One good reason to require insurance against PROPERTY damage expenses (auto. ins.) but not medical expenses?

I realize that auto insurance encompasses medical expenses related to an auto accident, so I'm referring to OTHER medical expenses.

Also, I realize that medical insurance may, to some extent, encourage people to take less care ("moral hazard"), but that can clearly be seen as well with auto insurance, which most states require regardless.

The only insurance required by law is to protect others interests. You can protect your own interests, or not - your choice.

Liability insurance provides a payment to the people you damage, whether that is property or bodily injury. Your leinholder may require you to have comprehensive and collision coverage on your car, but that is to protect their financial interest in the vehicle - not yours.

Your question is based on the FALSE premise that laws are based on LOGIC. Requiring anyone to carry ANY type of insurance is NOT based on logic. Report It

As for liability insurance covering the interest of others, if you don't carry insurance to protect you from uninsured drivers, you can count one the driver that hits you not having insurance. Report It

Because people may have separate medical insurance coverage, in which case med coverage under one's auto policy is unnecessary duplication.

i don't believe that i should be forced to carry expensive insurance when i have only been to a hospital 3 times in my life. i do believe in auto insurance because even if you are the best driver in the world how about the person drinking vodka and flying up behind you or the teenager just learning to drive