Why don't they repeal the auto insurance mandate?

Sup Forums, can you answer me this?
Why do I have to pay a ridiculous fee or get punished for years on end if I choose to drive without auto insurance?
Despite never having been in an accident in over 20 years of driving, I HAVE to pay over $600 a year.
It should be my choice whether or not to take my chances especially with the piece of shit car I'm driving now.

Weak arguments already dealt with (try something new please):
>You don't have to drive
Millenial detected. Come out to the country sometime. (inb4 "you can move next door to your job")
>Driving is a privilege, not a right
aka
>"something is a privilege" LOGICALLY IMPLIES "you should pay any and all fees the government can dream up"
If you are cucked enough to believe that, then you should happily buy personal insurance for your own car and health, and leave MY money the fuck out of it.
>It's not for you, it's for the people you hit
I have a perfect driving record, if anyone gets hit, it's me getting hit by you niggers.
>You just need to prove you have $10k in the bank
FALSE, in my state, you have to pay a FINE of $500 a year to drive uninsured
>It's not federal, it's states, so it's ok
Nothing but a deflection or sidestepping of the argument.

"Not an argument" tier:
>Lol ur poor

Guess your first thread didn’t supply you with enough answers. Wasn’t even that long ago.

It supplied some shit answers which were fucking retarded or rooted in pure fallacy. All of which are addressed in OP.
I left for 30 minutes and the thread died, guess whenever someone asks a question that isn't on the shill radar that's what I should expect. I know if I asked why the Obamacare mandate is bad it would hit the bump limit in 15

so this is what they mean by nu-pol.
only retarded arguments and shillery apply.

>600$
>lots of money
Crybaby.
This is because Jamal can't be seized because he possed nothing so the insurance will cover his damage on your piece of shit and your fat ass.
Plus, this eliminate poorfags retard that can't maintain correctly their vehicles from the road.

same with responding to spam/slide/repost threads.
Sage

>p-poor
Not an argument.
"It's not even expensive" doesn't justify unconstitutionality

>This is because Jamal can't be seized because he possed nothing so the insurance will cover his damage on your piece of shit and your fat ass.
I could have insurance for my OWN shit faggot, don't need to unconstitutionally force jamal to pay it for me.

>whine he has to pay insurance
>I-I c-could just get insurance for me
Insurance are there to protect you from others and yourself.
How insurance work here :
You can have one way insurance (if you fuck up and end up in the ditch, you pay. But if you crash into Jamal niggerwagon 1987, they will pay)
Or two way (if you crash your piece of shut, they pay and if Jamal crash his piece of shit cadillac on yours, they pay)

I was literally just wondering this the other day.
I hope it's a regulation that Trump will cut in his pledge to cut 2 regulations for each one signed in.

As for why it still exists?
Lobbying.

If I wanted insurance to cover myself, I would pay it for myself.
Not sure why you think that's a contradiction.
I shouldn't have to pay to insure anyone else. If they're on the road, it's their choice to have insurance that covers them, or not.

Then go ask your insurance company why they don't do that, imbecile whiny cunt.

Because they have an unconstitutional law, similar to the OBAMACARE mandate, that FORCES people to buy insurance even if they don't want it.
Did you even read the fucking thread, retard?

yes repeal the mandate - it will cause prices to drop like crazy...

You litteral nigger, you just whine unconstitutional but don't even know your god damn laws.
Why do you think it's fucking mandatory?
Fight the jew if you want but you will be losing your time and end in a "car accident".

>dont even know your god damn laws
>Why do you think it's fucking mandatory?
I know what the law is you dumb fucking leaf, I live here and I operate a motor vehicle.
WHY it is the law is the question and what i'm trying to figure out, I hoped someone from Sup Forums could explain it to me, but unfortunately all I'm getting is shitheads like you.

>I do x so it legitimate why I can shit on it
>I know the law
>but I want someone to explain it to me

Oh I am laffing

Move to New Hampshire. There is no car insurance requirement there, however if something happens you are totally on the hook so kiss your house, etc goodbye. "Live Free or Die" is the state motto.

Auto insurance is only necessary if you choose to own a vehicle.

Furthermore, if I eat twinkies for every meal, you don't suffer the heart attack, I do; but if I operate my vehicle recklessly, I may cause damage to other people and their property.

>what the law is
>why the law is the law
You don't see the difference? Are you black or something? Your kind doesn't really understand abstract reasoning, I know.

>provide 1 state where an unconstitutional mandate doesn't apply
>it's ok now

I already explained to you, crybaby.
It's the Jew.
They make billions with insurance and if they do how you want it, they would not make this much.
Geez, I have to spoonfeed a ungrateful cunt.

>Auto insurance is only necessary if you choose to own a vehicle.
1. You don't need health insurance if you choose to live.
2. It's a "choice" between not working or working and owning a vehicle for most americans.
3. Why does that choice necessarily imply that I should have to pay insurance?
In other words, see the OP, the weak "it's a choice" argument is already addressed there, please try harder.

>Furthermore, if I eat twinkies for every meal, you don't suffer the heart attack, I do
How about if you don't take your meds, and then you shoot me? Whose insurance foots the bill?

Well the Jew tried to set up a health insurance mandate but it just got repealed yesterday so... there must be some reason why the auto one is still around

Agreed. Insurance is a scam

Because it mandatory since too long, maybe it'll be removed in the future but I don't think so. The car lobby is too big.
And also, cars body are not as repatable as before. Just look at new aluminum F-150, you need qualified tech to repair that piece of shit and the smallest dent destroy the frame. So they just declare it scrapped and sell you a new one.
We got jewed double time.

>tfw double negligible

So essentially you agree with me
It's not mandated for any truly GOOD reason, just tradition and jewish greed. It should be repealed nationwide

But you can't fight the system like I said. Still 600$ is not too bad for what it could save you.

>But you can't fight the system like I said.
We fought it with Obamacare and we won.

>Still 600$ is not too bad for what it could save you.
A very liberal argument. Also it's $600 for me. For others it's in the thousands.

Gas yourself.

You raise valid points and for the most part I agree with you. A lot of industries most notably oil and gas have gone for mutually assured destruction clauses (mutual indemnities inclusive of negligence), such that of a contractor fucks up and sinks a rig and dies, the oil company is on the hook for their shit, as they are insured for it, the contractors employer is on the hook for the contractors losses. Basically everyone pays for what is theirs regardless of who broke it.

A similar system could work for car insurance. It does work in several jurisdictions. 3rd party liability insurance basically doesn't exist. You insure your car and your shit, they for theirs, or not. If there's a crash you're only responsible for your car and you. Either because you're insured or you can afford it.

The model presents structural problems to insurance economics however. For instance if you run off the road and potatoe a pedestrian, and they end up drooling their is no walking insurance mandate. With a 3rd party system they can sue your insurance company for medical bills. In the self only model they are fucked and can only recover from you, leaving a gap.

Similarly if someone crashes into a house, etc. Basically most non driving pedestrians would freak at having to take out 'shitty driver hitting me insurance to walk on the street without the risk of being bankrupted by an uninsured driver, or a driver that has self only insurance.

OK, I suppose that makes sense.
There's some minor issues: that logic could be used to argue for mandated gun insurnace, for example. But pretty solid overall.
Thanks for taking the time to respond user