We simply need a better topic in here. One that is worthy of thought and that will not get me banned for being a hate-mongering bigot.

Insurance is a form of actuarial usury that drives up costs of all things insured and that provides no real service. Insurance rears is ugly head in the form of compulsory insurance for drivers of motor vehicles (at least in the US) to the health insurance employers provide that is theoretically discounted, but in fact just means the worker is being forced to relinquish a portion of their compensation to have this insurance.

Heaven forbid a person should attempt to be self-insuring. Hospitals will give you lower priority in treatment and charge you more than they charge insurance companies if you do pay.

In fact, the insurance companies have us so trapped in red tape that doctors offices must employ extra people for the sole purpose of dealing with insurance.

It seems to me an intelligent person might be able to set aside a few hundred dollars a month, and in a relatively short time they would have the money to buy 99% of what insurance companies were supporting.

Let's face it: Insurance companies are in business to make money. This means the average person loses money for having insurance and that the greater your need for the insurance the harder the insurance company will work to void your claim with their expert lawyers--and that isn't just health insurance but all insurance.

It's not enough to just allow a person to self insure. The entire infrastructure is poisoned and made inefficient by insurance companies. They need to be outlawed.

I think if the majority of Americans were actually fiscally responsible/stable enough to achieve this goal, it wouldn't be a horrible idea. I see some downfalls to it, but my biggest fear would be that a very small portion of the population could destroy the entire structure. Unfortunately, as a nation we are not responsible or stable anymore, and as relevant as an idea as this might be, it's a pipe pipe dream until that can be changed.

I could also see this putting a much greater strain on the legal system to help resolve petty lawsuits where an insurance company, or companies, would normally decide who was at fault for an accident or loss.

Also, insurance companies make their money through investment funds fed by premiums, not just the premium they charge every month. If they did not take your premium and put it into an investment fund, most insurance companies would go belly up inside of a year. The up side to this is that they can provide more coverage than you are paying per month in the case of catastrophic events...whether they do or not is another discussion, of course.

Personally, I'm much more in favor of the idea of setting some basic standards/restrictions that they have to live within and holding them to those. I don't know if that's via gov't, or via some sort of private sector committee, but I honestly don't think the goal is achievable with our current fiscal situation.

Terror, Im a tow truck driver, Insurance runs and ruins my industry all the time.its rather sickening. they take us to court over minimal dollar amounts while dropping the insured because they got in an accident. You should see what the 30-40 yr old loyal providers are getting for their loyalty.

don't think i'm paying for any insurance at the moment, unless it's embedded in my taxes. would've been nice to have kept the car, but i probably need the exercise anyway. suppose i could've just spent more money by joining a gym.

Are you talking about all insurance or health insurance?


Private health care is pretty much a political shell game anyway.
The issue is a combination of litigation costs, medical and equipment costs which have to be paid by someone. Arguably sticking an insurance company in the middle is just delaying the impact of free market supply and demand on the health care side. Although the problem is that when the choice comes to use it or die things become pretty grim.



re insurance in general: the insurance company only gets its money from you and hence if the costs overall go up then your premiums go up. With low low interest rates you also pretty much ensure high high rate increases. Large litigation costs and fraud also play a huge roll in this. On top of that when you switch to an insured system then you have to pay for the staff and operating costs of the insurance company on top of all that.

Regarding auto insurance. I'm all for that. In exchange you get no compensation and cannot sue for damages beyond direct damage to your car and possibly your medical bills as assessed by an independent board. Have fun collecting.

fyi: Life insurance and pension companies are hugely profitable. auto is not. Home insurance is.
Most insurers are pretty much resigned to the fact that the collapse of the health care insurance market is only a matter of time. Pretty much costs are slowly outstripping their ability to charge premiums that people can afford. If no one can afford your prices and you can't break even with what people are willing to charge then it's market failure time. Simple economics.


"It seems to me an intelligent person might be able to set aside a few hundred dollars a month, and in a relatively short time they would have the money to buy 99% of what insurance companies were supporting."
For auto and house? not even close..
for life insurance definitely. Life insurance is a bad investment.
For medical? see my comments above.

"insurance companies make their money through investment funds fed by premiums, not just the premium they charge every month. If they did not take your premium and put it into an investment fund, most insurance companies would go belly up inside of a year."
That really depends on the type of insurance. In general (especially for home and auto) that isn't true. For life insurance it's very true.

fyi. Most commercial insurance (not compulsory at all) is very profitable but is also very popular among small business owners. For ones that get hit with fire or business interruption it is usually business saving for them.
The degree of rate regulation in the US is insane and that is also part of the problem. In Canada the only regulated insurance is the mandatory auto piece. Home insurance (not regulated nor required at all) is relatively profitable and popular. On the other hand we don't have the same problem with people building in flood zones or in tornado alley.

"Personally, I'm much more in favor of the idea of setting some basic standards/restrictions that they have to live within and holding them to those. "
That is pretty much the status quo in most of the world. The US is somewhat corrupt when it comes to that. Certain states are just pathetically bad. Also the US is one of the most heavily regulated insurance markets in the world... which always surprises me.

I guess my main objection is the forced auto insurance. I have a policy I happen to have right beside me that covers at most $60,000. While it is not in my own bank account, it is easily withing my parents'. If allowed I could basically insure through my parents and keep our money in the family. I'd not mind the notion of requiring an "insurance account" that must be maintained at $60,000 per insured motorist. We will of course have this in our own investment portfolio and we would reap the rewards. I resent being forced to purchase anything from private companies by law.

My other complaint is the total warping insurance companies have on the economy as a whole. It's probably across the board, but probably most evident in health insurance. Martian covered the point well though. It's approaching a point where medical care isn't affordable whether you have insurance or not.

I would say this though, without insurance, there would be no insurance fraud. I couldn't tell you how much that is costing the rest of us, but it isn't nothing.

lol, you really think that every motorist in america has 60K they could put into an account for insurance? 60K is the minimum in most states.

the basic premise of mandated insurance is to protect others, not you. i dont know a single state that requited personal coverage, only liability. that way when you fluff someone elses day up, they dont have to eat the cost of their car that YOU wrecked.

how many ppl that you know have the money to replace someone elses car in their account?

I really don't care who else has that money available. I do. You really should read more carefully. I repeat, "I'd not mind the notion of requiring an "insurance account" that must be maintained at $60,000 per insured motorist."

I already knew it was to pay for the other person (their health--not their car since collision insurance covers that for your own vehicle) but it was irrelevant anyway.

Honestly, I'd not mind getting rid of insurance companies and having people keep insurance accounts if they want to drive cars which might well leave cars as a wealthy person's convenience.

Then again maybe it would emphasize to people the value of not living hand to mouth by spending every pay check to 0. If they still don't get it, the masses can use public transportation. The United States would benefit from a better public transportation system for energy and environmental reasons.

You mean I get to blame environmental issues on insurance companies too? That is so win!

not every town in america has public transportation. you are thinking VERY small scale without thinking of the repercussions of your suggestions, which is making it hard to take this debate seriously.

not everyone has collision insurance, and liability covers the other persons car as well as health.....have you ever been in a wreck with insurance companies involved? lol it doesnt sound like it

I'm not talking about what is, I'm talking about what could and ultimately will be. As energy costs increase, public transportation in the United States will become more profitable. If you don't wish to take this discussion seriously, I'd appreciate it if you would refrain from trolling.

Liability might cover $500 on a car if memory serves, but that's about it, and I have never been the beneficiary of this from an insurance company. I did have one person pay me off to not claim and I was cool with it. I had a crappy car with cosmetic damage from a rear end collision, and no one was hurt. I am not the master of insurance claims, and if I need to crash to become one, I'll pass thanks.

liability most certifiably covers more than $500. as i said the state minimum for NC and FL are $60K, thats health and car damages. i know i was in a minor wreck in NC when i was in high school, and i was rear ended and end up hitting the car in front of me. my insurance paid to fix the car in front of me, and the car that hit me's insurance paid for my camaro.

now, if you are in a single car wreck, or in a wreck that is your fault, that is where collision insurance comes in, as its not state mandatory and makes payments rise considerably. so, state mandated liability insurance benefits everyone, and if you want to get the minimum insurance you can if thats what you choose. its to protect everyone else, just like you pay taxes that pay cops. you might not need the cops, but its for the collective good. would you feel any different is insurance was brought under the goverment and added to tax? you would no longer have a insurance paypent, and collision wouldnt exist, but insurance companies wouldnt exist!

if you want to go out and get a $15 a month insurance payment you can, pretty easily. you can also insure the same car for $100 a month. that is your choice in the matter. if you get the state minimum of $60K, and total a $100K car you are still liable for the difference.

as for public transportation, you have never been to rural america have you? it will never be profitable to run a bus through the mid west along roads where people live every 10 miles.

it will become more popular in current mid sized cities, but in order to implement your "idea" nationwide, it would never work

Ok, thanks for the info on insurance. In some ways, I would feel better having government insurance, and if I was unhappy with how it was being managed, I could vote for different people. However, I am also well aware that voting often is no better than choosing between private companies since I may not like any of my choices when it comes to voting, and it can at least be said that the insurance companies specialize in what they do, so if one of them fails to perform properly, I can switch companies without switching every other thing my government representatives control. Still, self insurance should be an option for those who can demonstrate the savings. I don't like others having a legal right to earn interest on my money.

I live in a rural area. I even happen to drive buses from time to time (school buses). In order for public transportation to work in the countryside, service providers would operate at a loss to service remote people. Mail delivery has operated that way since inception, public transport can too. When a service model is put forth to serve everyone, it just means that more profit is made on some people than others. It may not seem fair to the individual, but it does serve the collective good. Obviously nationwide public transportation isn't going to happen soon since no one has even a remote action plan for it, but never is a long time.

FYI, the Midwest is far more populous than that. I lived in Michigan most of my life. If you want to go somewhere with thin population, Wyoming, Montana, and the Dakotas work much better. Still, you can rest assured those folks are still getting junk mail they didn't ask for and they don't pay extra for it.

This is SO TRUE! I recently discovered that it's difficult to even find a family doctor that will allow you to pay with cash. They insist on your having insurance.

I suspect that this is because they can bill the insurance company for services above and beyond what the real, or actual cost might be, but I may be wrong on that.

Any other suppositions about why something like this should be, please post them. :)

cash, as in hard currency? they might just not want the money laying around so that they don't get robbed.
i haven't had any problem with paying them without using insurance, and at least 1 instance of paying less than what insurance would've paid.

yeah. they dont want cash, but are more than happy taking plastic.

i have had more than my fair share of doctor and hospital visits, and when i get my statement from the insurance companies/doctors they always match up with what i had done.

now i do agree that places like dentists always try to get you with fluff you dont need if you have great insurance, but they always inform you of it before they get you with it.

if you have experienced otherwise than you really need to find new doctors.

I see the doctors so infrequently I have not had to deal much with insurance. I've had some checkups just so they have baseline data in case something went wrong, but that's about it. My dental services seem pretty standard and my insurance covers it all.

It's all fairly brainless, and in a way I like that, but I still suspect the doctor and the dentist could make as much money by charging me directly, and would end up charging me less.

I've never had a problem paying providers with currency. Nobody pays cash for anything these days, but I have never had a problem using a personal or notarized check (depending on the amount), or even a debit card in a lot of cases. Since my son has required special medical attention since the day he was born, I'd say I've been through more providers than the average person too, so I'm not sure where your conclusion comes from Cerb.

To add to what fordie said, my current (absolutely minimal) liability insurance is $10k property damage, $60k personal injury, $50k uninsured motorist liability. This costs me $110/month for 2 vehicles, which I am happy to pay vs. tying up $60,000 worth of funds into an essentially frozen acct.

So far as mass transit in rural areas - it's improving by leaps and bounds, at least in MN. The Metro Line is scheduled to hit a town 90 miles from the Twin Cities with a population of about 8,000 by late 2012, and bus lines are going as far out as towns 60 miles away, some with populations under 5,000 people. Granted, there's not a bus coming every 4 minutes, but then again that's not really needed that far out.

minimum insurance requirements vary by state btw. just wanted to point that out.

Just to point this out. If you have enough money, you can be "self-insured" with your auto insurance. Large trucking companies do that so they do not have to pay an insurance company to handle it.

What they do is post a bond equal to the amounnt of coverage they are required to have, and earn interest on it, instead of paying that same money to an insurance company to acheive the same results.

Thus, the solution to most insurance woes is to have th emoney on hand to provide yourself with "self-insurance" and earn interest on the money that YOU still control.

Power to the PWOPLE.

The only problem with that approach is that you then have $xx,xxx in an account that is not earning you any money. If you're liquid enough to have that kind of money sitting around, you are going to want to make that money work for you. Direct expense wise it's probably cheaper than paying for insurance, but I'm not so sure about long term cost.

I had wondered what the trucking companies did. I was aware of that but didn't know the mechanics of it. I see your point too NOW3P, but for many of us, we don't have time to both work our regular job and start our own business, so earning interest on a bond is better than not.

flag