Quote:
Originally Posted by henry quirk
"No, it's the actual context."
No, that's Dana's conventional interpretation, fostered by official statements from providers, and the elected. It may actually spread the risk or allow it to be shared, but that's not the reason for it, just the coincidental byproduct.
But, it's an interpretation.
|
Do you know the history of insurance? I do - and sharing the risk was the original purpose of insurance. The big bucks are the byproduct of that development.
You talk about
your tolerance for risk. That's fine - it's up to you if you want to insure
your risk. The mandatory nature of motor insurance is because of the third party element.