What we're initially dealing with is insurance either a scam, or not a scam. We're also I guess arguing over if it should be mandatory.
"No, they're not holding a gun to your head and making you buy insurance. Unless you want to drive (which is almost a necessity for a job these days unless you live downtown where there's public transportation)" No proven point here. If you want to drive, follow the law and have insurance and be responsible. I can just as easily state that it isn't necessary, there are coworkers, means can be found, and there are jobs in the area you don't have to drive for.
Also, States mandate how much an insurance company actually can make off of a policy in their area. They aren't gouging you, they're trying to run a business, not a charity.
"I had the legal right, but not the ability. State Farm had the lowest rate and the lowest deductible when I was looking. And that claim I attempted was early in my driving career. My deductible and rate are lower now, but they'll never pay out more than I have paid to them."
Also earlier: "my deductible was $1500 so they didn't pay a cent, despite the thousands I've paid"
Did you get paid anything over the deductible? If so, then the insurance worked. You paid less than you would have not having a deductible, regardless if it was a mere $5 over. If they didn't pay anything at all then you hadn't met your deductible. As for the not paying out as much as you've paid them, you're once again paying for the constant protection. You're paying for the guard.
"I should have the right to choose whether or not to hire the guard who says he'll always be vigilant but sleeps the night away, ignoring thieves. That's all I'm saying."
I agree we should always have a choice, but I think it's important that it's required. But he isn't there to just guard your belongings. He's there to make sure you are ABLE to pay at least SOMETHING in a timely manner to the one you've wronged. There isn't a choice in that. How do you make sure the person is able to pay out for all the expenses incurred if they cause an accident? Is the other person REALLY supposed to be laid up in a hospital waiting for the other guy to make his medical payments (if that guy even can)? Or should he be able to rely on the fact that the perpetrator can cover at least most of the expenses? If you had the ability to choose not to have insurance, how would you pay for that guy? If you don't have the saved up money, how would his doctors be paid? Who pays for it? Are they to wait the 10 years it takes you to pay it back?
"Well, their reputation must've changed since I chose them. Actually it's been a while since I shopped rates, I should check again."
Definitely! I always recommend people shop around. Regardless of our opinions and beliefs here, try to find cheaper. Prices can fluctuate damn near monthly.
"Where did I say that? I never said they should've paid out the $1500 that my deductible was, especially since I agreed (well, was forced to accept - it was the lowest deductible an insurance company in my area would give a young male at the time) to that number. It was more an example of how the companies attempt to weasel out of paying anything."
You didn't. I'll correct myself there. Also, I never recommend anyone choose over a $1000 deductible. I would suggest my customers to go with just liability depending on the value of their vehicle, but if your car was worth over $1500 and you paid it due to a claim, that would suggest they paid out more and you didn't have to pay over $1500 to get your car fixed. You're paying what you're responsible for. Their estimate of the damages suggests that you would have had to pay MORE than $1500 to repair your car. (I know you understand that, its more for the benefit of anyone else reading this and it does still prove my point that you should make sure your policy is tailored to your situation.
"If they don't have insurance, it shouldn't affect those who do have insurance.[shortened]Are the victims making claims against their own insurance after accidents that aren't their fault?"
Yes. It's called Uninsured/Underinsured Bodily Injury or Uninsured/UI Property damage. It's what happens when the other guys don't have insurance but they need their stuff paid for. You aren't required to make this claim. It is your choice.
The government should seize their assets and give it to the victims to pay the costs as well as cover the rest itself and garnish the paycheck of the person at fault for a while into the future to recover its money. That's how I'd like to see it work, anyway."
It's called subrogation, the insurance company goes after the guy who didn't have insurance, but the U/UIM BI or PD coverage allows the victim to have their losses covered in the meantime. Insurance company takes the responsibility of sicking their legal dogs on'em
"Oh, and I know exactly how expensive it'd be to repair my truck if I totaled it without insurance (which I have liability only anyway, so the cost would be the same now). It'd be $3800 to replace it, the price I paid for my truck two weeks ago."
Good that you know that, always important of course when choosing a deductible or knowing what coverages you need. Off topic: Do you have a build thread btw?
"Easily. Because there are people choosing to use that cell phone company and people not choosing to use that cell phone company. They'd have to be a smaller company, but they'd be profiting from those who do choose to use it's service. I'm not clamoring for free insurance. I'm clamoring for the right to choose."
I was referring to the issue that insurance companies have to cover the expenses of their other customers as well and your premium goes towards your coverage as well as others. Since it is very rare for everyone to have a claim at once (think Hurricane Katrina) the company keeps a running pool and shifts funds around to cover the claims. In the event of a catastrophe and a bunch of claims, if the insurance starts to run out of money, the insurance company has insurance, called a Reinsurer. (You usually won't find much on that stuff! Also, it's a big secret who reinsures the major companies)
"Nope" (In reference to the stock market comment)
Obviously I'm passionate about this, my apologies for digging at your character.
And I certainly have demonstrated that I know how to read (and write decently!) and understand. That's a silly statement. Also, I mentioned "the average accident may not cost 250,000 in payout" but the comment is "The average accident costs...' All of these factors can be relevant. You're just talking about the PAYOUT, not the COST. If you're talking payout, absolutely, most people aren't getting a 250,000 check.
Also, check out a little more on the states that do not require insurance. I believe one is Montana (I'm not licensed there so I can't remember at the moement). They have more problems and more lawsuits but you don't hear as much because they have lower populations, but I really don't see how being forced to have insurance is infringing on rights.
It allows those out there to be able to comfortably know they have some way to redress losses for medical and property damage caused by another, and that aid will come promptly (relative) in their hour of need.
Oh and PS, adsm08, he is correct. That's a maximum payout. If you have 250/500 you have some damn nice liability limits. You can pay out up to 250k for each person injured, up to half a mil for all injuries you cause in an accident. That's 2 people at 250k each, or 5 people at 100k each or any combination there of.
Welcome Visitor! Please take a few seconds and 
