How do the 'ppl who actually know' defend this obvious scammy aspect of the whole thing? Genuinely curious
this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2025
882 points (97.3% liked)
People Twitter
8322 readers
2417 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician. Archive.is the best way.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
What's hilarious to me is, if you're rich, you aren't legally obligated to even HAVE insurance!
In the US, most states only require some variation of liability-only auto insurance, which basically says if you cause an accident that is terrible for another person, someone will pony up some money to give them financial restitution. This is practically necessary to avoid situations where drivers risk facing financial ruin for other people's mistakes when the at-fault driver can't pay. Expecting every driver to have a reserve of cash sufficient to cover potentially multiple totaled cars in an accident they cause from the moment they start driving is not feasible.
Beyond that, you can generally use your own savings to cover your personal financial loss from accidents. If you don't already have a decently sized reserve, it's probably best to have some more comprehensive insurance until you've built up enough to mitigate early risk. I think most people would choose to just use comprehensive insurance indefinitely and not worry about it rather than needing to pay for insurance while also building up their personal reserve. But if you can afford to build your personal savings and aren't prone to accidents, self funding would likely save you a lot in the long term.
Insurance is basically a way of spreading out risk. It or some similar system is basically required when people are constantly risking a huge amount of personal wealth, not to mention death or permanent disability.
you can generally use your own savings
30% of Americans have a negative net worth.
What I meant was, it's generally legal for someone to do this. The tweet was discussing getting some sort of reimbursement for avoiding costly accidents. Having an investment account you can withdraw from when necessary is a way to do this, and is legal. I understand many people wouldn't be able to afford it.
You could get the minimum insurance required by law and then dedicate a saving account for when you might need it.
The better argument would have been to say that there are life insurances that you can borrow against, so why not car insurances. I guarantee the reason is because of lack of demand and therefore not profitable. If people were wanting such a thing, someone would provide it, but the reasons for such a policy as well as what the collateral is are two different things.
load more comments
(1 replies)
And then read about "moral hazard" and try not to scream.
Yeah, insurance company, it's the customers you've got to watch out for. 🙄
To account for what would happen if you got into an accident before giving them the amount of money it costs
It's a fucking scam. People who act correctly and drive safely and punished while the people who are assholes and drive unsafely pay a pittance to cover the extensive amount of damage they are ultimately responsible for.