The Instigator
spicadays
Pro (for)
The Contender
benjamindaniels992
Con (against)

Car insurance should not be mandatory.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
spicadays has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/1/2020 Category: Cars
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 239 times Debate No: 123956
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

spicadays

Pro

Mandatory car insurance is an invention that worked in the past, But is no longer applicable in modern countries.

The original reason for car insurance is to insure the value of the car, This made sense because cars were very expensive. Before the introduction of the Model T in 1908, Cars were considered luxury items. Nowadays, Cars are as ubiquitous as household appliances. It is unreasonable to force insurance for appliances, So why is it reasonable for cars?

As the price of cars decreased, Insurance companies expanded car insurance to cover liability. This was necessary because car accidents during the 1950s were very numerous. Also, There were no seatbelts, Airbags, And crash testing which lead to high degrees of injury. In the modern age however, Car accidents have decreased drastically, And car safety has improved massively. The risk of driving is simply too low to justify mandatory insurance.

Finally, There is no good model for implementing mandatory car insurance. In most countries, The government forces you to buy private car insurance. This model results in cronyism. Existing insurance providers work with government to keep competition out. The second model is public car insurance. This model is bad because governments are biased against motorists. Most governments would much prefer to invest in cycling and public transport. The money paid towards government car insurance is usually redirected somewhere else, Hence the reason why premiums for government car insurance are not lower and sometimes even higher than private car insurance.
benjamindaniels992

Con

While my opponent is under the impression that car insurance is essentially useless, I will prove during this essay that car insurance does serve a purpose in America as seen in the Road Traffic Act of 1988.
In America, One of the many advantages is that you can do almost anything that you want as long as you are not harming anyone else. The fact is that car insurance is not necessarily for your benefit, It's for the benefit of others. The name "Car Insurance" is deceiving because it covers more than just your car. It covers whenever you damage people or property with your car. Obviously, It also covers the damage done to your car and the people inside it.

A ridiculous idea that my opponent has openly supported is, "The risk of driving is simply too low to justify mandatory insurance. " This point is absolutely insane, There are thousands of car crashes in America daily. If my opponent supports the idea that even one person dying a die is not a terrible loss then I can see the logic behind this point.

Imagine that you get into a car accident, You get out of the car and you seem to be fine besides a little bit of a sore neck. You look left and everything goes black. You wake up in a hospital bed paralyzed. As if your world couldn't get worse, The person who hit you didn't have car insurance. Now he must pay thousands upon thousands of dollars up front for your medical bills, And obviously you will have to sue him if he can't. He will be paying for you for a long time because of his negligence.

As we can see, It would've been much easier for the instigator in our example to pay small amounts of money monthly (insurance) rather than pay it up front for a very long time.

I will concede to my opponent that per capita fatal car accidents are few and far between. However, That does not mean we should not have programs in place that make it possible for people to pay for the effects of their car crashes. Just because car accidents happen less often than they used to does not mean that we should not have systems in place that help people pay for medical bills and other kinds of things.

I would like to close by responding to my opponents point about the models of insurance. I will be dropping his point about the second model because the first one he listed is obviously the most common. The opposition seems to be under the impression that companies are trying to weed out competition by working with the government. However, This is simply a lie. The government wants more businesses, Because it means more money for them. This is the beauty of America, Insurance companies will have to keep lowering prices due to competition and there is not a way around it, Hence the massive number of insurance companies in America which have not been eliminated as they should be according to my opponents logic.

I don't want to pay insurance myself, Nobody does. However unfortunate, It is a necessary evil not even necessarily for yourself, But for other people.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.