The Insurance Agenda?

46
1839
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Without all this insurance, most of us would be pretty rich.luca brasi

Or at least, not poor.

But that (us being poor, or at least struggling) may be exactly what’s wanted.

It is very hard to acquire capital assets, avoid debt and build up savings when one is forced to spend a large and growing percentage of one’s income on various – on multiple – insurance policies.

Many of us understand this – which is why they have to force us to buy insurance. Self-interest would prompt us to “cover” our cars, our health and homes… if it really were in our self-interest to do so. For the same reason most of us elect not to play Russian Roulette.

The truth is, to a great extent, it’s not in our self-interest to buy all this “coverage.” This can be said to be true of anything that requires the application of coercion to get people to go along with it. Unless you take the position that most people are blithering idiots unable to act rationally in their own self-interest. Which, when you think about it, is a stupendously arrogant and condescending opinion to have of your fellow men – and one that radiates the implied personal superiority (rarely justified) of the person who holds that opinion.

Most people are not blithering idiots. They can, for example, do supermarket math. Which means they can figure out that car insurance (for openers) is a terrible deal for most people.offer you can't refuse

According to Forbes magazine, the average cost of a standard auto insurance policy is $1,510 annually (see here). You may pay a lot more than that, of course. Many do. Very few pay less than that. And we’re all forced to pay something (assuming we’re not riding the bus) whether we feel we need to or not. And regardless of whether we’ve ever once caused harm to someone else or their property.

Fifteen hundred (and ten) bucks a year. Over ten years – this is about how long most of us will keep our car before buying another – we will have paid out more than $15,000 to the insurance mafia (and “mafia” is the proper term for a gang of thugs that forces you to do business with them).

This is a lot of money.

More money than some people spend on the car itself. Even if you bought a $30,000 car (and assuming your premium only cost $1,510 annually – which isn’t likely) you’re actually looking at a $45,000 purchase. Now you know why the duration of the average new car loan (5-6 years) is roughly double what it was 40 years ago (3-4) when it was still possible to decline insurance – which exerted a necessary check on the cost of insurance generally for those who did not decline.

Don’t be deceived by the apparently higher sticker price of new cars. When adjusted for inflation, you can still buy a basic car today for about what a basic car cost 40 years ago. A bare bones 1975 Chevy Nova (back then, equivalent to something like a new Nissan Versa today) had a base price of $3,099. Adjusted for inflation, that sum in 1975 dollars is equivalent to just under $14,000 in today’s dollars. This is actually more than what you’d need to pay to acquire a bare-bones modern equivalent such as the aforesaid Nissan Versa (which – unlike the ’75 Nova –  comes standard with AC).don corleone

Now, it’s certainly true you can spend more on a new car today than most people spent back in ’75. But the point is, you do not have to.

Whereas you do have to buy insurance.

If you want to own a car without worrying about a Luca Brasi type paying you a visit.

And because the insurance mafia is legally empowered to make you an offer you can’t refuse, the price goes up, up up. It now costs twice or more what it used to cost to insure a car back in the ’70s – when it was still possible to decline coverage.

This ought not to be surprising to anyone. How much do you suppose a fast-food burger would cost if the government passed a law requiring everyone to eat at McDonald’s – or Burger King – at least once a week? When you’re not free to say no, the free market no longer exists. Cartel/crony capitalism ensues. It enriches the cartel – and impoverishes us.

I am convinced that the next thing they’re going to force-feed us will be mandatory home insurance. Right now, one can (if one’s home is paid off) still “opt out” – decide that the risk of a total loss is fairly small and that it’s a reasonable (because slight) risk to skip the guaranteed annual loss of $2k or more for “coverage” one will probably never need and, instead, put that aside for a rainy day that will probably never come and which, in that event, will leave the money available for other things.

I did exactly that.sollozo

Bastards tried to increase our premium by several hundred dollars – for no reason that had to do with me; I’d never filed a claim, have excellent credit, etc. The guy on the other end of the phone admitted as much; said that “everyone” was paying more because of a general rate hike.

It was delicious to tell the guy: Ok, cancel the got-damned policy. Then I hung up the phone.

I’ve already saved several thousand dollars. Money that would otherwise have been out the window.

Consider it: Let’s say your policy is “affordable” – a mere $1,500 annually (this is pretty cheap, if averages are any indication).the turk

How much is that over 30 years (the duration of the typical home loan)?

$45,000. Out the window.

And that’s merely the principal and does not factor in the lost investment/opportunity cost.

Now, they’ve added mandatory health insurance – forcing people to spend money on that, too.

How much do you suppose the average American is forced to spend each year on all this insurance? Figure $1,500 for the car (just the one car; double this figure if you own two or more) plus another $1,500 for the house plus another $6,000 or so on the low end (see here, if you disbelieve) for the health insurance.progressive snapshot 2

That’s close to $10k a year, right off the top. The average American family income is just over $51,000 (see here). This means that the average American family is paying – forced to pay – 20 percent of its income to the insurance mafia. People (rightly) hate the IRS, but the federal tax bite for the average American family is less than the flesh-rending mouthful extracted by the insurance mafia. And at least we get roads and so on for our tax dollars. What do we get from the insurance mafia?

Usually, nothing.

You pay them 30 years for a car policy, never file a claim – and what have you got to show for it? Same for your home insurance – and don’t get me started on the health insurance – the object of which is to not pay for your medical care. Almost all of us would be much better off paying fee for service as and when necessary – and saving the money (of which we’d have a lot more, absent insurance-at-gunpoint) for the possibility of a major event at some point down the road.

Much as I despise government, I harbor a deeper hatred for the insurance mafia. Anyone associated with this “business” as it exists today should look in the mirror and ask themselves whether they like what they see.

If you value independent media, please support independent media. We depend on you to keep the wheels turning!

Our donate button is here.

 If you prefer to avoid PayPal, our mailing address is:

EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079

PS: EPautos stickers are free to those who sign up for a $5 or more monthly recurring donation to support EPautos, or for a one-time donation of $10 or more. (Please be sure to tell us you want a sticker – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)EPautoslogo

 

Share Button

46 COMMENTS

  1. Eric if your driving causes someone to suffer injury- DO YOU have ready cash to pay a $200K – $300K or more medical treatment bill? Heck do you have $40K to repair/replace someone’s vehicle you trash out? IF the answer is NO, you need to either carry adequate insurance to meet your potential obligation or simply NOT DRIVE on public roads.Clover

    • Mike,

      DO YOU (mimicking your bullying ALL CAPS) have “ready cash” to pay $200-$300k for an injury you might commit?

      Do you see the inherent iniquity of presuming people will cause harm (and to the tune of six figures) and forcing them, a priori, to insure against an event which has not actually happened?

      And which likely never will?

      Using your logic (and morality) gun owners ought to be forced to buy insurance, too… since after all, any of them might commit a murder (or recklessly discharge the gun). This is being urged – precisely by the same people who demanded car insurance be made mandatory.

      And why not require chainsaw (and step ladder) insurance while we’re about it?

      Surely everyone who owns a dog ought to be required to carry coverage, too … the dog might bite someone, after all.

      All of these entail potential obligations (as you style it). Almost anything you can think of – any action, the mere possession of an object that might conceivably cause harm – requires insurance, according to your logic.

      My logic – and morality – is different.

      It holds that until a specific individual has actually caused harm, he ought not to punished. And then punish (hold accountable) him only.

      As I’ve asked of the other Clover here: At what point do your feelings about what might happen take a back seat to what actually has (and has not) happened?

  2. While the insurance companies are not ‘pure as the driven snow,’ the problem is gunvermin. w/o gunvermin mandates, the ins. cos could not force anyone to buy their product. Only lien holders would have that right. And they would probably be, many of them anyway, okay with a waiver based on your net worth and ability to pay damages.

  3. oh sure Erick, everything is a con-spiracy with you. mister “i dont want to get insurance for my car” usually falls in with the “i dont have kids so why the hell should i pay property taxes for schools” crowd. in your world its “every man for himself, damn your neighbor”. but thats not how a decent society is supposed to work Erick.Clover

    • So, let’s see:

      It’s “decent” to threaten a person with violence to compel him to furnish money for the support (the indoctrination in government schools) of other people’s children? Or, put another way: The conscious free choice of total strangers to fuck without taking into consideration the consequences imposes an obligation enforceable at gunpoint on others to “help” these irresponsible, thoughtless strangers care for their progeny?

      An interesting notion.

      Why is it, I wonder, that posts by Clovers are invariably illiterate as well as logically crippled?

      • Why is it, I wonder, that posts by Clovers are invariably illiterate as well as logically crippled?

        ROTFLMAO!

        Eric, you just answered your own question.

    • There’s a way to tell people who have or think they have a net benefit from the collective vs. those who support the collective. Those who have a net benefit for the collective ridicule those people who spend their lives supporting it when ever they look up from their work and are critical of a system which enslaves them.

      The result of this ridicule is that most people who labor to support the collective quietly stop. They either get on the wagon or simply find a refuge to live out their days as best as they can. This ultimately dooms the collective to failure. But before then there are riches to be reaped.

      For those who really rake in the big bucks there need to be large numbers of people who think they benefit from or at least benefit in small ways from the system. This makes sure those they ridicule can not get the upper hand and ruin the gravy train for those who really rake in the benefits from being in the collective. The managers of the collective and their friends and to a lesser degree the government employees who get paid far more than their efforts are worth. The term for these people who support this is useful idiots.

      • Hi Brent,

        Indeed.

        I’d only add – point out – the nihilistic calculation involved.

        Do I get something out of it (or think that I do)?

        Never – rarely:

        Is this right – or wrong?

      • Hi Jean,

        Yeah… but to some extent, their presence (and postings) serves a purpose. Anyone half-lit reading their stuff has got to realize “the opposition” is uniformly short bus. Ol’ Hickory, Clover… all of them, without exception, can’t even formulate their arguments (such as they are) in coherent – much less grammatically correct – English.

        It speaks for itself.

    • OHS – why should ANYONE pay property taxes, period, but especially to finance Gunvermin Indoctrination Centers that suck kids brains out?

      • Property taxes especially are a way for the gunvermin to say “You don’t own that. We are just letting you lease it.”

    • Why should I pay for services of government that I neither want nor need? Or better put: Why should I pay my “fair share” when I never get my “fair share?”

      • Good question Jerry. Still scratching my head(raw). Come try my driveway. It’s smooth and not muddy when it rains but come prepared with 4WD to traverse(sic)the county road leading to it. When the county does work on “their” road, I often have to take a tractor and blade to fix the entrance to my driveway and sometimes fix the barditch for a ways. Last time I used a roadgrader and touched it up for a mile to pavement. It was obvious who did it but the county had no gripes since I did their job for them. I might have done so a mile the other way and helped out a couple neighbors but since I’m not only waiting for them to do something for me instead of “to” me, they are on their own. Maybe one of these days when they quit “sharing” their Roundup with me. I didn’t really like my beautiful cottonwood trees anyway. I considered widening the county road in front of my entrances but since I don’t own it(I did own everything to the RR ROW but the county took it via eminent domain), I can see the county showing up with a loader and dump truck and hauling it away to use on the driveway of some buddy of the commissioner. And to clover in answer of who’d build the roads, the road to my company yard is county maintained so we aren’t allowed to build a good road our trucks wouldn’t bog up in even though we build roads every day……and have never worked on one using taxpayer money. When the RR removed their rails, they allowed the county to remove the chert……along with a few million spikes that love to find the inside of the tires on any and everything including county equipment I get to pay for too. For decades my wife and I would drive that road really slowly and pick up thousands of spikes. We’re still waiting for anyone to say “thanks”. Just fuck ’em and feed ’em fish heads.

  4. Another insurance worker here.

    In your entire essay on insurance you only once bring up the concept that you own the asset, be it home or auto. If you borrow money to purchase an item the loaner of that money is free to put any term on that loan that they want. If you want the money, fulfill the terms. That covers the casualty aspect.

    Liability is another question. Times have moved from the time that a horse or small wagon were used as main conveyance in our world. A PT Cruiser plowing into your Caravan at 60 mph is a bit more bothersome than a bump from a quarterhorse. All that is just to set the stage. An individual is, and should be, responsible for their actions. They should assume all liability for them. A prudent person might wish to join with others to form a group to mitigate the individual costs of their liability for damages caused to others. This is how the company I work for was started. At that time it was voluntary. I believe it should still be, however hand in hand with government liability is now required to drive on the public roads. Key word there, public. If you stay on your own property and do not license the vehicle, you are not required to have liability in my state of Ohio.

    I am torn here, I see a liability and would seek to protect myself and others. Others see no problem letting the damaged try to get blood from a turnip. I don’t have a good answer. I just see the current system as coercive, but don’t see how to replace it.

    • Hi Velcro,

      I absolutely agree that a lender has every right to require insurance on a home or car not paid for. But that is a separate issue.

      The article’s argument is with mandatory insurance – even when the asset is paid for. And mandatory health insurance is objectionable without that factor even coming into play.

      The state (which owns the roads, not the public) leaves most of us no realistic alternative but to use said roads; roads which we’re also forced to pay for.

      If there were free market alternatives to state-owned roads, we might have a different discussion.

      Fundamentally, though, there is this business of punishing people prior to their having done anything. Isn’t that what forcing people to buy insurance amounts to?

      I understand there’s a risk that leaving a person free to operate a car without insurance may result in an injury to another person or their property.

      But one could say the same of the possibility that any one of us might, for instance, commit a rape or assault or murder. Yet we are not expected to carry insurance coverage for those things (yet).

      How about mandatory insurance to legally own a chainsaw or ladder?

      Where does it end?

    • Generally speaking (and unspoken) part of the insurance industry’s scheme is to DIVIDE AND CONQUER. Rather than spreading risk to all people equally (hence lower rates all around), everyone gets segmented and rates (PROFITS!) go up up up!

      In the case of car insurance – the young pay way more than older drivers – now that may or may not be considered fair depending on your perspective but while we have a government of liberal progressive bastards mandating that we purchase insurance, one would also think that they would require rates to be fairly distributed to everyone. (HAHA)

      Same goes for Health Insurance – Insurance companies will stick it to the small employer and prevent several smaller employers from teaming up to get the same rates as a large employer is offered.

      Don’t even try ObamaCare unless you live in a large metro area where there “might be” some competition among providers – but live in a rural area and you have no choice but to accept the one carrier that has monopoly rights issued by the gubbermint.

      Once upon a time you had H.O. Insurance that covered everything, but then it was separated into additional policies that cover FLOOD / WIND / FIRE, etc. Here in Florida I pay over$5K a year for mandatory H.O. and FLOOD – but the joke is that if a hurricane hits they will determine that WIND was the cause and I will be left uncovered anyway.

      FUCK THE F.I.R.E. ECONOMY and all who help perpetuate it.
      (F.I.R.E. = Finance / Insurance / Real Estate).

      • GW, you remind me of some of my old college buddies blaming everything on those dadgum “liberal progressive bastards” when what they mean is Democrats. Well, just come out and say it. I wish it were true but not shit in Texas gets passed without the full endorsement of the Republican party and I know you didn’t mean those bastions of conservatism and fair play. ha ha ha ha. I listen to this shit all the time. What’s really hilarious is they claim to be Libertarians. And don’t dare mention that George Bush was guilty of treasonous acts that should have been rewarded by hanging but Obama is “guilty ” of every mess in the country. They’ll flip out and call you every name in the book. When you point out the fact that the corporations that benefit most from welfare, food stamps, payday checking and other rip-offs of the public are bible thumping/flag wearing Republican they can only retort what a shit Bill Clinton was. Ok, I won’t argue that…..so how is it George Bush is such a bastion(nearly wrote bastard)of free enterprise and freedom when his party passed the Patriot Act in the middle of the night and allowed a cover-up of 9/11 with 43 pages of an FBI report redacted to this day? The Republicans had the votes to make it or break it. I’d be the happiest guy walking if all this country’s problems could be laid at the feet of one party. The problem is, flotsam and jetsam, a Democrat and a Republican are both the garbage left after a shipwreck.

        • Demlicans and Repubocrats – not a dimes worth of difference. If anything, the “D”s are a bit better in that they are more honest about their intentions.

          • I like to listen – very briefly – to Il Rushbo on occasion. I find that most of what he says about the Democraps is true. But he fails to realize that most of it is just as true of the Re-pubic-hands.

          • PtB, the REAL problem with his ilk is He knows the truth…..but he plays to those who reward him most. After his illegal drug activity he could have gone to prison forever for, he’s back on the “punish illegal drug use” wagon. He was particularly quiet, as per, not a word from him while TPTB were determining how long it would take the pubic to forget before they let him return to his bully pulpit of hypocrisy.

            I think everyone on the hill is scum. Excuse me, I know they’re scum. I have a slight bit less disdain(ok….hate)for the ones who tell you straight up they’re doing to do everything they can to take your money, your god-given rights(their words) andanything else they can to turn you into a real slave. What Netanyahu did is a treasonous act by congress but since they all suck his ass, who will charge them when the judicial branch is complicit?

            We’re gettin closer every day. The dam will break when the economy tanks and people begin to starve.
            I know people who have served in the armed forces and for the most part, they think they have done something none of the rest of us COULD do, i.e., their shit doesn’t stink cause they did it For us, the ungrateful. They’re not smart people. They did what they did to suck the rest of us dry and won’t hesitate to kill each and everyone who disagree with them vehemently enough.

            If we want our right back, we WILL have to fight them for those rights. It won’t be a fight of words as some wish(me)but the same old bloody revolution this country was founded on and the same one we’ve seen countless times in countries all over the world.

            Philosophically, Indians knew the fascists and Nazi’s were evil but they got some satisfaction watching the Brits get their asses handed to them. The same can be said for many peoples.

            Those poor eastern Europeans were caught between a rock and a hard place. They knew the Nazi’s were evil but they also knew the Russians were even more ruthless. It was a no win situation for those countries during WWll.

            It won’t be any less of a bloodbath in this country if enough people catch on. Nobody has to guess which side clover will take…….the ones who look like the soon to be victors……no many how often they have to change loyalties.

            Too bad they won’t be able to be identified by name or ethnic look.

        • Ahh the patriot act a bundle of Clinton era police state measures the GOP protected us for because they were proposed by democrats. Once they were proposed by republicans that was different.

          Remember when democrats were horrified by the spying of the GWB administration? From BHO now it’s ok. All the horrors are forgotten. People are all about their team and that’s all that matters.

          • Brent, the Dems rightly saw they had been heavily outclassed. The Shrub’s bunch left their playbook behind. The Dems found it, just like TPTB intended and thought they’d found the Holy Grail of “new” politics. They took that ball and have run for many scores since. I shudder to think what the next bunch will do.

            When “poppy’s” bunch created NAFTA, little Billy C said if elected, he’d make sure it became law. Gee, what a swell guy. What a swell bunch they all are in DC.

        • @8South – “a Democrat and a Republican are both the garbage left after a shipwreck” – you got that right. I am an equal opportunity hater in this regard. No One, repeat NO ONE who has a metric mm of a brain can honestly support any of these retards and their reindeer games.

      • GW, BTW, I basically agree with most of your points. I think it was simply a progression of corporatism that got us here and two horribly corrupt party’s that Some people are finally wising up to . You could even take this situation all the way back to the people Jefferson and many others railed against.

    • Of course, no one has all the answers. But the place to start fixing it is to remove barriers to entry for insurance providers. With governments filthy regulatory hands involved, we will never know the true costs of anything. If insurance weren’t mandated, there would be more competition for people’s business. The more competition in companies fighting for your business, the cheaper prices are.

      In a world with mandated insurance, there are inevitably more turnips that you have to extract blood from. When someone doesn’t have insurance, you are left with no option but to sue. What can you sue a person for when they own nothing and don’t have any money–hence the reason they don’t even bother to carry basic liability insurance.

      If car insurance weren’t mandated and barriers to entry were done away with, insurance would be more affordable, thus more likely to be carried by more people because of the affordability of it. With cheaper insurance rates, uninsured motorists/under-insured motorists coverage would be more affordable also.

      As it is now, those of us who can’t afford not to have insurance, pay for those who refuse. When those of us who have insurance make a claim on that insurance–even if it’s well below the premium costs–we pay even more for insurance. Even with uninsured motorists coverage, make a claim and watch your premium go up. Every insurance company uses the same data in deciding your insurance worthiness and pricing–albeit pricing different things in different ways. If that weren’t the case, your premium wouldn’t only vary by $100 bucks annually between 4-5 insurance companies.

      When Eric calls insurance a “cartel” or “mafia”, he’s damn right. They are nothing less or more than that. It’s only a matter of time until that cartel crushes the hand that feeds them in the same way the welfare state recipients are crushing the hands that feed them. This shit cannot and will not go on forever. If you pay attention, you are witnessing its unraveling right before your eyes.

      The dumbfucks like clover and old hickory stick have liked their bending over so much, they are now giving it to themselves with their own heads. They only believe and see their own shit. They cannot fathom the idea that all of us don’t like it too.

      • ancap, let’s none of us ever forget insurance companies are merely an extension of banking. It’s a clever way to make money for nothing for the most part. It started with “life” insurance. Gee, you don’t want to leave your family destitute and homeless do you? Naturally that morphed into taking it out on every member since the undertakers are greedy as hell and saw their chance to up the ante so to speak. You have an expensive piece of equipment so when something happens to it out of the ordinary, you spend some big bucks to fix it. Ah, but once the lawyers saw anyone even remotely associated with it might get hurt or at least claim they were(back injury, #1 claim that can’t be proved or disproved for the most part), then “insurance” was the only thing, according to them, standing in the way of your company going broke paying for….wait for it……the newly made out of sight costwise health industry.

        Look at who are the owners of the big corporations that own most of the hospitals these days. Yep, some hard to define or located arm of the investment industry(bankers).

        Lynch the pols and bankers and anyone who even suggests you can’t get by without all those “necessary” costs that can save you. Ocean liners were one of the first to be owned by banks who sold them insurance and kept the bank lawyers at bay when one sunk.

        My wife worked for an insurance dealer when mandatory insurance came to Tx. She told me we’d have to get insurance on all our vehicles. I pointed out we already had it since we had something to lose in a suit and we were about to get screwed. No, she says, prices aren’t going up. Not today says I, in a couple months. No, that’s not right. Then I started using those words I won’t print here so we had it out, another source of friction. A year later and we’re wondering which pickup we can do without. Why? Insurance costs were killing us. KMA said I, I told you so. She eventually quit the biz. Well, we never got a discount anyway.

        Now Tx. has a bill before the Lege to give cops a credit card machine so they can ticket you and save the trip to court to “pay your fine”. MF’s, sorry Sumbitches will probably pass it although it’s not popular with the public who know about it but they’re not advertising it. Who’da thunk it?

        At least the company I work for has a lawyer to take care of our tickets. As the boss says, and he’s right, it’s all part of doing business. So who does it get passed onto? Yep, the customer. And I though I might be living on the moon or Mars by now when I was 20. Now you can’t even leave the US without all the proper “papers please….only there’s no please these days….just “papers”. And the IRS can claim you owe 50K without needing to prove it and you can’t leave even with “papers”. This country makes me ill.

        My wife recently said after I started on a tirade about govt. I had an anger problem. Goddamn right I do, and it’s the only thing that gets my old ass up and ready to fight the damned clovers and their enforcers every single damned day.

  5. This is just criminal. But not new,

    http://www.vancouversun.com/news/moves+eliminate+court+trials+traffic+violations/10953200/story.html

    “The Liberals are implementing amendments passed with no fanfare in 2012 to establish a new process for handling offences under the Motor Vehicle Act, similar to the paradigm shift made dealing with drunk drivers in 2010 when most impaired charges and trials were eliminated with a heavy-handed Immediate Roadside Prohibition (IRP) regime.”

    In case you were not aware, here in BC the pig can pull you over, decide you are impaired based on nothing but his opinion (no test) and have your car impounded, driving privileges suspended and you fined.

    http://vancouvercriminallaw.com/faq-criminal-law/irp-driving-prohibitions/

    • And no one has realized they’re now better off murdering the thug, rather than dealing with the assholes “in the courts”?

      Without force to back up the resistance, there is de facto compliance and servitude.

      And I thought the USSA (United Soviet States of Amerika) was bad…

    • Me2, DOT can charge you for saying you smell like you’ve had drink. No test nor anything else. Friday the 13th after getting cited for 14 infractions and having both tractor and trailer(all bullshit)red tagged, I looked at their “infraction list” and the costs. For alcohol alone, they can give you 4 different tickets without having to prove anything. An easy day of 16 hrs and ten miles from my house where my local liquor store is, I can’t even legally pick up a sixpack to take home in a truck. So naturally I don’t. I pick up a couple cases and drink one going home. Fuck ’em and feed ’em fish heads.

      I told my boss today I needed a raise. I need to be able to buy a truck load of ammo and a mini-gun so I can get my ya ya’s out when they come for me. Now where did I put those stingers? Choppers will follow.

  6. With medical insurance pretty much unaffordable without corporate employment it’s mandate along with banning affordable catastrophic only policies has an additional effect of binding us to the system. Want to just quit your job? Just walk away? Not any more.

    • Hi Brent,

      It seems to me the obvious solution is to revert to fee-for-service for routine care and (if people want it) catastrophic insurance (with high deductibles) to cover catastrophic events.

      It’s as ridiculous to rely on insurance for a routine check up as it would be to use insurance to pay for your car’s next oil change.

      • It’s funny, but the “entitlement” attitude (which coves the use of insurance for annual check-ups) really is ingrained in the asshole, I mean, human psyche these days.
        I work in one of those “too big to fail” companies at the moment. (The one that actually had no issues with liabilites, but was punished along with the over-extended b@st@rds.)
        Scene:
        Staff meeting, First Quarter. Topic: Bonuses.
        Comment from THE BOSS:
        “Bonuses are a little lean this year, but I want everyone to remember – it’s a BONUS, it’s not somethig you’re owed. I don’t want to hear about how you made plans or spent so much, and the bonus doesn’t cover it. It’s a BONUS, and it’s subject to various limits, adjustments, and – basically – it’s not something you earned as salary.
        You shouldn’t have made those plans or those expenditures…”

        (I paraphrased, the point remains the same: WTF is it with people, that you plan to SPEND a bonus you don’t have, that you plan to live it up to the hilt rather than save and accumulate assets? That you instead have a balance sheet of debt – Liabilities? And this is a f*cking FINANCIAL CORPORATION!!! No WONDER we’re F*CKED!)
        the insuranc for check-ups? Well, medical care should be FREE, right? it’s my (entitled) RIGHT to go play with dynamite, and someone will patch me up when I blow up – all for FREE… Because it’s my RIGHT to do what I WANT to do, consequences be damned!

        Uhhh…. NO. there’s NOTHING in Rousseau’s social contract about ME being responsible to YOU, save that I cannot cause harm to you: Your rights end where my nose begins, and vice-versa.
        I don’t owe you the time of day. I am not obligated to piss on you if you’ve lit yourself on fire – let alone hose you down, get an extinguisher, get you medical assistance. In Rousseau’s terms, I am morally OK if I point and laugh while you die (WRT the Social Contract, mind – not talking religious morals here, nor “ethics”.)

        But – especially the DUMB people, the “cannon fodder”, the true “useless eaters” or dumb breeders… they think they should be given everything on a gold platter. That those who ARE better than they are: more intelligent, more educated, more skilled – should SERVE them. I think perhaps this is the greatest FAILURE of Christianity. Christ was a leader, and a servant (Q.V. washing the disciples feet). We have turned that Servant-Leader concept into justification for OBLIGATION across the populace. I.E., a Communist commonwealth, where everyone owns everyone else – yet there’s no responsibility and no accountability.

        I cant’ recall a single incident where Christ turned someone away. Closest is the wealthy man who wanted to follow Christ – and he turned away himself, unable to give up all he had. Second would be the one man who had to bury his father (IIRC – might’ve been mother), and wanted to follow Christ after he had done the task. Again, it was the PERSON turning from Christ, not the other way around.
        Somehow, Christianity has perverted this into, “You ARE your brother’s keeper, and must protect that brother from himself.” Which in turn infantilizes all of us – mandating “insurance” from the psychopathic wolves, the Cainite vampires, who didn’t buy into the whole, “Lay down your life for your brother” BS.

        I don’t think there’s a way to correct it. After all, “the meek* shall inherit the earth.”
        in place of “meek”, I’d suggest “Weak.” The old r/K selection theory writ large: Rabbit or Mouse populations, vs. Wolves or Orcas. Fish vs. Porpoises.

        The stupid/menial/Vapid (“pretty”)/vicious+aggressive will breed and populate the earth; those who invest in offspring will be forced out via attrition, consumption of resources. Eventually, we select for the “r” population, by removing the effects of Darwin’s Law. Idiocracy is here…

        http://www.thedailysheeple.com/darwin-weeps-warning-labels-and-technology-render-the-survival-mindset-obsolete_042015 for a semi-humorous take on this…

        • Jean,

          Your post brings the lyrics of a lyrical genius–no libertarian, but genius nonetheless–to mind: “foot in mouth and head up asshole what ya talkin’ bout, difficult to dance round this one till ya pull it out, boy”.

      • Eric,

        That would make sense (to my simple mind) since would think that most people could be able to pay for routine health expenses. The catastrophic coverage is there to cover events that could financially ruin someone and take years to recover. The individual could make there own determination for a catastrophic threshold. I would think that most people could do fine with a 2 to 5 thousand dollar deductible catastrophic coverage policy at a much more reasonable cost than current health care coverage.

        If IIRC, most of the healthcare with work was an indirect result of WW2–1940s price controls. (More Bastiat again) [sarcasm]Thanks big sis for looking out for us again. [/sarcasm]

      • Fee for service would be the way to go, if the gunvermin would allow it.
        Another way the med insurance folks stick it to you is, they encourage the providers to jack up the charges, knowing that the insurers will disallow much of it. But if you don’t HAVE insurance, then you get stuck with the whole tab.

      • It’s as ridiculous to rely on insurance for a routine check up as it would be to use insurance to pay for your car’s next oil change.

        That type of insurance r%20insurance&ad=39808739187&matchtype=e&c=NonBrnd_Search_Insurance_Exact&g=Warranty+Insurance+Exact&at_camp=22320707&iv_=__iv_n_s_m_e_k_car%20repair%20insurance_t__c_39808739187_l__r_1t1_p_1_g_12552628347_d_c_v__vi__&gclid=CL_C_qWU9MQCFdKEfgodJKUAMg” is already here (and the link is just one of a couple of dozen examples you can find on Google). It’s purely optional – for now. One wonders how long it will be before all types of insurance are dumbed down to the “health care/home warranty insurance” level.

  7. I work in the insurance industry and I agree and disagree with some of your points.

    Insurance should never be mandatory and it is despicable that there are laws forcing people to buy our services. I feel a little better knowing that the company I work for specifically lobbied AGAINST Obamacare and has given us presentations on how expensive it is making things. I also have to hear almost daily from business owners who are worried about the future of their companies as they get buried under these higher medical premiums. Workers Compensation is another area where insurance and the government are handling business owners. One company we just insured had a commercial policy with a $2,000 premium but their workers comp premium was $11,000!

  8. A lot of that cost has to do with the deductible they choose, as well as the cost of their vehicle, and the cost of emergency medical care.

    A surprising number of people don’t have an emergency fund — something that can be used to pay for a collision repair. So rather than get a $2000 deductible, they go for the more expensive $500 deductible. All they see is that potential $2k out of pocket expense, and not the increased policy cost, which they have to pay each year. If you accept that the chances of being in a wreck are relatively low (and for most people, they are), get the higher deductible. Use the savings to fund your emergency savings.

    With the average new car now costing $34k, and loaded to the brim with high technology, it’s no surprise they cost more to repair. That cost is going to be passed onto you in the form of higher premiums. The answer is simple: buy a cheaper car. Up to a point, you won’t get any less safety (A Corolla is about as safe as a Mercedes from a few years ago, due to better computer-aided design and more high-strength steel used).

    Should you get flattened by a tractor trailer (any car vs. a 80,000 lb truck is going to lose badly), your medical costs will be pretty high. This has been widely covered by the news, so it shouldn’t be a surprise. And is actually a good reason to have additional coverage in the form of an umbrella policy — you can get $2 million in coverage for only a few hundred dollars. And if you have a rental property, or the neighbor’s kid breaks a leg on your land, it could help with that too.

    • Hi Chip,

      The fundamental complaint I’ve got is not with the cost per se, it’s the being forced to bear it. Philosophically, whether a given risk is “too much” (or not) is a subjective value judgment and – rightly – the exclusive choice of the individual to assume or not. With the caveat that any losses incurred are entirely to be assumed by the individual.

      This seems to me to be reasonable, if we’re agreed that a free society is preferable to a collectivized (and necessarily, authoritarian) one.

      My not wearing a seat belt or helmet harms no one else; probably won’t harm me. Ergo, it is no one else’s business.

      My not buying insurance doesn’t, as such, impose any costs on anyone else. Ergo, it is no one else’s business whether I buy insurance.

      The above propositions used to be accepted as the American way. Unfortunately, the majority of Americans appear to have embraced the ideas of collective responsibility and presumptive guilt.

      “Smith” wrecked his car – and damaged someone’s else’s property in the process – but had no insurance and no ability to pay restitution. Therefore (goes the logic) “Jones” (and everyone else) must buy insurance, even though Jones has not damaged anyone’s property, is responsible, and has put aside money for just-in-case.

      • In the case of someone being unable to pay restitution/repairs, there’s a case there for insurance — it’s an unexpected event, likely to be expensive, and who could forecast/plan for it happening?

        Something I meant to add but forgot is that most people are using insurance wrong. It’s for devastating events so that they aren’t so … devastating. For example, health insurance. People are using it as pre-paid medical plan, and that’s not the ideal use of it.

        Something else I didn’t mention was that growing up, my parents had 3 cars totaled. Each time by someone who gave false information to the cop and couldn’t be found afterwards. So their insurance had to pay every time. Which raised their rates because they were unlucky enough to be hit by those yahoos.

    • chip, I might be driving that big rig. Yep, the car is going to lose but what most people don’t realize is there is rarely a wreck with a big rig that isn’t life-threatening to everyone involved. There’s an onus you can get as a driver, a roll-over. You roll a truck and you survive, you have just beaten odds worse than Vegas. When you apply for a job to some other company, they look at that roll-over and put you in the “unemployable” bracket. I’d bet not one in a million people know this. I’ve known some truckers to roll one and survive and their lives were never the same. Some did have that thing going that makes you jicky ever after. Some are never quite the same with that memory looming. And the ones who can drive are simply shut out. I can understand it although I’m lucky enough to never have had it happen. Odds are you won’t walk away or walk or even breathe again.

      My company simply pays medical(ER) bills and never files a workers comp claim. it’s much cheaper to simply pay it and go on no matter how much it is unless the unthinkable happens. I’ve come closer to that than anyone. At least it wasn’t my fault.

      If someone does have a life-altering accident, the Republicans under Bush took care of that on a federal level. They passed a law that limits what you can get in a suit, no matter how much it will cost to keep you alive and hopefully, get semi-healthy again.

LEAVE A REPLY