Drivers can save by letting Big Brother ride

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

...insurance vs. litigation, the lesser of two evils?

Our resignation to the acceptance of evil always begins with that comparison.

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

I've inquired to many govt agencies re: self insurance and not a soul knows anything about it. :/

Seeing that it is not permitted, why would they want anyone to know about it?

Besides, government bureaucrats are probably the last people you want to consult for beneficial advice. And don't ask insurance companies, either. Seeing that they are in the insurance business, it would run contrary to their financial interests if you could opt out.

[Frank Lee]

It is permitted- I found the statute. But I can't find anyone/anything to provide me with details or otherwise facilitate doing it.

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

Yah, DCB doesn't comprehend what I write sometimes. Apparently he doesn't understand what "self-insured" means.

I don't know what your rant had to do with anything- especially what I said- either.

So are you back in the here and now today?

[dcb]

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

Yah, DCB doesn't comprehend what I write sometimes. Apparently he doesn't understand what "self-insured" means.

DCB understands whiny misinformation spewing political troll perfectly well, but doesnt think complaining and constantly talking about politics is appropriate. Self insurance was one of the first things I looked into when insurance became mandatory, and it is allowable, with the type of secured funds I mentioned. The gubment doesn't care where the $50k assurance comes from as long as it is there when the time comes. You have not offered any alternatives yet, so maybe it is time to quit *****in so much.

Do you want people (or their insurers) to be able to pay you if they hit you or not?

[UFO]

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

Yah, DCB doesn't comprehend what I write sometimes. Apparently he doesn't understand what "self-insured" means.

Unfortunately the mandatory aspect of auto liability insurance doesn't allow anyone to opt out, for any reason. (It's supposedly a precedent for forcing mandatory healthcare insurance on us as well.)

And you should not be able to either. You seem a bit self-centered about this issue; it should not be an option to drive on public roads without some way of compensating others for the damage you do. Just think if an uninsured person hits you -- would you be ok without compensation?

[roosterk0031]

Any more I think no-fault may be the way to go, I insure my car, my house, my kids, my life, why should I insure your car.

It would suck if somebody runs into me and I have to pay, but my monthly bill would be lower and after 52 years of driving(24 me, 24 wife, +4 daughter) my insurance has covered 2 windshields & $56 out of a $556 repair bill due to an uninsured driver breaking my bumper mask so I guess I'm OK paying for my own car weither it's my fault or not.

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

It is permitted- I found the statute. But I can't find anyone/anything to provide me with details or otherwise facilitate doing it.

You can't "facilitate doing it". Mandatory insurance means it's not permitted.

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by UFO

And you should not be able to either. You seem a bit self-centered about this issue; it should not be an option to drive on public roads without some way of compensating others for the damage you do.

Who suggested there would be no way of compensating others? The negligent party would be sued. If he were self-insured he would pay the damages in full or effect a settlement. There is only a problem if he can't cover the the amount of the damages (in which case he isn't self-insured).

Just think if an uninsured person hits you -- would you be ok without compensation?

A typical auto insurance policy for liability has protection against "uninsured drivers". If I chose not to buy insurance against "uninsured motorists" I would be out of luck - but I'd have no one but myself to blame for that.

I'm getting the impression that some here are clueless about what negligence and legal liability is. Your remark about my being "self-centered' is a poor substitute for your lack of understanding of how the law works.

The whole point of the discussion about mandatory insurance is that you do not get to choose whether to buy it or not; you can't opt out even if you can afford to cover any damages caused by your own negligence. The government (in virtually all states) forces you to pay for insurance for your own negligence, even if you are never negligent. Where does that money you are paying go? It goes toward insurance company profits and subsidizing the accidents of those who are negligent.

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by dcb

DCB understands whiny misinformation spewing political troll perfectly well, but doesnt think complaining and constantly talking about politics is appropriate.

That's nothing but a purely personal attack.

Do you want people (or their insurers) to be able to pay you if they hit you or not?

If your reading comprehension and your understanding of how liability insurance works weren't so deficient you would have understood that by now.