• Revan343
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    2 months ago

    They didn’t say auto insurance shouldn’t be mandatory, they said that it shouldn’t be privately run

      • Phil_in_here
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        2 months ago

        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?

        • Delphia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          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.