🚀 go-pugleaf

In <broudy-2402960045290001@comserv-h-36.usc.edu> broudy@mizar.usc.edu
(david broudy) writes: 
>
>In article <pbngarrett-2302961759480001@l68.ip.quake.net>,
>pbngarrett@aol.com (Sean Garrett) wrote:
>
>- Drivers with bad driving records still would be penalized with
higher
>- insurance premiums and traffic tickets. Proposition 200 would
prohibit
>- insurance companies from raising the rates of motorists who make
claims
>- for accidents that were not their fault. 
>

One way or another, whether no-fault wins or not, if someones is in an
auto accident - the parties in the accident still need to focused on
the determination of fault.  The party determined to be at-fault will
see an increase in their insurance rates.

I have written a web page that deals with this part of the
conversation.  Visit - http://www.hntr.com/paradigm/autoaccd.html


>Until redlining is outlawed (or specified to be a no-no) in these
no-fault
>props, forget it. Why should I (with a clean record) pay 50% more than
the
>guy two blocks away who has a bad record but lives in a different zip
>code?

The territorial rating issue and the debate over "no-fault" are both
important, yet seperate issues. The "redlining" issue is an
*underwriting* issue and "no-fault" is a *political* issue.  It is
possible, maybe easier, at first, to think through each one
individually, and then bring them together for overall insight.

My humble suggestion would be to ask this same question as a seperate
thread.  Hey, these are complicated times and the issues here are
complex to say the least.  Sometimes the best way to solve a problem is
to break it down into its logical seperate parts at first. Hang in
there, insight is the payoff.

Galen Hunter
http://www.hntr.com/paradigm/