Affordable Care Act Is Costing 29% Less Than Projected

[Jacob]

It still blaffes me that the goverment can force the american people to buy something.

Like automobile insurance. 

Pretty mean forcing people without cars to get automobile insurance.

Yet it's okay to force people without health to get health insurance?!?!?!

[Maximus]

Of course, car insurance will become a moot point in like ten years.

You get insurance for your house, yet it is not moving.  Why wouldn't you need car insurance for a self driving car?

It's quite likely that once self-driving cars are ubiquitous, private ownership of cars will no longer make sense for most people. I've seen projections that it cuts the number of cars on the road by 90%.

[Eddie Teach]

I'm sure owning your own car will still be cheaper than renting a private car for people who drive to work everyday.

[Maximus]

I'm not.

[Admiral Yi]

I'm not.

I don't see how renting it out midday, nights or weekends can compensate for administrative costs.  Plus the commuter will want a car some of those times too.

[Eddie Teach]

You don't own a car now, do you?

Besides getting you places, they also serve as a mobile storage space. I don't see private ownership going away anytime soon. It would be too radical a change for many people.

[DGuller]

I'm not.

I don't see how renting it out midday, nights or weekends can compensate for administrative costs.  Plus the commuter will want a car some of those times too.

In my opinion, the future of self-driving cars is in self-driving mass transit.  Personal use cars as we know them are an efficient solution only when you need someone to drive them.  It would be more efficient if you could call up self-driving vans with an Uber-like app when you need a lift.

[Maximus]

In my opinion, the future of self-driving cars is in self-driving mass transit.  Personal use cars as we know them are an efficient solution only when you need someone to drive them.  It would be more efficient if you could call up self-driving vans with an Uber-like app when you need a lift.

Yes. The argument is not mine --I'll see if I can find it-- but it was predicated on a network of robotic taxis with something like a 3-minute response time. I could see that being supplemented by route-sharing buses.

[Tonitrus]

[Ide] By the time we get viable self-driving buses/taxis/long-haul cargo trucks, we'll also need self-driving killer robots to mow down all of the excess, unemployed proles. [/Ide]

[Martinus]

It still blaffes me that the goverment can force the american people to buy something.

Like automobile insurance. 

Pretty mean forcing people without cars to get automobile insurance.

Well, people without pulse or other signs of life are not forced to buy health insurance either.

[Martinus]

Yes.  Something like 99% of accidents are caused by human error.  If you eliminate that error I imagine it would profoundly change the nature of automobile insurance.

I can see you say something like this when, in 20 years, you unveil your jury-judge-and-executioner robot, Barrister 2040, to eliminate the human error in law enforcement.

[Martinus]

Of course, car insurance will become a moot point in like ten years.

You get insurance for your house, yet it is not moving.  Why wouldn't you need car insurance for a self driving car?
I can be stolen, it can be vandalized, you can have an accident even if it's self driving (not all accidents are caused by reckless driver behaviour), you can be hit by something (a block of concrete falling from an overpass), etc, etc,

Also, if the system ever goes wrong and you hit something/someone, who's taking care of the indemnity if you are uninsured.

I don't think car insurance against theft or vandalisation is the type you are required to buy, though.

[Martinus]

That's nice, although I would point out that just because something ends up costing less than first anticipated on paper is not irrefutable proof that it is efficient.

It is, when the costs anticipated on paper were already expected to be lower than the previous model - and opponents claimed such anticipated costs were vastly underestimated.

[Ed Anger]

Yes.  Something like 99% of accidents are caused by human error.  If you eliminate that error I imagine it would profoundly change the nature of automobile insurance.

I can see you say something like this when, in 20 years, you unveil your jury-judge-and-executioner robot, Barrister 2040, to eliminate the human error in law enforcement.

It's a very boring robot. It executes you by droning on about curling.

[Zanza]

It's quite likely that once self-driving cars are ubiquitous, private ownership of cars will no longer make sense for most people. I've seen projections that it cuts the number of cars on the road by 90%.

90% seems a lot as that will cut into availability of cars during rush hours etc. But even a 50% reduction would be a huge change and is more likely to happen.