Consider the following scenario: I
have a bad day, or simply chugged a bad combination of cheap
beer, herbal remedies and roach killer - whatever. Today I
see the local highway as the World Derby Championship
Playoffs and decide that everyone therefore needs
a good kick in the bumper. Inside of a half hour, I have
totalled 37 cars before careening into a ditch and generally
making a real mess of things. So now what? My
insurance company gives me a few bandages and a new car, and off
I go again to try and recover my title? - - -
RESPONSE
BEING AS SERIOUS AS POSSIBLE, THE SIMPLE ANSWER TO THIS SCENARIO IS THAT YOU'D MORE THAN LIKELY BE IN JAIL AND FOR SURE WOULD LOSE YOUR LISCENSE AND ALL DRIVING PRIVILAGES.- - -SEEMS LIKE YOU THINK MY PROPOSAL DOESN'T HAVE ANY ACCOUNTABILITY BUILT INTO IT- - THATS NOT THE CASE AT ALL. THE LAWS WOULDN'T CHANGE AND/OR THE PENALTIES, TICKETS, ACCIDENT REPORTS, JAIL TIME, PROBATION, ETC.- - - - IN OTHER WORDS, THE RULES OF THE ROAD AND ALL TRAFFIC LAWS WOULD BE THE SAME (AND THE PENILTIES) REQARDLESS OF WHAT TYPE OF INSURANCE SYSTEM IS IN PLACE!!
What of the other 37 drivers and their cars? Their
insurance pays for them too?- - -Why should they??
YES!!! - - - BECAUSE THEIR GETTING PAID FOR IT!! Under this system - - - thats what its all about!! Everyone buys their own insurance that covers their vehicle, property in the vehicle, and passengers!!
I've been getting a lot of good response lately-----Here's an example
- - - - Here's a thought , What if there's a pile up involving 26 people all insured by the same company? - - Who pays then??*- - -Does the insurance company just pay themselves?**
* EACH DRIVERS INSURANCE "POLICY" PAYS!!- - - -** THEY PAY THE POLICIES!! EACH PERSON HAS A POLICY COVERING HIS VEHICLE, PROPERTY AND PASSENGERS - - - Each policy would pay WHAT they owe to WHOEVER they owe!! - - -
- - - In any event - kind of stupid, huh?- - -
Not if you can accept the difference between "The Company paying off on a poicy" - VS - "Paying themselves".
Here's a good One
Tomo,
How is what happened to Stephen King (referring to him getting hit by a car, as he walked along a roadside) any different than someone not paying attention for a moment and plowing into the back end of a stopped car? Or side swipeing another car because of a misjudgment? Well, by degrees, it is different, because of the amount of injury. But it was still an accident, caused by someone who had a lapse in judgment or sanity or whatever, for a moment. How is it possible that it was any percentage Mr. King's fault? Why would the stopped car's owner (their insurance) be liable for the cost of that accident?
See, no-fault means to me that the guilty person only shoulders half the blame. Ain't right, Ah tellya, it just ain't right! I'm really not clear about your proposed plan, but my heels are dug in pretty hard about "no fault." There's fault, and should be responsibility. Whether or not insurance companies make money is another thing. By the way, if they don't, there won't be any insurance available. It IS a business, after all.
My Response
Ok I get it!!? Your under the impression that, by using my way, a person at fault would get off scot free, and why should your insurance pay for his negligence.
---I've said before I am not an expert on no-fault insurance and if thats what was happening under no-fault, then I don't agree with it either.--BUT, you'll never make me feel sorry for an Insurance Company having to pay off a customers claim.
---I'll say it again "Thats what they get paid for"---But back to the guy who side swiped your car-- if he left the scene-thats a crime- if he hung around (did the right thing)-the accident report goes on his driving record, he gets a ticket for the offense- he goes to court and gets whatever the judge deals out to him, depending on his record!!- (No such thing as getting off scot free) So maybe (probably) his rates go up he suffers all the reprisals of his actions---BUT heck yeah your insurance fixes your damages! I cant understand why people think thats unfair---- If (in your mind) you have the two (completely) different systems working together (No-Fault & Mandatory) side by side, then your right-----a whole lot of scenarios aren't fair!! You have to remember if a "No-Fault--(if thats what it ends up being called---I'd prefer it being called Individual Insurance System)--type system is installed, then there wont be a "who's fault is it atmosphere" EXCEPT, when it comes to tickets and police reports. But as far as the insurance is concerned, the policy you bought to cover you, your car and your passengers,---PAYS!!!---POOR little insurance company has to hold up their end of the bargain.
They make Billions of dollars PROFIT!! I'm all for capitalism don't get me wrong------but we've been brainwashed for so long (that turning in a claim is a bad thing) we're starting to believe it!! They have us pitted against each other, trying to be fair to them!!
After much thought I've come to the conclusion that the guy who hit Stephen King, should be responsible for medical cost and whatever else comes out of the case! It's really a no brainer but I don't think it contradicts my proposed plan.
Mr. King was a pedestrian for one thing and for another thing---there's exceptions (has to be) to every rule.
What about your state? Let me know what the law is.
Seems like each state has a different way of implementing the rules and regulations of whatever system their using.
What I'd like to know;---Is Auto Insurance "Mandatory" (by law) in your state?
Use the e-mail link to let me know what system your state is using and what your opinion is on how its working out.
Thanks for any information you can pass along
This one's taking me on personally .
Some readers get the opinion that I'm trying to promote "No-Fault"!!- - - I'm just like everyone else--- trying to sort thru the mess!
Your way wont work because the Insurance Companies will charge the people who do buy insurance more to make up for the people who wont.
Its a fore gone conclusion that a bunch of people would stop buying insurance, as soon as the laws changed.
So someone would have to pick up the slack. And as usual it would be John Q. Public.
If people don't want to be responsible and buy insurance---they shouldn't be on the road.
Its irresponsible to be out on the public roads driving an un-insured vehicle. I'm tired of paying for the people who wont be responsible for their own actions.
My Response
Your observations are mostly correct, BUT your using an example of how uninsred motorist are and their effect on others.- - - But using my proposal, uninsured motorist, wouldn't have an effect on responsible citizens!!-- .
The un-insured driver under Mandatory Insurance laws is a different person than the un-insured driver under the system I'm recommending!
One cost the taxpayer and the other DOESN'T!!--
Its irresponsible to be un-insured, the difference is, with my system, the un-insured driver only hurts himself.
Comments on "My Proposal"
- - Your "Proposal"- - suggests that the only time insurance companies can actually MAKE money (after gouging our eyeballs out with their extortinate premiums) is if the people I wipe out are insured by a different company!!...
Not at all. - -They make their money off of premiums they collect for the "Policies" they sell!! - - Same as now! - - - Who crashes in to who doesn't determine how much money they make!!!
Here's on from Texas
My state has a mandatory insurance law and in order to get an inspection sticker or register your car you have to show proof of insurance and now you have to show proof of insurance to
get a license. My insurance went up when my daughter got her learners permit,I never told (anyone) my daughter was going on my
policy. WHO IS WORKING FOR THE INSURANCE COMPANIES? All the police and state workers (?) Since we got the mandatory insuance our rates have gone up every 6 months. (**) I dropped my PIP and Uninsured motorist riders when I added my last daughter(.)
current cost for coverage is \\$4100.00 per year.
(**) Uninsured motorist "riders" - - - is proof positive that insurance sold to you for YOU, regardless of if the other guy has insurance or not, IS available, and has been for a long time, BUT, your insurance carrier wants to be paid extra for it!!>
"Questions Page" with links to the Answers
