Full Coverage Government

[sopclod]

As opposed to talking about government like a benevolent, omniscient, god-like entity. Sure, that's not naive at all.

What I meant was saying "the government" is nonsensical. At the federal level there are dozens of agencies and tens, if not hundreds of thousands of individuals. They all have strengths and weaknesses, and there are many inefficiencies in some of them. I didn't see anyone describe government as benevolent or omniscient.

Uh, no. If they deny claims no matter the implication, their services will be worthless. Insurance is only worthwhile if the insurer actually pays out for claims. If you don't pay out valid claims, you won't keep any customers. And regardless of your profit margins, you can't run a business without customers. So this claim is pure nonsense.

What is a valid claim? That's where the rub is. Of course they have to provide a basic level of coverage but I would argue that the system is woefully inadequate. People's fear of a government program would be that the government would get between you and your doctor. Well, I had three different dentists tell me that the best solution for an extracted tooth for me would be a dental implant. However the insurance company felt that implants are cosmetic and I should get a bridge even though it would destroy two adjacent teeth. This is a relatively benign example but people have literally died because their insurance companies disagreed with their doctor's prognoses.

Well, no. Controlling costs will still be a motivating factor, because they've still got customers and tax payers to answer to and who will get upset if costs aren't controlled. And if they don't deny claims, well, that's even worse, because people will start abusing the system.

How will people abuse the system? By going to the doctor? I know that in England for example there are people that go to the doctor when they don't really need to but the effect on the system is negligible. Frankly I would rather have people go to the doctor when they don't need to than the reverse.

Because that's what government programs are known for: staying on budget.

Again, speaking of naivete, there have been thousands of government programs over the years; some have stayed on budget and some haven't. The important point is that it's all a matter of public record. You can't say the same about private insurance.

 

[Ziggurat]

What is a valid claim? That's where the rub is.

Not really. It's spelled out in the terms of your insurance purchase. More below.

People's fear of a government program would be that the government would get between you and your doctor.

Um... we're not talking about government health insurance. We're talking about insurance in general. Go read the original post again. KotA was specifically advocating government takeover of ALL insurance, not simply health insurance.

There are very specific reasons why the free market has trouble with health insurance, reasons which do not apply to something like auto insurance or home insurance. Do you know what they are?

 

[King of the Americas]

...

And they'll do it with magic!



You must have a very strange notion of the definition of "prove".



So why aren't you advocating for socializing the entire service sector of the economy? After all, the service sector doesn't produce products. "Willful ignorance" indeed.

I don't think you fully understand how insurance works...

And you completely glossed over the actual discrimination that occurs right now.

You could be the Jeff Gordon of 16 year old drivers, but your actual driving skill has MUCH LESS to do with your premium price than how old you are or your sex. So, this great driver is being asked to pay more than they should, simply because they fit a high risk 'profile'. What SHOULD matter is your actual driving skill and or how many accidents you've actually caused. Instead, its your credit score...whether or not you've made all your payments on time...

There's a link to government provided auto insurance care in Canada vs private providers, the difference is clear and definite.

I don't have a problem with manufacturers making profits, we get better products that way. We do NOT get a better service from insurance providers, when they are allowed profits. I simply see the insurance sector differently than other sectors.

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't think you fully understand how insurance works...

I think I understand it better than you.

And you completely glossed over the actual discrimination that occurs right now.

Not at all. In fact, I've already specifically addressed it.

You could be the Jeff Gordon of 16 year old drivers, but your actual driving skill has MUCH LESS to do with your premium price than how old you are or your sex.

Then wait. Everybody is young at some point, and everyone grows older. That's about as benign a discrimination as one could possibly get. And if that keeps some kids from driving until they're older, well, on balance that may be a good thing.

So, this great driver is being asked to pay more than they should, simply because they fit a high risk 'profile'.

And without that discrimination, you're asking people who are low risk to pay more to make up for the fact that you aren't charging high risk people according to their risk. The fact that the risk determination is not perfect doesn't mean it shouldn't be done at all.

What SHOULD matter is your actual driving skill

Well, no. Preventable accidents are typically caused by a lapse in judgment, not a lack of skill. And insurance companies can't assess that directly. So they use proxies which are known to correlate with risk. That's completely justifiable.

Instead, its your credit score...whether or not you've made all your payments on time...

Because (surprise, surprise) those actually correlate with your risk.

There's a link to government provided auto insurance care in Canada vs private providers, the difference is clear and definite.

I already explained the problems with that study.

I don't have a problem with manufacturers making profits, we get better products that way.

Just every service industry, evidently.

We do NOT get a better service from insurance providers, when they are allowed profits.

I take it back: I left out a major criticism. That study says absolutely nothing about the comparative quality of service. So this claim is completely unfounded.

I simply see the insurance sector differently than other sectors.

And yet, you can provide no reason. You claim (without evidence) that it's different than manufacturing, but have provided no justification for distinguishing it from other service industries.

 

[King of the Americas]

Ziggurat,

So, you think it is wrong for everyone to pay equally for a shared risk insurance program, but that it is okay to charge a great driver a high premium because he fits the 'profile' of someone likely to make a claim...?

BOTH models are charging 'some' people more than they should... There will ALWAYS be premium payers who never file a claim. ANY premium amount they paid would be 'too much', so you aren't rewarding them for their excellent driving record... No?

So it is okay, in your head, to discriminate against drivers wherein an actual disparagement can be demonstrated in likely claims??? I'd only ask to what degree? I mean if blondes are 5% more likely to make a claim than brunettes, how much more is okay to charge them?

My argument is that these 'generalizations' are wrong, and don't predict all actual outcomes. A blonde woman 'might' be more likely to make a claim than a brunette man, but that doesn't mean it will actually happen. Moreover, NONE of this criteria matters, when it comes to catastrophes, wherein entire counties or cities suffer complete losses. Low risk, or lower premium payers did NOT pay their fair share of the losses to be replaced.

Now, in regards to the government taking over the insurance sector, and NOT other service or manufacturing sectors, I don't know what information you'd like to see...

I mean I guess I don't see a need to have government take over service and manufacturing to begin with, because they are doing fine, while delivering worthy products to consumers. The insurance sector however, is or has left over 40 million people without health care coverage and 1 in 6 without car insurance. Pricing has driven insurance beyond the reach of too many. The problem is that this people still suffer and cause losses. When they get sick, they don't stay home and die. They show up at the ER, wherein those costs are passed along to actual premium holders. When they cause an accident, it is the premium payers who pay the bill.

By eliminating high salaries, huge advertising budgets, and a profit margin, government can lower premium prices and allow more payers into the system, further spreading risk and lowering prices even more. Government can do what private providers are not now.

Your criticisms completely ignored the purpose statement of the whole study:

"How much would the same driver pay for auto insurance if they had the same vehicle, same driving record and same claims history, and lived in each of the 40 cities surveyed in this study?"

Your criticism that: "They did not measure the average cost of coverage to actual policy holders. We do not know how that compares. "

...is pointless, as the study measures ACTUAL costs of the SAME coverage for a variety of drivers. Comparing 'average costs' would render no more accurate information to compare.

And what does 'accident rates' for different areas have anything to do with the validity of the study. The study compares insurance rates 'inside' the same area private vs. public. It doesn't matter what the rate of accident for any one area is...

Your criticism leads me to believe you didn't actual review the study, or the methodology used therein.

 

[Ziggurat]

Ziggurat,

So, you think it is wrong for everyone to pay equally for a shared risk insurance program

Well, yes. So do you, in fact. You're just not willing to do the discrimination on as broad a set of criteria as I am. But the reasons for accepting discrimination are obvious, and you've already implicitly agreed to them: people who represent more risk should pay more. To do otherwise is to distort the risk pooling, which will lead to inefficient allocation of resources.

BOTH models are charging 'some' people more than they should...

Indeed. But the more criteria you can use in risk assessment, the closer that assessment will be to the true risk.

There will ALWAYS be premium payers who never file a claim. ANY premium amount they paid would be 'too much', so you aren't rewarding them for their excellent driving record... No?

No. You are using ex post facto reasoning here when it isn't appropriate. Absent time travel, one cannot determine who such drivers are. Since the future is unknown, every driver has a risk. That risk is not always realized, but it's still their. So insurance has value for every driver, because eliminating risk has value.

So it is okay, in your head, to discriminate against drivers wherein an actual disparagement can be demonstrated in likely claims???

Why not?

I'd only ask to what degree? I mean if blondes are 5% more likely to make a claim than brunettes, how much more is okay to charge them?

Assuming that the likely size of the claim is constant, then logically a 5% higher premium.

My argument is that these 'generalizations' are wrong, and don't predict all actual outcomes.

Except that they do predict outcomes. They do so probabilistically, but they're still accurate predictions in that sense. And that's as good as we can possibly get. The criteria that you have already accepted (past driving record) is not any different in that regard. It just offends your sensibilities less.

Moreover, NONE of this criteria matters, when it comes to catastrophes, wherein entire counties or cities suffer complete losses.

That came out of left field. Not only do I not see your point (ie, what the hell are you talking about?), but it's also got nothing to do with car insurance, the specific example we've been discussing.

Low risk, or lower premium payers did NOT pay their fair share of the losses to be replaced.

Sure they do. What the hell do you think "low risk" means?

Now, in regards to the government taking over the insurance sector, and NOT other service or manufacturing sectors, I don't know what information you'd like to see...

I'd like to see an argument for why insurance in general (and NOT specifically health insurance) is any different than any other service industry.

I mean I guess I don't see a need to have government take over service and manufacturing to begin with, because they are doing fine, while delivering worthy products to consumers.

Car insurance is doing fine too. So is home insurance, life insurance, etc.

The insurance sector however, is or has left over 40 million people without health care coverage

I've already pointed out that health insurance is indeed different than most industries, including other insurance industries. I've left it to you to figure out why, but if you can't, just ask and I'll tell you.

and 1 in 6 without car insurance.

If people cannot afford to pay for the risk that their driving represents, then perhaps they shouldn't be driving. If you want the government to step in and subsidize their driving by assuming some of that risk, then just say so. But don't pretend that such a step can save money, because it cannot and will not.

By eliminating high salaries, huge advertising budgets, and a profit margin, government can lower premium prices and allow more payers into the system, further spreading risk and lowering prices even more. Government can do what private providers are not now.

That argument applies to every service industry. But you aren't advocating socialization of other service industries. So clearly you don't actually believe your own argument. Either that, or you don't even understand what you're saying.

Your criticisms completely ignored the purpose statement of the whole study:

"How much would the same driver pay for auto insurance if they had the same vehicle, same driving record and same claims history, and lived in each of the 40 cities surveyed in this study?"

I don't care about the "purpose" of the study. I care about what the study actually did. And contrary to your claims, it did not even touch about the quality of service of insurance, and what it measured was NOT what actual policy holders pay, but what a particular sample of policy holders (which may not be representative) would pay.

Your criticism that: "They did not measure the average cost of coverage to actual policy holders. We do not know how that compares. "

...is pointless, as the study measures ACTUAL costs of the SAME coverage for a variety of drivers.

So... you don't understand how differences between the sample profiles and actual policy holder populations might make a difference. Wow.

 

[King of the Americas]

Zig,

You misunderstand what I support, and what I don't.

First, within the private model, I DON'T believe anything but your actual driving record and the number of accidents you've actually caused should be used to determine your premium rate. Things unrelated to driving skills should NOT be used to determine 'potential' risk. Credit scores for example, have NOTHING to do with driving skill. That some insurance lobbyist convinced a governing body to allow them to discriminate based on a perceived risk connected to credit history is moot. The insurance sector didn't always use credit history to help determine potential risk. The problem is they don't want to stop there. They lobby daily for more criteria in which to judge candidates.

A government pricing model would ONLY be based on actual driver performance (driving test), and the number of accidents you have caused. So that the better 'actual driver' you are, the lower your rate, regardless of which statistical group you happen to belong to.

The problem with the current model is that first there's no limit to how much you can be charged, and landing in a high risk group doesn't mean you are an actual bad driver. So you can be a poor person, young, and have made a claim after someone without insurance hit you, and be placed in a high risk pool that is too high for you to afford... At present, this is the case for one in six drivers. When those uninsured drivers have an accident, it's the premium payers that have to annie-up. Such losses aren't taken in profits...they just hike up everyone's premium.

The study compared public rates to private rates of the SAME driver with the SAME coverage, inside the SAME areas.

That they didn't compile averages, or that some areas were more or less accident/claim prone is irrelevant. They didn't compare a private policy in one area to a public policy in another. What specific comparison do you take issue with, and why?

In a complete catastrophe, like Katrina or a tsunami, EVERYONE makes a claim, regardless of the risk pool they were a part of.

 

[Ziggurat]

Zig,

You misunderstand what I support, and what I don't.

First, within the private model, I DON'T believe anything but your actual driving record and the number of accidents you've actually caused should be used to determine your premium rate.

I know that. But that's still a form of discrimination. So you cannot claim to be categorically against discrimination.

Things unrelated to driving skills should NOT be used to determine 'potential' risk.

But as I pointed out, it's not skill which is the primary factor involved, but judgment.

Credit scores for example, have NOTHING to do with driving skill.

But they do have something to do with judgment. That's why a correlation exists. If the correlation didn't exist, then insurance companies wouldn't use it.

That some insurance lobbyist convinced a governing body to allow them to discriminate based on a perceived risk connected to credit history is moot.

It's not a "perceived" risk, it's an actual risk.

The insurance sector didn't always use credit history to help determine potential risk.

Go figure: computers have expanded the ability of actuaries to collect and analyze data.

The problem is they don't want to stop there. They lobby daily for more criteria in which to judge candidates.

So if you object, then don't let them. That seems a far easier task than taking over the entire industry. What you consider as a problem of discrimination can be addressed rather trivially without government takeover.

A government pricing model would ONLY be based on actual driver performance (driving test), and the number of accident you have caused. So that the better 'actual driver' you are, the lower your rate, regardless of which statistical group you happen to belong to.

And is that how the government insurance programs in the study you cited operate? Why no, I don't think it is.

The problem with the current model is that first there's no limit to how much you can charge

That's true of almost any service that you buy. So once again, you have failed to make ANY case for why automobile insurance is any different from any other service. And I see you still haven't figured out why health insurance is different.

So you can be a poor person, young, and have made a claim after someone without insurance hit you, and be placed in a high risk pool that is too high for you to afford... At present, this is the case for one in six drivers.

So what? Like I said, if you want to subsidize them, go ahead. But don't pretend that you can do so without incurring extra cost.

When those uninsured drivers have an accident, it's the premium payers that have to annie-up.

I presume you mean ante up. But your plan doesn't actually solve this problem. There will still be people who don't buy insurance, even if offered by the government, and they'll still be costing the rest of us money.

That they didn't compile averages, or that some areas were more or less accident/claim prone is irrelevant.

It's very relevant. Any time you try to measure something about a population, the question about the representativeness of your sample becomes critical.

They didn't compare a private policy in one area to a public policy in another.

Yes they did. How could you miss that?

In a complete catastrophe, like Katrina or a tsunami, EVERYONE makes a claim, regardless of the risk pool they were a part of.

What's your point?

 

[King of the Americas]

It isn't discrimination to hold someone accountable for the actions they take. If you cause more accidents than I do, then I am a better driver than you. Charging you for the cost your actions have incurred upon the fund, isn't discrimination. What definition are you using: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discrimination

I don't think you understand the terms perceived and actual, either. If insurance agencies' perceived risk were actualities then at the end of the year 100% of the high risk premium payers would have made a claim, and 0% of the low risk premium payers would have. While they may be able to predict who 'might' be more likely to file a claim, they are NOT actually correct.

Alright, I am gonna come at this from a different angle... Government isn't some unseen monster, that lives in a far off land. Government is 'us', you, me, and all the rest of taxpayers. We should STOP paying private insurers to do something we can clearly do without high paid executives, huge advertising budgets, and a profit margin. There ARE things government does well, and there are things is doesn't do well. If you want overpriced warplanes that exceed every possible budget projection, have government plan and pay for it. Insurance on the other hand is just the collection of premiums and the distribution of claims, while keeping some for administrative services.

You CAN charge me whatever you like for you newest super cool iPod, but it is crazy to allow insurance companies to do so with 'mandatory' purchase requirements. There's is literally no ceiling for how much insurance companies can make, as you are forced to purchase their auto insurance policies.

When you make premiums lower, MORE people will be able to afford a policy. This isn't a subsidization. It is offering extended savings through a broader distribution of risk.

Could you point to a specific comparison you disagreed with, in that study?

The point in catastrophic loss scenarios is that there is a complete difference between perceived potential losses and premiums paid in, and the ACTUAL LOSSES and the CLAIMS PAID OUT. In these scenarios, low risk payers did NOT pay their fair share. They suffered the same loss, made the same claim, but failed to pay in as much as high risk premium payers.

 

[Ziggurat]

It isn't discrimination to hold someone accountable for the actions they take.

Yes it is. You're making a distinction in your treatment of people. That's discrimination. It may be perfectly justified, but that's still what it is. You seem confused about the actual definition of the word, and cannot distinguish between the word and its politicized connotation.

If you cause more accidents than I do, then I am a better driver than you.

Or you've just been luckier than me so far. The odds are that you're a better driver, but that's all it is: a probability. And there's nothing intrinsic that separates that from other factors (such as age) which tell me the probability that someone will get in an accident, except the fact that you're comfortable with one and uncomfortable with another.

Charging you for the cost your actions have incurred upon the fund, isn't discrimination.

Except that your driving record gets used regardless of any costs incurred upon the insurance pool. If you self-insure, get in an accident, pay out of pocket to cover all the costs, and then try to buy insurance, you're still going to get charged more. Because you still represent a higher future risk. The future risk is all that matters, not the past costs.

I don't think you understand the terms perceived and actual, either. If insurance agencies' perceived risk were actualities then at the end of the year 100% of the high risk premium payers would have made a claim, and 0% of the low risk premium payers would have.

What a bloody stupid assertion. There's a reason I used the word "risk" and not the word "certainty".

While they may be able to predict who 'might' be more likely to file a claim, they are NOT actually correct.

Actually, they are correct: the high-risk drivers do indeed file more claims than the low-risk drivers. The risk assessments are correct.

Alright, I am gonna come at this from a different angle... Government isn't some unseen monster, that lives in a far off land. Government is 'us', you, me, and all the rest of taxpayers. We should STOP paying private insurers to do something we can clearly do without high paid executives, huge advertising budgets, and a profit margin.

And once again, you're using an argument that applies to every other service industry out there. So there's obviously no reason to take this argument seriously.

You CAN charge me whatever you like for you newest super cool iPod, but it is crazy to allow insurance companies to do so with 'mandatory' purchase requirements. There's is literally no ceiling for how much insurance companies can make, as you are forced to purchase their auto insurance policies.

And yet, insurance companies don't charge infinitely high prices. Why might that be? Well, it's because they must compete. Competition keeps prices down.

When you make premiums lower, MORE people will be able to afford a policy. This isn't a subsidization.

It's also not what happens when you make low-risk drivers pay the same amount as high-risk drivers.

The point in catastrophic loss scenarios is that there is a complete difference between perceived potential losses and premiums paid in, and the ACTUAL LOSSES and the CLAIMS PAID OUT. In these scenarios, low risk payers did NOT pay their fair share.

Sure they did. You seem to be confusing a priori risk with ex post facto results. This is an especially stupid mistake to make in regards to insurance.

They suffered the same loss, made the same claim, but failed to pay in as much as high risk premium payers.

So what? That's what risk pooling does. You pay in according to your risk, not according to what actually happens. That's the whole point. So some people will always pay in less than they get paid out, and some people will pay in more than they get paid out. That's the way the system works. Nothing about your natural disaster scenario is any different. The only thing such a scenario introduces is the possibility that the actuaries miscalculate the baseline risk due to such disasters, but even if those risks are accurately calculated, low risk drivers will still pay in less than high-risk drivers.

Actually, there is one more thing that such a disaster adds to the equation: if the disaster causes a net loss to the insurance provider, then in a private market the investors have to eat the loss. With a government plan, the taxpayer is on the hook. So your example is hardly a case for government insurance.

 

[King of the Americas]

Zig,

You are right, in so much as THIS is how the system works NOW... While they are not perfect (which is my point), they do a good job of predicting 'probable' claim makers.

You are wrong about the accepted definition and use of the word "discrimination". It isn't just about choosing one over another..."treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit". And that's what insurance companies do now. At the end of the year 100% of the high risk drivers did NOT file a claim, and 0% of the low risk drivers did NOT file claims. I haven't been able to locate the 'actual' numbers, but there is a difference.

In MY public model, pricing would be based ONLY on actual driver performance. It wouldn't be about 'trying' to predict future actions at all. Everyone would pay the same basic rate, based ONLY on replacing last year's losses, with actual 'at fault' claim-makers paying the +1 or +2 premium for each actual accident they caused. You could add driving violations, driving score, and completed driving courses to the list of criteria used to determine premium rates.

This would be a new/different, and I would argue- improved, way of assigned premiums to drivers.

At the very least it would end discrimination.

I am still waiting for you to state the comparisons you specifically object to within that study. If you can't point to actual flaws, then I'd say the findings therein are indeed accurate. Public auto insurance providers CAN and DO offer actual savings compared to their private counterparts.

I would argue this is true because of the 3 aspects I've stated repeatedly:

-NO high paid salaries
-NO huge advertising budget
-NO profit margin

What other 'service' industries do you think government should take over? I wouldn't consider banking to be a service industry, as a bank's job is to invest my money, and in fact 'grow' it for me. And like I said, I don't think insurance agencies 'produce' anything. They KEEP premiums for profit using discrimination. I could not make this argument for any other sector...

 

[Ziggurat]

You are wrong about the accepted definition and use of the word "discrimination". It isn't just about choosing one over another..."treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit".

So my usage of the word fits the dictionary definition exactly. But yet, I'm wrong about the accepted definition. Perhaps it's not the definition of "discrimination" that you're having problems with, perhaps it's the definition of "accepted". Or maybe the definition of "definition".

In MY public model, pricing would be based ONLY on actual driver performance.

In other words, you only find discrimination on this one basis to be acceptable. Which is what I've been saying.

It wouldn't be about 'trying' to predict future actions at all.

Yes, it would. That's why past driving records are used: because they are an indicator of future risk. That's exactly why you should use driving record to discriminate on price.

At the very least it would end discrimination.

No it wouldn't. It would only end the kinds of discrimination you don't like, it would leave the discrimination you do like.

I am still waiting for you to state the comparisons you specifically object to within that study.

You don't get it. The problem is not that the comparisons are wrong. The problem is that we have no way of telling from that study what the actual meaning of those comparisons is for real people.

What other 'service' industries do you think government should take over?

I don't think the government should be taking over any other service industries. But your argument applies to all of them. So if we take your argument seriously, then there are two possibilities: your argument is correct and we should socialize pretty much the entire service sector, or your argument is incorrect and we shouldn't socialize the service sector, including auto insurance.

I wouldn't consider banking to be a service industry, as a bank's job is to invest my money, and in fact 'grow' it for me.

But all they're doing is collecting and distributing money. That isn't fundamentally any different than auto insurance. It's a service that they provide to you, something you could in principle do yourself but which you could never do efficiently enough to be worthwhile.

And like I said, I don't think insurance agencies 'produce' anything.

Sure they do. They produce financial transactions, just like a bank does.

They KEEP premiums for profit using discrimination.

And banks keep interest for profits using discrimination. And they discriminate on the basis of your credit score.

Oh, SNAP!

I could not make this argument for any other sector...

Well, you could try, at any rate. Given your "success" here, though...

 

[King of the Americas]

Zig,

Judging someone by their individual merit is not discrimination...

 

[leftysergeant]

The only insurance that government has any business involving itself in is health care and LIABILITY insurance, and both for the same reason. They both address assisting a citzen who has suffered some misfortune, and both need to be administered and benefits paid out with no regard for the wealth of the persons covered.

I would fund a national liability plan with licensing fees and the impoundment of vehicles operated unsafely.

When you get you license plates, you get a sticker showing how far forward you are insured. If your policy lapses, they come and get your plates. If you are driving at the time, the take your bike.

Budget neutral and nobody gets hurt excedt a few nutbars.

 

[King of the Americas]

...


And banks keep interest for profits using discrimination. And they discriminate on the basis of your credit score.

Oh, SNAP!

...

You are mistaken about how a bank assigns an interest rate. They look at YOUR credit history, not the histories of the demographic in which you belong.

YOU are held accountable for your credit score.

Are you seriously 'discarding' the generally accepted use and definition of "discrimination"?

 

[King of the Americas]

The only insurance that government has any business involving itself in is health care and LIABILITY insurance, and both for the same reason. They both address assisting a citzen who has suffered some misfortune, and both need to be administered and benefits paid out with no regard for the wealth of the persons covered.

I would fund a national liability plan with licensing fees and the impoundment of vehicles operated unsafely.

When you get you license plates, you get a sticker showing how far forward you are insured. If your policy lapses, they come and get your plates. If you are driving at the time, the take your bike.

Budget neutral and nobody gets hurt excedt a few nutbars.

Then why not also include catastrophic property protection as well?

I also think that you are correct about benefits paid out, and with regard to equality.

 

[Ziggurat]

You are mistaken about how a bank assigns an interest rate. They look at YOUR credit history, not the histories of the demographic in which you belong.

You never specified that. But the fix is easy: let insurance companies use your individual credit score.

Are you seriously 'discarding' the generally accepted use and definition of "discrimination"?

No, KofA. You are. Which is why my usage of the term matches the dictionary definition, and yours... doesn't. In fact, you've never told us what definition you're using.

 

[King of the Americas]

...

No, KofA. You are. Which is why my usage of the term matches the dictionary definition, and yours... doesn't. In fact, you've never told us what definition you're using.

Right...I only gave you a link and quoted directly from it...

Do you even read my retorts?

 

[King of the Americas]

You never specified that. But the fix is easy: let insurance companies use your individual credit score.

...

Your credit score is an indication of your ability to repay a debt. It is NOT indicative of your driving ability. That some, or even most, people with bad credit scores are likely to make claims, it is NOT a guarantee that you will.

That would be a form of discrimination- http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discrimination

"treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit"

 

[Ziggurat]

Right...I only gave you a link and quoted directly from it...

And the quote matched my usage, not yours.

Do you even read my retorts?

Do you even read your own sources?