Why does automobile insurance cover medical?

Bear with me here...

Many of the items that cause us to accept mandatory safety items in our vehicles are because of automobile insurance company lobbyists trying hard to reduce the outlay of medical payments for survivors who already have medical insurance.

If am riding a bicycle at 25 mph and slam into an old lady she is going to get hurt. Her medical insurance is going to cover it and/or sue the sidewalk owner, the company that made the bicycle and probably me too if I don't make a quick, anonymous escape.

If I hit her with my car - my automobile insurance is going to pay her medical bills. WHY? It should pay to fix my fender. Her medical insurance should pay to repair her.

Now... I know, the liability! But - if her medical condition is satisfied - what liability is there in a no-fault state?

Some one inform me.

Because you will be sued for injuring that person.

iceracer wrote: Because you will be sued for injuring that person.

Right. What does that have to do with automobiles? I do not have bicycle, jackhammer, chainsaw, or Pneumonia Carrier insurance. My car insurance should be to protect MY car for myself or my lien holder.

My medical insurance should protect ME if you crash in to me. My car insurance should fix my car if you crash in to me. How did these roles get all entangled?

The act of operating the motorvehicle is what is being insured, including the liable consequences of that act resulting in injury/damage to person or property.

Liability insurance doesn't cover your car at all.

You're mixing up general collision with liability.

<--- industry worker...

In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker:

I agree 100%.

The insurance companies tell me the reason our insurance is so expensive in Ontario, is because of medical costs.

We have public health care, so I'm paying twice?

I think auto insurance is backwards. You should buy insurance to cover yourself only, like house, and life insurance. Then it wouldn't be mandatory, and I wouldn't have any.

I suspect it has to do with fault and extent. If you injure someone and it is your fault, you will pay the bills. If you hit someone with you bicycle, their insurance will pay, but they will also probably sue you to get that back.

In the case of the bicycle, the damages will likely be small (and the likelihood of an accident low), so insurance is not that big of a deal. With a car, whole different story.

Because someone has to get paid!!!

You caused the accident, "you" are going to pay!

I'll flip the argument to something not exactly car insurance related. My parents had a pedigreed standard poodle. She got away from my father and gets CREAMED by some dumb bitch not paying attention to a HUGE white dog running around. The driver didn't even stop. Wait a few days, dumb bitch comes back and wants my parents HOMEOWNERS insurance policy numbers to cover fixing her POS. So what does a dog have to do with homeowners? Someone needs to be paid! Get this too, no police report or anything either.

Brian

Its the same reasoning as the auto insurance. If someone hits your car with their car, you don't pay a penny. You shouldn't have to pay your $500 deductible when it wasn't your fault.

Had you not hit that old lady with your bike, she wouldn't be out of pocket for medical expenses, nor would she be laid up for 5 weeks with a broken hip.

I agree.... it should by your choice to carry that insurance, not legally required. IMHO, if you want to drive around knowing that you might have to pay a collision deductible (as well as a rental, lost wages, medical expenses, etc) if you get hit by a drunk driver, that should be your choice not the law's choice... but we don't live under a Libertarian government.

Remember... these are the same legislators who require motorcyclists to wear helmets, and the same insurance companies who will pay out $80,000 for prenatal and postnatal care, but won't pay $1000 for a Vasectomy.

Zomby woof wrote: In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker: We have public health care, so I'm paying twice? I think auto insurance is backwards. You should buy insurance to cover yourself only, like house, and life insurance. Then it wouldn't be mandatory, and I wouldn't have any.

public healthcare taxes are not collected on the expectation of people getting hurt in car accidents. Socialised medicine is not accidental medical coverage, that money has to come from somewhere.

If the accident has absolutely no liable party, then more medical taxes have to be raised to cover that cost.

If its a car accident with a party at fault, the state will seek to recoup the medical costs from the at fault party or their relevant insurer.

Zomby woof wrote: In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker: I agree 100%. The insurance companies tell me the reason our insurance is so expensive in Ontario, is because of medical costs. We have public health care, so I'm paying twice? I think auto insurance is backwards. You should buy insurance to cover yourself only, like house, and life insurance. Then it wouldn't be mandatory, and I wouldn't have any.

This is exactly what I'm getting at right here. What I pay automobile insurance for now is mostly about me insuring everyone else from me. They already have insurance for that (well, optionally... but that isn't my responsibility).

If I lick your spoon or kiss you full on the mouth and give you rabies or Hanta Virus you are going to incur medical costs. Huge medical costs. Why don't I have general liability coverage with a special rider for "deep-tongue kissing" if I am so worried about my effect on everyone else?

The medical insurance is designed to cover the people YOU injure. It doesn't matter if they have insurance or not, you are responsible and it keeps them from getting directly from you, mostly. They can still sue you for personal liability if they want to, but this helps cover that and the your insurance company is more likely to fight them for you if you have it. It is required in most states anyway.

You can also have medical insurance to protect you from uninsured motorists. I had to use this one time and picked up all my deductibles mainly. If you check your rates, the medical is usually a very small part of it.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: This is exactly what I'm getting at right here. What I pay automobile insurance for now is mostly about me insuring everyone else from me. They already have insurance for that (well, optionally... but that isn't my responsibility). If I lick your spoon or kiss you full on the mouth and give you rabies or Hanta Virus you are going to incur medical costs. Huge medical costs. Why don't I have general liability coverage with a special rider for "deep-tongue kissing" if I am so worried about my effect on everyone else?

would you be comfortable being on the hook for this cost %100 yourself? Because if I understand you correctly, you're not disputing being held liable, its just having to buy insurance, right?

what if you lose traction on black ice, and you plow your car into a sidewalk full of 10 pedestrians? And each one has 25,000 in medical costs from the injuries?

Are you going to be personally responsible for $250,000 in injuries that you cause if you're within %10 of earning the minimum wage? Of course not, you declare bankrupcy, and then these 10 people who can't pay for their own medical bills and did nothing wrong have no-one to pay for their care. Or in a socialised medicine society, the state now has to pick up the tab and raise taxes or deny someone else coverage to pay for it.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: If I lick your spoon or kiss you full on the mouth and give you rabies or Hanta Virus you are going to incur medical costs. Huge medical costs. Why don't I have general liability coverage with a special rider for "deep-tongue kissing" if I am so worried about my effect on everyone else?

If you are so worried, maybe you should just stop doing that.

Is it part of your job description? Does your job involve a pole and Japanese business men?

Another industry insider here, right down to the exact situation you described in the original post.

madmallard is right in his posts. Only a small portion of your insurance is meant to cover your actual car, and that part is optional. Your insurance is really meant to cover liability for any damages/injuries you cause. Like madmallard said, just pretend you had a freak accident and injured people. $25,000 in medical bills is nothing...we routinely see bills totaling multiple times that amount. That's just medical costs. If they pursue pain and suffering, an accident with significant injuries can total $xxx,xxx easily. If you don't have insurance, who covers it?

To throw another curve into this, with the specific situation you described in your original post, liability is often irrelevant. In many states, if you strike a pedestrian...even if they were blind, high on cocaine and listening to an iPod while crossing against a red light, your auto insurance can be on the hook for the bills. Same holds true for a passenger in your car. Even if you're at a stoplight and get plowed from behind by a drunk driver, your insurance may pay your passengers medical bills.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: If I lick your spoon or kiss you full on the mouth and give you rabies or Hanta Virus you are going to incur medical costs. Huge medical costs. Why don't I have general liability coverage with a special rider for "deep-tongue kissing" if I am so worried about my effect on everyone else?

Well, you have liability for that as well.

Numerous people have been succesfully sued over "knowingly" giving people or putting people at risk for STD's.

In other words, good 'ol GPS knows he has herpes/HIV, but decides to have sex with a woman and not inform her of his "pre-existing conditions," to use the parlance of our times.

madmallard wrote: would you be comfortable being on the hook for this cost %100 yourself? Because if I understand you correctly, you're not disputing being held liable, its just having to buy insurance, right? what if you lose traction on black ice, and you plow your car into a sidewalk full of 10 pedestrians? And each one has 25,000 in medical costs from the injuries? Are you going to be personally responsible for $250,000 in injuries that you cause if you're within %10 of earning the minimum wage? Of course not, you declare bankrupcy, and then these 10 people who can't pay for their own medical bills and did nothing wrong have no-one to pay for their care. Or in a socialised medicine society, the state now has to pick up the tab and raise taxes or deny someone else coverage to pay for it.

Well - they have the option to have medical coverage to protect them from the part where they are walking down a sidewalk and something bad happens. So, the insurance they already have and pays for them to heal.

I, as the victim of an act of god, in this no fault state I live in could also have been injured in the resulting crash. My optional medical coverage would pay to heal me.

The building that a few of the unlucky parties were smashed into would be covered by it's insurance and repaired.

My automobile insurance would fix my car.

What is left that isn't covered? Bad feelings? Uninsured pedestrians? Tsk-tsk... but wait! I pay fees at registration time for that very case. So, they are covered.

I could see if there was negligence on my part that it is right for them (people and insurance companies) to look for a civil judgment to offset the costs but in the case of a no fault accident... too bad too sad.

z31maniac wrote: Well, you have liability for that as well. Numerous people have been succesfully sued over "knowingly" giving people or putting people at risk for STD's.

I cannot tell you the number of times I've gotten sick from kissing people at parties - but I have gone to the doctor. Are you saying that my bearded aunt should have coverage before hoisting missile toe?

aircooled wrote: Is it part of your job description?

Oh no, it not permissible to touch the customers.

In reply to Klayfish & Mad Mallard:

You are describing how it is. I'm not disputing that - I'm after the "how did these responsibilities get so entangled" in what appears to be a straightforward issue to someone on the outside looking in (well maybe from Mars).

no-fault is different and it doesn't literally mean "its nobody's fault."

In most cases, you have to prove liability to an insurance company before they will pay out. No-fault states are simply states where you don't have to prove this liability (or fault) to get medical claims covered, but even then there are some exceptions to this where they can still come after you because you often still have a limit of 'no-fault' insurance on your general liability policy. Usually called PIP.

The downside of no-fault is that it usually means insurance won't cover any pain & suffering claims, you have to take people to civil court for that and get a judgement.

no-fault adds to the ridiculousness of mis-understanding of how insurance works. It was SUPPOSED to be a type of tort-reform on the auto insurance industry, but ultimately now less than 1/3rd of states participate in a no-fault type plan/law for insurance companies.

In most states, it is simple. You hit woman with car, she have health insurance. She gets medical care through Cigna. Cigna then pursues 'subrogation' against you for what they paid for in her health care.

in your bicycle scenario, the lady very well could sue you personally, just as one could sue the driver of a car that hit them. in that case, your personal umbrella or personal liability policy would cover your backside when the old lady rolls into court in her wheelchair and neck brace. the difference is, there is no law requiring you to have insurance to operate a bicycle. so, are you asking why we have to have insurance to cover other people's medical when they already have insurance to cover said medical?

Ranger50 wrote: Because someone has to get paid!!! You caused the accident, "you" are going to pay! I'll flip the argument to something not exactly car insurance related. My parents had a pedigreed standard poodle. She got away from my father and gets CREAMED by some dumb bitch not paying attention to a HUGE white dog running around. The driver didn't even stop. Wait a few days, dumb bitch comes back and wants my parents HOMEOWNERS insurance policy numbers to cover fixing her POS. So what does a dog have to do with homeowners? Someone needs to be paid! Get this too, no police report or anything either. Brian

She just admitted to leaving the scene of an accident or something like that. Report her

That was a few years ago.... I told my parents to tell her to pound sand. But they rolled over figuring it was easier to just let insurance "handle it".

Brian

We live in a world of laws that are black and white, then empower somebody in a black robe to decide the greys. I was recently reviewing a case file of a murder trial after watching "A Time to Kill" with Samuel L. Jackson. The actual case that the movie was based on was remarkably similar to the movie.

The accused (a black man) said of the white victims he shot (in the courthouse with multiple police witnesses - one of whom was shot as well) that they deserved to "burn in hell" and admitted under oath to planning the dual murder in advance. The defense's psychiatric specialist turned out to be a multiple felon who raped babies. Then in a southern courtroom presided by a judge with KKK ties and an all-white jury acquitted the accused of all charges. Hmmm.

In the perview of the actual cut-and-dried evidence and the law, it was grounds for the death penalty. The truth of the situation was that the victims had allegedly raped the accused's daughter. This is where the legal black and white meets the moral grey. Don't get me started on laws that legislate morality

The law tries to make black and white lines concerning stuff like that, judges choose the level of greyscale, and the litigators use previous precedents to support how grey things are.

Of course, there is a broader picture here. For example, I don't think the law should dictate whether or not I need to wear a helmet when I'm on two wheels. If I collide with another vehicle, it makes no measurable effect on financial impact to the person I hit if I have a helmet or not. It should be my choice to be stupid and have a death wish on a Kawasaki. But, there is a considerably different financial appeal in the grand scheme. The ensuing monetary municipal investment is much different at a crash scene where a dashingly handsome motorcyclist was merely injured versus a crash scene where a previously handsome motorcyclist had his head turned into a pancake by a Plymouth.

In the grand scheme, some of these insurance laws and seat-belt-type laws do have merit, or at least a logical basis - however, myself being strongly leaning toward the Libertarian team personally, I still think its not my problem. Adjust the tax structure, charge me per incident, make it part of your VOLUNTARY medical insurance policy, or reallocate current tax revenues, but don't make a blanket insurance premium requirement so that everyone bears the responsibility evenly when they don't contribute to the burden evenly.

[/soapbox]

unfortunately, the abuses completely crush the majority's freedoms on the matter otherwise, they end up covering for it in other losses anyways.

the average person outside of downtown areas own a car.

to paraphrase Mr Carlin: Think about how stupid the average person is. Go on, think about it for a moment.

Now think about this: by definition, half the people are stupider than that.