paycheck or cash from doing services) and you spend that money on gasoline, upkeep for your car, food so you can eat, bills for electricity, rent, internet, maybe a phone if you need one, clothes, etc, and at the end of the year you see how much $$ you saved, that would be your profit.

Either way you spin it, people are getting screwed from this insurance system more so than people are benefiting from it. We should put emphasis on establishing legal boundaries for these insurance company's policies so that they aren't aimed at profit, it should not solely be a business prospect. When you have to have it to even drive a car which you need to have a job to pay for everything else that is needed to maintain a modern lifestyle, it should either be a government institution (which atm I'd still be highly speculative of, also government spending usually aims to go even, if they profited they spent their money poorly, strangely enough this is a popular macroeconomic concept) or should be a primary cost to start driving, which may be just as self defeating as the current system. There must be a better alternative.

I just want to thank you for creating this thread, it's probably the one i've posted in the most overall.
The reason it caught my attention so much is because I used to think the exact same thing. It's bad enough that you need to spend all this money on a car just to get around to get to work, buy food etc, because the infrastructure here is not designed for mass transit (That's a whole other conspiracy you can get into created by the oil companies back in the day).
So basically we're forced to have cars, unless you live and work in the city (Most cities I've been to I would not want to live in, they are either shady areas or way too expensive).
And if we have a car we are forced by the government to buy private insurance. Sounds like something this health care bill is trying to do.

I've been thinking about living half off the grid. It's really inescapable to live outside of the system in this day and age. We just have to play the game or change it. You could have a plot of land, with an "earth house" that requires no heat or cooling as it uses natural heating and cooling. It has room for growing a garden so you can cut down on food costs. Solar/wind power would be enough to power your home. The only expenses I would see besides setting all of this up (under $100k to begin with) would be property taxes, internet, car, and some supplies here and there that you can't make on your own.

Probably would still need a source of income, but in order to "live" without having to worry about all the BS in the system, you wouldn't have to make much.

Originally posted by TheKingsVillian
The fact that nearly 75% of responses say they believe in this shows a lack of understanding about what we can and can't do.

A. You can do whatever you want. Its your choice, or your not truly free.

You never asked for these rules or systems you were born into them as slaves. They are all fake and you have NO responsibility to them. The illusion of civilization is the only thing keeping these rules and systems intact.

There will always be good and bad people, rules and laws will never change that, maybe it's time to change our approach and move forward.

Yeah what are laws? Just some ink on a piece of paper, which was then sent to someone to be voted on and signed by more ink, and stored away on a bookshelf some where. How the hell does that affect me if we truly lived in nature?

I use to disagree with insurance...only because I disagreed with money (still some what do)

If your smart and want to go through life with the least resistance, get insurance and keep it. Like the above poster said, if you get in an accident, it will be a mountain of debt that could have been avoided by paying a couple hundred bucks a month.

I own 2 vehicles, a car and a motor scooter. I don't drive my car for the same reason you don't want insurance, I would have to pay around 180 a month.

BUT my scooter, boy is that thing cheap. 27 a month for insurance, and 4 dollars to fill her up.

Get a scooter or another 49cc motor bike. Fun as hell and only costs you 40 bucks a month.

reply to post by AmethystSD


looks like you were able to strike the deathblow.

Just keep in mind, I'll work with the system, or burn it to the ground, either way, it's not where it should be. I'm sure you have a better understanding of the system of procedures that happens internally at a local insurance firm, but you may be thinking on too small a scale. It's the system as a whole, all the little local companies providing insurance through the big companies, they are not the problem. It is the major firms reaping the benefits, and I doubt you got to see what the executives are talking about, other than maybe a few chain letters.

In addition, the corrupt executive branch of our government and the strong arm of the law are just as detrimental as Auto-Insurance can be to some, However it seems a whole a lot less likely that it would be the place to start, I think if you can eliminate the need for police, which may be impossible in some contexts, then we can start to address that system, but there are a lot of topics that need to be addressed before we can get there. Society at this point in times needs to have fear constantly lurking over their heads. Without it, many would turn to Anarchy in a matter of moments, maybe. Until we as a society can move past the need for police we can't eliminate or even have realistic conversations about dealing with the policing system.

However, silly me to think people would go past the breadth of my personal argument, the link in the OP had quite a few other people who unlike me were older and paid nearly $100k even with good driving records and no major claims later they have nothing to show for it. If you spend $100k and get nothing in return, that's just poor form. Even if the only make 5% profit consider the ~250mill people that are required to have insurance, if they pay an AVERAGE of $100 each month per year, and get you get 5% profit from that number, insurance companies profited $15trill/year as a whole. So I know this is an exaggeration, but it show the points. On a big enough scale 5% is huge. Also there is no way they are at 95% costs much of that money must go to bonuses another means other than just, well they lowered their premiums to boost sales.

The mandatory nature of insurance is really the problem, I see the up's-and-down's of not having it, but I think on average it would be better for some, especially very cautious and alert drivers. I am trying to work with the system, I am actively trying to find something that will work better. Call me crazy.