logoalt Hacker News

mrtesthahyesterday at 11:33 PM3 repliesview on HN

So in order words, non-drivers are forced to subsidize drivers (who risk the lives and property of others)?

Here’s a comparison of US public subsidization of the costs of driving, from the same blog:

https://maxmautner.com/2026/09/10/paying-for-driving.html


Replies

rpdillonyesterday at 11:51 PM

Non-drivers benefit from roads and vehicles, since they are part of society. Many non-drivers order from Amazon, for example, and are reliant on someone being able to actually deliver what they ordered.

I'm responding to you, because this smacks of the same rhetoric I hear with schools: "Oh, all the non-parents have to subsidize the education of other people's kids?" Well, yes, those kids grow up and deliver your mail or treat your cancer.

show 1 reply
A1kmmtoday at 12:16 AM

Note that many countries who have socialised healthcare and/or accident compensation also collect taxes or levies for higher risk activities as part of the base to pay for it all.

For example, all Australian states and New Zealand have fuel excise / taxes where some types of fuel used for motor vehicles have significant extra taxes above normal cost. Some Australian states require drivers to pay an annual personal injury levy to a government department per vehicle (usually just shy of AU$1000/year in Victoria, for example), while others require private insurance covering personal injury. New Zealand has an accident compensation scheme that levies people based on the type of work they do (which factors in risk of work-related injury), and Australia (federally) also levies everyone for healthcare based on income and whether they have private insurance.

The main difference from the US is that medical care is socialised rather than the victims of road injuries (who are not necessarily drivers) subsidising drivers.

jjavtoday at 12:23 AM

Did you know insurance works by pooling and sharing the risk amongst a group?

The larger the group to share the risk and cost, the more efficient it becomes.

If you try to buy health insurance for all your employees as a tiny employer, costs are higher than if some employer with hundreds of thousands of employees seeks to buy the same insurance.

Because that huge employer is sharing the risk of some employee having to get very expensive treatment across all those employees.

You know what is the largest group available? All the citicens of the country in a single insurance plan. That is the point of maximum efficiency (least cost). As a bonus, you can remove all the middlemen of insurance companies, further increasing efficiency.

show 2 replies