Best Cost Car Insurance

state mandatory auto insurance ? has it helped us ? how do we feel about mandated health insurance ?

do you guys think / what are you opinions about the states requiring drivers to purchase and maintain insurance on cars ? has this helped us / hurt us ? lowed our price of insurance or raised it ? how do you think being required to carry health insurance if employer doesn't provide , will help our hurt us ? do you think it will help lower the premiums of this ? what are you opinions ? thanks

Public Comments

1. 1. AUTO INSURANCE Legal requirement: Great thing. Reasons: Self-protection and liability. It also allows the government to keep track of who comes into the U.S. and from where. Since it's still a business, the monthly premiums are determined by the total cost of payout (accidents) vs. the total profit. 2. HEALTH INSURANCE It should ONLY be mandated if the government provides it free for us.....XD This monthly premium is determined by the actual cost of healthcare: medications ($-amount required for research, manufacturing, patents, advertisements and commercials) and doctors' services. Considering how much student loans are from medical schools (average in the 6-figures and it's still rising rapidly every year), it's not likely docs will discount their services. Unless the government provides free medical schooling, then there would be no student loans to pay back (like in Canada and Europe). Then the docs must pay back the government through the obligation of working for next-to-nothing salaries for a few years. But the docs, as well as the entire pharmaceutical industry, in the U.S. are not willing to "socialize" medicine yet.
2. There are lots of people having the same question like you and yours is just another one. Basically speaking about car insurance<!--Car insurance is the most widely purchased type of insurance coverage. Car insurance is designed to protect you, your family, and your automobile. You may get your query answered here, http://www.best-autoinsurance.we.bs/ Cheap car insurance is a popular avenue these days, but you should be sure that you're getting all of the coverage you need, as damage to your car or another-->person's car may cost you money out-of-pocket if you don't have sufficient coverage and your car insurance rate may go up.
3. Given that driving is a privilege, not a right, I can't see a way around requiring auto insurance because the damage that bad drivers do is extraordinarly expensive. The "alternative" is to post a bond to self-insure in some, maybe all, states. Given that so many do NOT have insurance and the mandated coverage is so low, I don't know that it's all it should be. However, some of us are well-insured, including against uninsured and underinsured, so that helps provide some peace of mind. I doubt it has lowered insurance costs--in fact, too many fools seem to do stupid things because they figure "it's insured"--including "borrowing" cars and wrecking them, then having a hissy if the owner doesn't want to go through insurance (and raise his rates). Others figure: the other guy should have insurance, and proceed to keep the vehicle in motion (can't even call it driving) until they whack someone. Then they whine that insurance is "too expensive" and that's why they don't have any. That means the responsible people, as always, eat a lot of costs where the company had not collected a real premium (the tiny cost of uninsured/underinsured is not equal to a base plan's premiums). Being required to carry health insurance will NOT work. It's simple, too many people are UNINSURABLE. Dumping on them some more by penalizing them is stupid. Frankly, there is no good reason why employers should provide health insurance AND there are problems to policyholders insured that way anyway. The government micromanages everything and drives costs up. What we NEED is truly affordable catastrophic-care ONLY coverage that ALL people can have. We also need to demand price transparency, absolutely for ALL non-emergency procedures. We need to require providers to provide a bottom-line bill for all non-emergency procedures--and, as with car repairs, not be off more than 10% for THOSE procedures. For any reasonably likely additional procedures, they should price that out in advance as well. (Having an angiogram--here's your cost. Because there is a reasonable chance your cardiologist may want to do an angioplasty while he has you right there, this is what THAT would cost you.) Any surprises, like a heart attack or stroke, now we're in emergency territory--another situation entirely. Most people are not getting much true emergency treatment in the US. No reason why insurance companies should get a discount either--price for a procedure should be set--same for everyone having the procedure at THAT facility. As the system doesn't work now, the uninsured get billed two, three, or more times what the insured do. That can bankrupt them, leave them paying off partial bill (cost to others like taxpayer then passed on), or paying nothing (hardly fair to the taxpayer). Meanwhile, insurance companies have dropped in number (merged) and CEOs get multi-millions while legit claims are denied. Now the "credit" folks are IN there as well, charging the most vulnerable--the working poor in particular--ridiculous rates by slipping them into an "agreement" they didn't get the fine print on. (Amazing when you're having a heart attack or appendicitis how careless you are about what you sign.) See http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/nov2007/db20071120_397008.htm When government and a powerful business interest team up, the public always loses. REAL competition is what is needed. No good reason companies can't offer policies that do NOT cover pregnancy, exclude chiropractic, etc. For some people, that is just what they want. Why can't they have it? "Because the government says so" is NOT a good enough reason. None of the government's business really--their regs drive costs up and they get hoodwinked by big business in too many cases.