this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2024
1779 points (97.6% liked)
Microblog Memes
5742 readers
2038 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Private insurance should only exist for things that are both a) completely optional, and b) not inevitable (so... evitable?).
Auto insurance? Well, if it's the law to have it, why is a private company involved whose sole model is to collect money and deny payments?
Health insurance? Well, it's optional, but you will absolutely need to pay for Healthcare at some point (or you die early). Why, again, should we put an institution in charge whose sole purpose is to make the average person pay more than they get out of it?
Famous athlete leg insurance? High value possession insurance? Have at it, private insurance.
Auto insurance being mandatory makes sense in that the wronged person shouldn't have their life destroyed because someone can't drive and afford to replace a car.
They didn't say auto insurance shouldn't be mandatory, they said that it shouldn't be privately run
So it should be a government controlled monopoly?
You're right. Why would I want a public entity to keep any extra money in the country when I could pay a private mego corporation to funnel it off shore?
Why would I want to fund a public entity to keep publicly available records when I could pay a private company to deny my $1200 claim and boast $104 billion profit?
Is it the choice I get to make between 3 companies that all run the same statistical algorithm for risk assessment and collectively agree to have the same pricing? That's so much better than having a government beholden to it's voters and public option control it, right?
You are assuming that the government will run the insurance process competently. The government already is beholden to the voters and public opinion and they are just so efficient and devoid of red tape right? You're also assuming the government will run the insurance industry as some sort of benevolent not for profit as opposed to a new form of tax. Not to mention what happens when the republicans get in and decide to raise insurance on electric vehicles or manipulate the price of insurance on cars from certain countries as a form of ersatz import tariff, or install political appointment figureheads who can take kickbacks to make certain manufacturers cheaper to insure. Not to mention the formation of a government department of adjusters and estimators to run the whole deal.
The existing system sucks buy I dont see the government having total control and no alternatives being some sort of magical panacea.
A pedestrian can be involved in a car crash too.