|
|
|
|
|
|
by rufus_foreman
833 days ago
|
|
|
>> If the requirement was insurance up to $10 million Hardly anyone has assets of $10 million, so they do not have the assets to insure. Many people do not even have assets of $50k, so again, why would they need insurance? If they get a judgement against them for $50k, they are bankrupt. That's what bankruptcy laws are for. If your life is worth $10 million, you need to be the one to insure it for $10 million. Not the working class person who has no assets. I see forced purchases of insurance for people with nothing to insure as similar to debtor's prison. Obviously not as extreme, but the same concept. |
|
|
That's probably because you're looking at it entirely wrong.
The third-party cover in insurance is not for you (the driver), it's for the poor sod that you turn into a pavement stain.
If you kill them, their family has had someone taken away from them - would you be happy with $50K for the loss of a spouse?
If you don't kill them, but inflict life-changing injuries, the resulting lifetime healthcare costs could easily be more than $50K.
When you take to the road, you do incur some risk, but on average you pose more of a risk to others, particularly if you've chosen to drive a car that you can't see in front of properly.
The UK introduced compulsory third-party cover in 1988. Even back then, the cap was £250,000 - it's not led to any societal problems (although, the accident rate in the UK is far, far lower than in the US so policies probably are going to be cheaper).
I do agree, though, that 10 mil is definitely pushing it a bit far.