Re:Driverless Cars Threaten to Crash Insurers’ Earnings
by cmdrfred on Tuesday July 26, 2016 @02:03PM
(#12167564)
Exactly, and keep in mind many states have moved to a 'no-fault' model. So they don't actually care who is at fault for the accident anymore. So the question becomes, why doesn't everyone just insure themselves (IE. Their own car/medical bills to the level they are comfortable with) rather than insuring everyone else and praying the guy that hit you does the same.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Driverless Cars Threaten to Crash Insurers’ Earnings
by dsfyu404ed on Tuesday July 26, 2016 @02:09PM
(#12167605)
Affordable and accessible medical care is a prerequisite to that. After the injury aspect is taken out of the picture then it would make sense for everyone to insure as much as they want (e.g. homeowners insurance)
Re:Driverless Cars Threaten to Crash Insurers’ Earnings
by cmdrfred on Tuesday July 26, 2016 @02:12PM
(#12167627)
If I don't want to be insured for own personal bodily injury, why should I be forced to buy that product in a free market? What if the premium simply isn't cost effective? By forcing anyone to buy a product you are creating a captive market and thus insane prices. Especially when the businesses involved are explicitly allowed to collude[0]. Sounds like a bad deal for everyone but the insurance companies.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarran%E2%80%93Ferguson_Act
Re:Driverless Cars Threaten to Crash Insurers’ Earnings
by dsfyu404ed on Tuesday July 26, 2016 @02:57PM
(#12167975)
My intention was to point out that if the medical side of things was a non-issue it would be much easier for society to get behind the idea of "just insure your own property however much you want"