🚀 go-pugleaf

In <tweekDn6rvz.GMu@netcom.com> tweek@netcom.com (R R M Tweek) writes: 
Re: under "No-fault" auto insurance

It no longer pays to be a low risk because
>your premium now has to cover the mistakes of others.

This one of the three points against "no-fault" that started this
thread. The other two points were; that it raised rates in other
states, and - that "no-fault" was immoral.  I have not seen the TV ad
against no-fault yet, so I'm not sure about the other points. I'm sure
there are, nothings perfect.  What I want to know is if "no-fault" is
possibily - say, more perfect - the sense of "in order to form a more
perfect union ..."  This may sound corny, but that's how I think.

About this first point, (good drivers rates with no-fault will go up),
another writer in this thread made the observation (I hope I'm doing it
justice) that this point is good only *if* high risk drivers all had
insurance under the current system - that paid for their at-fault
accidents - so the good drivers the bad drivers ran into - didn't have
to pay for those - not-at-fault accidents - that the good drivers will
have to pay for under no-fault.

Few *high risk* drivers in California now have liability insurance -
that would pay for their at-fault accidents.  Good driver are now
paying for the at-fault accidents of high risk drivers through the
uninsured motorist part of the good drivers premium.

I just don't see how this point againt no-fault holds any water.  If I
am missing the mark about the merit of this one point - I need to know
it now - so if someone asks me about it later - I want to give out the
right information.

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


 


  
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-- 
>tweek@netcom.com    tweek@io.com     |  "Well, you and I would differ
on 
>DoD #MCMLX       tweek@ccnet.com     |   what's ignorance and
educated."
>WWW: http://www.io.com/~tweek/       |         - Senator Ernest
Hollings