--- Do you really think rates won't go up in a state with No-Fault insurance ?! They go up and up based on the number of accidents, whether it's no-fault or not. And, yes, I think that the insurance of the person who caused the accident should pay for the accident. Why should the insurance company of the person who is NOT at fault pay for it?
Response
I've tried to stay away from calling my proposal"No-Fault" - - - How can something be wrong with - - I buy insurance to cover me, my property, and my passengers, and you do the same? Your insurance pays for you and my insurance pays for me.- - Seems to me there'd be more competition between the insurance carriers, with this system!?- - - - The way they get you under their thumb is when there's no competition, and when people are scared to death to turn in a claim.
I don't know what happened in your state, but ANY system would have to have the right rules and regulations and exceptions to the rule scenarios. I guess what I mean is how you run any system will determine the fairness of it.
---Within the frame work of my system there's still "FAULT". People will still get tickets and still go to traffic court. People with bad driving records will pay higher rates! Why should any of that change? All I'm saying is, lets all use the Insurance we're paying for. Lets get the Insurance Industry out of the driver's seat and make them sell their product like every other business does.
They should have guidelines like anyone else that deals with the public!--- Monopolies are still illegal right?
This really does fall under the "couldn't make it up" category. God forbid Blair and Prescott hear of this, it would mean that some poor sod with a rag top or classic MG (saved for over years), who only take it out on the few measly sunny days we get and therefore only insure it for a month at a time(never year round), wouldn't even have the right to drive it. What is worrying is that someone, somewhere got paid to dream that up. Is there no hope? I am saving towards a little sporty number and am looking forward to having B&G with ears flying in the breeze but if we follow the American way I am stumped before I start. Anne (Depressed)
I'm pretty sure this could be worked out by using a "Non-Op" option during the months the vehicleis parked
Here's one that disagrees' with my plan.
But I think she has my idea mixed up with pure "N0-Fault"?
I think your proposal is for the birds! First of all why should my insurance pay if the accident is your fault?- - - Your probably one of these guys that thinks poor people or welfare people should get everything for nothing? Its the old story some of us will pay for the rest of you. Some of us buy insurance and the ones that don't, shouldn't have to (according to you). You think people that do have insurance should pay for the people who don't. I think your idea is screwy.
What if you and I have an accident and one of my passengers get hurt seriously? I pay? Are you nuts? If we do it your way it will be the old story of the haves paying for the have not's. The premiums will be so high for the people that buy (to make up for the people who don't buy) the rates will go thru the roof.
There'll be thousands of people who have insurance right now (because they have to have it) who will let their insurance laps as soon as the law changes. And how do you think the Insurance companies will make up the loss? That's an easy question to answer!
I sure hope no-one takes your idea seriously.
REPLY
I have to try and make myself clear before we go any further!- - Your missing my entire point. My proposal doesn't have anything to do with who can or will buy insurance. - - My opinion is - - - when you buy insurance for your car - - it covers you, your vehicle and your passengers.- - That being the case, it won't matter if the other guy has insurance or not!!! He will only hurt himself by NOT having insurance!!. So, you and I wont have to sit around worrying about WHO bought insurance and WHO didn't.- - If someone wants insurance, but can't afford it, then he has to choose between not driving or driving without insurance - - -if he chooses the latter and has an accident, - - - then he'll have to see what a junkyard will give him for his wreck!!
I think you better go back and read my opinions again. Your arguing against my idea, using today's scenario's.- - - If we'd change the system, the scenerio's you describe wont exist. Under the system I'm recommending, "Fault" would only matter when it comes to the Law, your insurance company and DMV.
There will still be consequences for your actions, but every ones insurance will pay for their own vehicle.
How much you pay for your insurance will depend on all the regular things - - - and, who's "Fault" it was in your last accident :)
- - From New Jersey - -
Hey Tom Just speak with those of us from New Jersey how "Mandatory Insurance" royally screwed up our state. We have the highest insurance rates in the nation and companies like GEICO will not do any business in our state. People STILL ride around WITHOUT insurance. OH yes.....our politicians have giving the insurance lobby such power that if you are STOPPED at a traffic light and some idiot slams into YOUR back, the insurance company sticks a percentage of blame ON YOU for being there!!! Before Mandatory Insurance an accident was just that AN ACCIDENT, now we all live in fear of automatic rate increases, surcharge etc.!!!
- - 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.
From: "rob"
To: tomosino48@yahoo.com
Subject: salvage titles
Date: Mon, 26 Mar
My wife had her car stolen. one week the car was found. the car has a salvage title but everything was fixed when car was registered and passed safety inspection. now the insurance company wants to payout \\$2,000.00 which is the very lowest comp that they could find. we have other comparisions that show same car is worth $5,000.00. My ? to you is, is the insurance company just trying to pay the lowest amount possible, they knew when we got the car insured that it had a salvage title. Do we have to accept the low offer by the insurance company is ther anything we can do?
The following was left unsigned on my "Guestbook".
Many people—consumers and public officials—think "no-fault" is a pro-consumer approach to auto insurance. The name certainly sounds good. But experience shows that no-fault auto insurance fails to make good on its three major promises of reducing rates, minimizing litigation and speeding up the resolution of claims.
In fact, after a state enacts a no-fault auto insurance law, the following inevitably occurs:
Consumer insurance costs rise;
Benefits shrink;
The insurance industry makes more money.
No-fault is an attempt by the insurance industry to increase profits by limiting payments to injured people for pain, disability, and suffering. In other words, consumers must give up the benefits they currently have under a fault-based system, or pay more money for the same coverage they now enjoy.
Insurance industry profits in states with no-fault are significantly higher than in states without it. Insurance companies in Washington already make billions of dollars in profits on automobile policies. Of the \\$19.6 billion in premiums collected in Washington during the years 1975-1992, only $11.8 billion was actually paid out in losses.
If the insurance companies are interested in real reform, they would reduce rates to consumers, or increase benefits. No-fault eliminates a major incentive for good driving: the financial consequences of an auto accident. Our current legal system encourages safer driving because people know there are economic consequences if they do not. Eliminate this incentive, and the result may well be more fatal accidents, and higher medical and legal costs.
My Opinion:
That is the biggest bunch of "bull" i've ever read! To believe this guy is right you'd have to believe that the Insurance Industry is against "Mandatory Auto Insurance" and spends Political donation money and advertising money to support "No-Fault Auto Insurance". If you believe that
I've got some land in Florida I want to sell you along with the Golden Gate Bridge and the Tower of London. Just send me \\$50 and you can have all three ! If you read real close you'll notice, this is a bunch of statements with NO explanations or proof offered. He wants you to believe his point of view for no other reason than the fact that he said it !
For a little more feedback,links,and news headlines "Click Here"
"Click Here" for a look at an email I received concerning oposition to no-fault.
"Questions Page" with links to the Answers