🚀 go-pugleaf

In <merleDnFB7w.I79@netcom.com> merle@netcom.com (Patrick Mrowcyznksi)
writes: 
>
>Okay, could someone clear up a question regarding no fault for me. 
The 
>general argument against (and only argument that I can see) is that 
>premiums will be going up for good drivers.  Now my question is, why? 

>With the current situation, part of the premiums are paid because the 
>insurance companies are unable to collect from those without insurance
so 
>the insurance co. must provide an adequate buffer so as to not lose 
>money.  But with no-fault insurance, shouldn't the premiums go down 
>because of all of the new drivers in the system and the lower cost of 
>litigation?  5 out of 10 people pay $200 or 10 out of 10 people pay
$100, 
>either way, isn't it the same?  Aren't the insurance companies getting
a 
>large influx of income?  Don't the insurance companies have a lower 
>overhead because of less litigation and investigation and whatever?  
>Whats the difference between this and social security/disability that
the 
>government takes out?  You get hurt, you get paid, some fraud, but the

>system pretty much works, right?  
>
>Am I missing something???
>
>Trying to understand...
>-- 
>						merle@netcom.com
>
I've heard statistics that 40% of people in California are uninsured.
If prop 200 passes, people who don't have insurance will have their
cars seized if caught. Insurance companies can effectively suspend your
right to drive in California. Assuming , for a minute that insurance
execs aren't Mother Theresa types and that they are spending millions
financing political people and this proposition not because it's better
for you ,but because it's better for them, how much can they charge if
the result of your not paying is that the government steals your car?
My guess is that you'll pay a lot more "protection" for your car than
you would for simple insurance coverage. If the statistic above is
right, 40% of Californians don't think paying premiums is worth it now.

Now I have a question for you. If there is no fault, I am not required
to cover you if involved in an accident. So why force me to by
insurance to benifit only  myself? Shouldn't that be my choice? If I
have health coverage and am willing to risk losing my car in an
accident, should I be prevented from taking that risk by law? Are we
soon going to require that everyone carry a $100000000 term life
insurance policy so that we can borrow against it if times get tough or
if anybody dies their relatives are well provided for?  Are the
insurance companies going to fire all their lawyers?   

What kind of naive person can picture insurance executives sitting
around a conference table saying "Let's see,we've spent millions, but
we finally bought what we've wanted. We have a totally captive market.
Everyone in California is forced to buy our insurance.Our profits are
skyrocketing. We're making more money than ever before. Gee, let's all
take the money from our pockets and our stockholders and let's all cut
insurance rates for the little guy. Wouldn't that be nice?"