Advocates say it is discrimination and are arguing for “insurance fairness” on the grounds that people who have joints surgically replaced typically don’t face the same kinds of coverage challenges.
It is actually kinda incredible. I remember seeing a comic in Mad Magazine back in the 90s that satirized insurance companies by cutting ‘expensive’ healthcare and the cartoon showed an emaciated patient on IV and the insurance guy about to cut the tube with scissors.
Weird how we have to pay more money every single year, and insurance somehow provides us less and less for our greater and greater spend
Or, with car insurance, you get punished for actually using the service you pay for.
A service you are legally required to pay for, no less.
Isn’t the required car insurance the part that covers the OTHER cars, property and people you might harm with your car?
I don’t think it’s required that you carry enough insurance to be able to replace your own car. Might depend on your state, though?
Usually if there is a lien against the title, you’re required to carry full coverage, and liability only when you own the title.
That’s usually a policy of the lender, though, not a law.
That makes sense. I never put any thought into it other than knowing I had to carry it.
Oh I guess that makes sense, since the vehicle is the collateral on the loan. Hard to repo a wreck.
Yeah, you’re right.
It is actually kinda incredible. I remember seeing a comic in Mad Magazine back in the 90s that satirized insurance companies by cutting ‘expensive’ healthcare and the cartoon showed an emaciated patient on IV and the insurance guy about to cut the tube with scissors.
They’re the ones practicing medicine now