Posted: 11/17/2013 9:32:22 AM EDT
|
how many of you use the allstate drivewise tracker?
I just started using it and I think it's neat to see my stats. This device is going to do something no speed limit ever could 
http://www.allstate.com/drive-wise.aspx |
|
Quoted:
Why not? Quoted:
Quoted:
Yeah no thanks Why not? Why not? Hmmmm.. Well I drive about 30 miles each way to work on the interstate. When it is not bumper to bumper, I am driving around 75-80 MPH. I don't want my insurance company knowing how fast I drive. I have no idea what it is that they collect from my vehicle's information. It's an invasion of privacy. |
|
I've always been paranoid that they will use the info against me somehow. I know they say they won't, but say your in an at fault accident and they know you don't meet their definition of a safe driver, now they have a reason to drop you when they otherwise might not have. Of course, my tinfoil is probably just too tight
|
|
Hell fucking no. Are you kidding?
Big Brother is already in my life enough, without having him riding around with me taking notes on what he considers to be "safe driving". All the insurance needs to know is if I have wrecks that cost them money. They already invade our privacy enough by getting our driving records from the state, running credit reports (!) and so on. BTW, did you know they run credit reports? They might not write your car insurance if you don't pay all your bills on time, because that might make you a "moral hazard". Fuck those tattle-tale devices. Obama will require them soon enough. |
|
Quoted:
I've always been paranoid that they will use the info against me somehow. I know they say they won't, but say your in an at fault accident and they know you don't meet their definition of a safe driver, now they have a reason to drop you when they otherwise might not have. Of course, my tinfoil is probably just too tight Wait until they subpoena the insurance company to turn over that info to a court. Your fucking tattle-tale device might just testify against you. |
|
Quoted:
Wait until they subpoena the insurance company to turn over that info to a court. Your fucking tattle-tale device might just testify against you. Quoted:
Quoted:
I've always been paranoid that they will use the info against me somehow. I know they say they won't, but say your in an at fault accident and they know you don't meet their definition of a safe driver, now they have a reason to drop you when they otherwise might not have. Of course, my tinfoil is probably just too tight Wait until they subpoena the insurance company to turn over that info to a court. Your fucking tattle-tale device might just testify against you. If the information is available and they want it, at some point they will find a way to get it. They being the insurance company, law enforcement or another government entity. |
How many of you have a gps in your car? Or a cellphone? Or onstar (or similar) Also, ARFCOM loves the words "personal responsibility" and "accountability" So if you were (partially) responsible for causing a crash, you would hope there's no evidence to show you caused it? |
|
They bring up a very valid point.
You are hauling butt safely down the interstate and are in an accident. Voila. They have the speed you are going, your braking, etc. It could be used against you by the other person's insurance company to show contributory negligence. Remember the data is just that, data. It doesn't take into account circumstances. You have 15 car lengths in front of you while driving 75 in a 55 or a 65. Another driver from the right hand lanes crosses all lanes of travel and gets squirrely right in front of you. Having nowhere to go you slam on your brakes and tbone them. The other driver lies and says you were driving unsafely. Tale of the tape? Yes your honor the driver with the all state app shows he was driving 75 in a 65 zone....never mind that you were driving safely. Or perhaps you didn't have time to brake and the app says no brakes were applied...your honor the defendant never applied his brakes which tells me he was distracted. NO FREAKING THANKS. |
|
How can all this tracking/monitoring be for your benefit (cell phone; license plate readers; GPS systems; or Allstate's system, etc)?
Many things are started by people/companies with 'good intentions'...but can be used by others. The black boxes in many cars are just one example. They record speed, distance from braking to stopping. G-forces, seat belt use, etc...all good things - right? Why should a car you own capture all this date? Think about it. Insurers use this stuff all the time. I suspect such insurance programs will ultimately be used to ID those risks that are not worthy of retaining. You roll with traffic and 75mph in 55mph zone to keep from being run over and you want your insurer to know.... No thanks. |
| Oh, look here Mr. Driver, through our data (that you conveniently supplied) we find you made more jackrabbit starts, more panic braking and more driving near the red-line than most drivers. We are going to jack up your premium because we consider you a higher risk. |
|
Arfcom road warriors should be exempt from this kind of thing. By the time they reach 20, their driving skill sets exceed the average person by such a large margin and their time-saving needs rise to such a level that they require special suspension modifications, power train enhancements, superbright headlights, etc., and all the other super performance things engineered in Tijuana that Detriot denies to them.
They really are a breed above. |
|
No tracking for me thanks. Gets in an accident- insurance co. bean-counter, "Well according to your tracker, you exceeded the speed limit by 2mph 3 weeks ago, and again by 3mph 5 weeks ago, and you drove 35mph through a 20mph school zone, which according to interpretation of state law, is 20mph regardless of time or flashing light. It also seems on the occasion that you did 2 over, further investigation of the GPS coordinates and route show you coming from a bar. Unless you can prove otherwise, we are to assume you drank an alcoholic beverage. You also made a recent transaction which involved a credit history check, which lowered your score slightly. It has been determined you are an unsafe driver. So sorry, buh-bye." |
|
Don't worry, soon all insurance companies will require the use of these devices or else they will drop coverage.
The arfcom Capitalistic, Patriotic, Conservative, REAL American brigade will shout down all those who oppose it because after all, if we don't suck the cock of a business then we are not capitalists, patriots, conservatives, we are unAmerican. Indeed, they will scream loud and hard about how it is their right to force you to give up all personal information and it is your privilege to be their customer. My dad told me about he recently got a letter from his Allstate home insurance policy. They were going to send out an "inspector" to look around the outside of the home/property to make sure no "hazards" exist. The "inspector" would do his job whether someone was home or not. Next, they will demand an "inspector" to be allowed inside the home to "inspect" for so called "hazards" and determine if the homeowner is a "high risk". 
No problem though, after all, the arfcom Capitalistic, Patriotic, Conservative, REAL American brigade will tell me (us) how we should be happy that the company even lets us give them our money. "Their company, their rules." 
|
|
Quoted:
No tracking for me thanks. Gets in an accident- insurance co. bean-counter, "Well according to your tracker, you exceeded the speed limit by 2mph 3 weeks ago, and again by 3mph 5 weeks ago, and you drove 35mph through a 20mph school zone, which according to interpretation of state law, is 20mph regardless of time or flashing light. It also seems on the occasion that you did 2 over, further investigation of the GPS coordinates and route show you coming from a bar. Unless you can prove otherwise, we are to assume you drank an alcoholic beverage. You also made a recent transaction which involved a credit history check, which lowered your score slightly. It has been determined you are an unsafe driver. So sorry, buh-bye." It's not quite there yet... |
|
Quoted:
Don't worry, soon all insurance companies will require the use of these devices or else they will drop coverage. The arfcom Capitalistic, Patriotic, Conservative, REAL American brigade will shout down all those who oppose it because after all, if we don't suck the cock of a business then we are not capitalists, patriots, conservatives, we are unAmerican. Indeed, they will scream loud and hard about how it is their right to force you to give up all personal information and it is your privilege to be their customer. My dad told me about he recently got a letter from his Allstate home insurance policy. They were going to send out an "inspector" to look around the outside of the home/property to make sure no "hazards" exist. The "inspector" would do his job whether someone was home or not. Next, they will demand an "inspector" to be allowed inside the home to "inspect" for so called "hazards" and determine if the homeowner is a "high risk".
No problem though, after all, the arfcom Capitalistic, Patriotic, Conservative, REAL American brigade will tell me (us) how we should be happy that the company even lets us give them our money. "Their company, their rules." Did he choose to switch insurance? |
|
Quoted:
Oh, look here Mr. Driver, through our data (that you conveniently supplied) we find you made more jackrabbit starts, more panic braking and more driving near the red-line than most drivers. We are going to jack up your premium because we consider you a higher risk. My insurance company is trying to get their sheeple to accept driver tracking. I tell them no thanks on a regular basis. Although they could get a ten year old to hack the NSA's computers and ding us anyway. |
|
Quoted:
My dad told me about he recently got a letter from his Allstate home insurance policy. They were going to send out an "inspector" to look around the outside of the home/property to make sure no "hazards" exist. The "inspector" would do his job whether someone was home or not. Next, they will demand an "inspector" to be allowed inside the home to "inspect" for so called "hazards" and determine if the homeowner is a "high risk".
And? What's the problem? You think some one should enter a contract with out the ability to check the real property involved? 
And FYI, if it's over a million in reconstruction value, they will require an interior inspection. Don't like it, don't buy it. It's not that hard. |
|
Quoted:
And? What's the problem? You think some one should enter a contract with out the ability to check the real property involved?
And FYI, if it's over a million in reconstruction value, they will require an interior inspection. Don't like it, don't buy it. It's not that hard. Quoted:
Quoted:
My dad told me about he recently got a letter from his Allstate home insurance policy. They were going to send out an "inspector" to look around the outside of the home/property to make sure no "hazards" exist. The "inspector" would do his job whether someone was home or not. Next, they will demand an "inspector" to be allowed inside the home to "inspect" for so called "hazards" and determine if the homeowner is a "high risk".
And? What's the problem? You think some one should enter a contract with out the ability to check the real property involved?
And FYI, if it's over a million in reconstruction value, they will require an interior inspection. Don't like it, don't buy it. It's not that hard. They can inspect it at the time the policy is purchased, and never again. Why should they be allowed to regularly inspect MY fucking property? They are not giving me anything for free. They are giving me a service which I pay for, and probably won't use. IF I do use it, they will do all they can to give me as little as possible, or drag out the process as long as possible. Since you are an insurance agent, you have no problem with your health insurer requiring yearly physicals, including regular drug, nicotine, and alcohol tests? After all, you have the privilege of being their customer, it is their right to demand such things isn't it? Fuck insurance companies and their lobbyists. It is because of them that ALL vehicles will require event data recorders from 2015 on. Gee, I wonder how long it will take for them to subpoena that data any time there is a collision? Who owns the data, the owner of the vehicle, or the insurance company that has graciously allowed that person to pay for insurance coverage, you know, for when SOMETHING HAPPENS? Funny how you pay for years and years, and as soon as something happens they will either jack your rates way the fuck up, drop you, or otherwise screw you. Yes, yes, you are now "higher risk" so how dare you complain. Of course, they had no problem taking your money all those years when you weren't "high risk". It's no wonder people get a lawyer as soon as they will have to deal with an insurance company, they'd be stupid not to. |
|
Quoted:
They can inspect it at the time the policy is purchased, and never again. Why should they be allowed to regularly inspect MY fucking property? They are not giving me anything for free. They are giving me a service which I pay for, and probably won't use. IF I do use it, they will do all they can to give me as little as possible, or drag out the process as long as possible. Since you are an insurance agent, you have no problem with your health insurer requiring yearly physicals, including regular drug, nicotine, and alcohol tests? After all, you have the privilege of being their customer, it is their right to demand such things isn't it? Fuck insurance companies and their lobbyists. It is because of them that ALL vehicles will require event data recorders from 2015 on. Gee, I wonder how long it will take for them to subpoena that data any time there is a collision? Who owns the data, the owner of the vehicle, or the insurance company that has graciously allowed that person to pay for insurance coverage, you know, for when SOMETHING HAPPENS? Funny how you pay for years and years, and as soon as something happens they will either jack your rates way the fuck up, drop you, or otherwise screw you. Yes, yes, you are now "higher risk" so how dare you complain. Of course, they had no problem taking your money all those years when you weren't "high risk". It's no wonder people get a lawyer as soon as they will have to deal with an insurance company, they'd be stupid not to. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
My dad told me about he recently got a letter from his Allstate home insurance policy. They were going to send out an "inspector" to look around the outside of the home/property to make sure no "hazards" exist. The "inspector" would do his job whether someone was home or not. Next, they will demand an "inspector" to be allowed inside the home to "inspect" for so called "hazards" and determine if the homeowner is a "high risk".
And? What's the problem? You think some one should enter a contract with out the ability to check the real property involved?
And FYI, if it's over a million in reconstruction value, they will require an interior inspection. Don't like it, don't buy it. It's not that hard. They can inspect it at the time the policy is purchased, and never again. Why should they be allowed to regularly inspect MY fucking property? They are not giving me anything for free. They are giving me a service which I pay for, and probably won't use. IF I do use it, they will do all they can to give me as little as possible, or drag out the process as long as possible. Since you are an insurance agent, you have no problem with your health insurer requiring yearly physicals, including regular drug, nicotine, and alcohol tests? After all, you have the privilege of being their customer, it is their right to demand such things isn't it? Fuck insurance companies and their lobbyists. It is because of them that ALL vehicles will require event data recorders from 2015 on. Gee, I wonder how long it will take for them to subpoena that data any time there is a collision? Who owns the data, the owner of the vehicle, or the insurance company that has graciously allowed that person to pay for insurance coverage, you know, for when SOMETHING HAPPENS? Funny how you pay for years and years, and as soon as something happens they will either jack your rates way the fuck up, drop you, or otherwise screw you. Yes, yes, you are now "higher risk" so how dare you complain. Of course, they had no problem taking your money all those years when you weren't "high risk". It's no wonder people get a lawyer as soon as they will have to deal with an insurance company, they'd be stupid not to. your money all those years paid for other claims. Insurance is volunteer communism |
|
You are absolutely out of your mind if you voluntarily install that on your car. The chances of that information being abused or used against you greatly outweigh any possible benefit.
And there is a BIG difference between the info that provides vs. your cell phone or GPS. Onstar is the devil, though. |
|
Quoted:
You are absolutely out of your mind if you voluntarily install that on your car. The chances of that information being abused or used against you greatly outweigh any possible benefit. And there is a BIG difference between the info that provides vs. your cell phone or GPS. Onstar is the devil, though. Abused by whom and how?
|
|
Quoted:
Don't worry, soon all insurance companies will require the use of these devices or else they will drop coverage. The arfcom Capitalistic, Patriotic, Conservative, REAL American brigade will shout down all those who oppose it because after all, if we don't suck the cock of a business then we are not capitalists, patriots, conservatives, we are unAmerican. Indeed, they will scream loud and hard about how it is their right to force you to give up all personal information and it is your privilege to be their customer. My dad told me about he recently got a letter from his Allstate home insurance policy. They were going to send out an "inspector" to look around the outside of the home/property to make sure no "hazards" exist. The "inspector" would do his job whether someone was home or not. Next, they will demand an "inspector" to be allowed inside the home to "inspect" for so called "hazards" and determine if the homeowner is a "high risk".
No problem though, after all, the arfcom Capitalistic, Patriotic, Conservative, REAL American brigade will tell me (us) how we should be happy that the company even lets us give them our money. "Their company, their rules." Herp derp |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
You are absolutely out of your mind if you voluntarily install that on your car. The chances of that information being abused or used against you greatly outweigh any possible benefit. And there is a BIG difference between the info that provides vs. your cell phone or GPS. Onstar is the devil, though. Abused by whom and how? http://www.ar15.com/media/viewFile.html?i=57273 I believe there are numerous privacy issues with this technology, and I feel that the companies that promote these devices tend to purposely mislead people in that they usually present them from a convenience standpoint and fail to mention the other things that the devices can easily be used for. While working as a technician, I have seen information retrieved from crash vehicles and used against drivers in court cases. I have had attorneys at my shop ask me about methods of acquiring such information, to be used to prove driver negligence. I'm not saying it is right or wrong, but most people speed and make mistakes even if they are generally decent drivers. I'd hate to have a prosecutor dissecting every action I ever executed in my vehicle if I ever got into an accident. Also in many states your vehicle will not pass inspection if your check engine light is on, and you can not renew your registration if your vehicle is not inspected. The upside of this is that inspections are yearly, so the state does not know that your check engine light is until you bring your vehicle in for inspection, and in most cases you have some time to resolve the problem at your convenience. I can see this technology evolving into a system where such information is transmitted immediately to the state and in return drivers are notified and given a limited window to repair the problem or face fines, license or registration suspension, etc. An extreme example of abuse would be the state remotely disabling your vehicle (Onstar and similar systems have this capability) because you failed to correct a malfunctioning emission control device within the permitted time frame. I can see the same technology being used for traffic enforcement purposes as well, without a police officer ever observing an infraction. Right now the insurance companies are testing these devices under the guise of potential savings, but do you really think that is why they want consumers to accept this technology? Very few people fit their definition of a perfect driver. Ever exceed the speed limit while merging with faster traffic or passing another driver? Ever fail to come to a total complete stop at a stop sign? Maybe you just want to have some fun on rural back roads when no one is around. These are common things that most drivers do, but your insurance company could use those occurrences to establish a "pattern of speeding or reckless driving" and raise your rates. Why provide them with your every vehicular movement? Sure, it isn't being done yet, but the potential is certainly there. I say no thank you. |
|
Quoted:
http://www.ar15.com/media/viewFile.html?i=57273 How many of you have a gps in your car? Or a cellphone? Or onstar (or similar) Also, ARFCOM loves the words "personal responsibility" and "accountability" So if you were (partially) responsible for causing a crash, you would hope there's no evidence to show you caused it? Responsibility in the eyes of the insurance company has nothing to do with having caused the accident. State Farm laid 50% liability on us when someone pulled out into my wife while she was driving (they had a stop sign, wife didn't) and then our van plowed into a truck waiting to turn left. All three State Farm insured. Because our van was the only vehicle to hit the truck, 50% our fault. 
|
|
Quoted:
Responsibility in the eyes of the insurance company has nothing to do with having caused the accident. State Farm laid 50% liability on us when someone pulled out into my wife while she was driving (they had a stop sign, wife didn't) and then our van plowed into a truck waiting to turn left. All three State Farm insured. Because our van was the only vehicle to hit the truck, 50% our fault. Quoted:
Quoted:
http://www.ar15.com/media/viewFile.html?i=57273 How many of you have a gps in your car? Or a cellphone? Or onstar (or similar) Also, ARFCOM loves the words "personal responsibility" and "accountability" So if you were (partially) responsible for causing a crash, you would hope there's no evidence to show you caused it? Responsibility in the eyes of the insurance company has nothing to do with having caused the accident. State Farm laid 50% liability on us when someone pulled out into my wife while she was driving (they had a stop sign, wife didn't) and then our van plowed into a truck waiting to turn left. All three State Farm insured. Because our van was the only vehicle to hit the truck, 50% our fault. And what did you do about it? |
|
Quoted:
Eventually it will be used against you, like a credit score, and it is none of thier business. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yeah no thanks Why not? Eventually it will be used against you, like a credit score, and it is none of thier business. This post nails it. Most modern cars already have an event data recorder aka "black box" in them, but require warrants for access and special equipment to read. I'm not making it any easier for an insurance company to access that info. |
|
Quoted:
http://www.ar15.com/media/viewFile.html?i=57273 How many of you have a gps in your car? Or a cellphone? Or onstar (or similar) Also, ARFCOM loves the words "personal responsibility" and "accountability" So if you were (partially) responsible for causing a crash, you would hope there's no evidence to show you caused it? I run dashcams front and rear. |
|
Quoted:
They can inspect it at the time the policy is purchased Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
My dad told me about he recently got a letter from his Allstate home insurance policy. They were going to send out an "inspector" to look around the outside of the home/property to make sure no "hazards" exist. The "inspector" would do his job whether someone was home or not. Next, they will demand an "inspector" to be allowed inside the home to "inspect" for so called "hazards" and determine if the homeowner is a "high risk".
And? What's the problem? You think some one should enter a contract with out the ability to check the real property involved?
And FYI, if it's over a million in reconstruction value, they will require an interior inspection. Don't like it, don't buy it. It's not that hard. They can inspect it at the time the policy is purchased Great! You purchase your policy once a year. Once a year the company may reinspect it, most of the time they do not. Glad you and I agree. 
Seriously, you sound like you are one of those folks who dose not believe in the contract you agree to. Your not forced to buy something. You agree to it, just at we are not required to sell it to you. It's great how that works out. Do not like it, the door is that way go buy from another company. Some companies do not inspect properties. |
|
Oh I beg to differ, we now ARE forced to buy something. Care to guess what it is, and from what industry?
Indeed, it is good to see that you are in favor of your health insurer demanding yearly physicals and regular drug, alcohol, nicotine tests, and thorough questionnaires asking what your job is, hobbies are, and if you own guns to determine if you are "high risk" and to raise your rates accordingly. Since you are so in favor of contract law, after all. Now that we are all forced to buy health insurance, the insurance companies (or their friends in government who they lobbied to pass the law thinking it would increase their profits) can make that part of the contract. Don't like it, don't buy it! Except wait, you HAVE to buy it. Nice!
|
|
Quoted: Also, ARFCOM loves the words "personal responsibility" and "accountability" So if you were (partially) responsible for causing a crash, you would hope there's no evidence to show you caused it? I'm just picturing a situation where I get in an accident that is not my fault, yet they look at my driving habits and decide they are going to fault me anyway because they see something they don't like - even though it's not my fault, I've never been in an accident, and never had a moving violation. I'd be real curious to see what they're doing with the data, and what metrics they use to determine a good or bad driver.
|
|
More expansion of the overbearing, omnipresent nanny state which in this case is being driven by private industry. If it were up to the government we'd all be sucking on the Statue of Liberty's Tits for the rest of our lives while Uncle Sam gives it to us in the butt.
|
|
Quoted:
Great! You purchase your policy once a year. Once a year the company may reinspect it, most of the time they do not. Glad you and I agree.
Seriously, you sound like you are one of those folks who dose not believe in the contract you agree to. Your not forced to buy something. You agree to it, just at we are not required to sell it to you. It's great how that works out. Do not like it, the door is that way go buy from another company. Some companies do not inspect properties. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
My dad told me about he recently got a letter from his Allstate home insurance policy. They were going to send out an "inspector" to look around the outside of the home/property to make sure no "hazards" exist. The "inspector" would do his job whether someone was home or not. Next, they will demand an "inspector" to be allowed inside the home to "inspect" for so called "hazards" and determine if the homeowner is a "high risk".
And? What's the problem? You think some one should enter a contract with out the ability to check the real property involved?
And FYI, if it's over a million in reconstruction value, they will require an interior inspection. Don't like it, don't buy it. It's not that hard. They can inspect it at the time the policy is purchased Great! You purchase your policy once a year. Once a year the company may reinspect it, most of the time they do not. Glad you and I agree.
Seriously, you sound like you are one of those folks who dose not believe in the contract you agree to. Your not forced to buy something. You agree to it, just at we are not required to sell it to you. It's great how that works out. Do not like it, the door is that way go buy from another company. Some companies do not inspect properties. If you have a mortgage, you most certainly are required or "forced" to have insurance, same as if you have a loan on your car. How could you not know that, being an insurance agent? |
|
Quoted:
Oh I beg to differ, we now ARE forced to buy something. Care to guess what it is, and from what industry? Indeed, it is good to see that you are in favor of your health insurer demanding yearly physicals and regular drug, alcohol, nicotine tests, and thorough questionnaires asking what your job is, hobbies are, and if you own guns to determine if you are "high risk" and to raise your rates accordingly. Since you are so in favor of contract law, after all. Now that we are all forced to buy health insurance, the insurance companies (or their friends in government who they lobbied to pass the law thinking it would increase their profits) can make that part of the contract. Don't like it, don't buy it! Except wait, you HAVE to buy it. Nice!
You might want to loosen that tin foil just a bit there A_G, fi you think that the health insurance companies are in favor of mandated/forced healthcare, that is just crazy talk. Sure there might be a sector somewhere in the industry that believes that it would be profitable for the company, but anyone with a lick of sense will quickly see that forced healthcare with private companies will likely lead to company insolvency. As far as the homeowners/auto owners insurance goes, don't want it? don't buy it. Just be prepared to pay cash for the full amount of what you are purchasing, because after all it is likely the lenders rules that is requiring the insurance coverage, not the insurance companies forcing you to buy. |
|
Quoted:
You might want to loosen that tin foil just a bit there A_G, fi you think that the health insurance companies are in favor of mandated/forced healthcare, that is just crazy talk. Sure there might be a sector somewhere in the industry that believes that it would be profitable for the company, but anyone with a lick of sense will quickly see that forced healthcare with private companies will likely lead to company insolvency. As far as the homeowners/auto owners insurance goes, don't want it? don't buy it. Just be prepared to pay cash for the full amount of what you are purchasing, because after all it is likely the lenders rules that is requiring the insurance coverage, not the insurance companies forcing you to buy. Quoted:
Quoted:
Oh I beg to differ, we now ARE forced to buy something. Care to guess what it is, and from what industry? Indeed, it is good to see that you are in favor of your health insurer demanding yearly physicals and regular drug, alcohol, nicotine tests, and thorough questionnaires asking what your job is, hobbies are, and if you own guns to determine if you are "high risk" and to raise your rates accordingly. Since you are so in favor of contract law, after all. Now that we are all forced to buy health insurance, the insurance companies (or their friends in government who they lobbied to pass the law thinking it would increase their profits) can make that part of the contract. Don't like it, don't buy it! Except wait, you HAVE to buy it. Nice!
You might want to loosen that tin foil just a bit there A_G, fi you think that the health insurance companies are in favor of mandated/forced healthcare, that is just crazy talk. Sure there might be a sector somewhere in the industry that believes that it would be profitable for the company, but anyone with a lick of sense will quickly see that forced healthcare with private companies will likely lead to company insolvency. As far as the homeowners/auto owners insurance goes, don't want it? don't buy it. Just be prepared to pay cash for the full amount of what you are purchasing, because after all it is likely the lenders rules that is requiring the insurance coverage, not the insurance companies forcing you to buy. I fully realize that the lender is the one requiring home or auto insurance, in the latter case, "full" insurance. Most (if not all now) states require insurance if you have a registered vehicle. Further, I am not stupid enough to think that heath insurance companies were/are completely opposed to 0bamacare. Many German businesses supported hitler and the nazi party because they thought that it would increase profits. It did, in the short term, but we all know how well that worked. Same thing here. |