🚀 go-pugleaf

In <4g8qh4$k6n@reader2.ix.netcom.com> gvhunter@ix.netcom.com(Galen
Hunter ) writes: 
>
>In <4g8mpq$c18@ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> jersar@ix.netcom.com(Sarah
Malain
>) writes: 
>
>>One thing the law does is declare open season on uninsured drivers--
>>you could hit them, the fault all yours, and they could not sue
>>you.  Oh, and fault will still be determined so that the insurance
>>companies can decide whose rates to raise.
>
>OK, good point. Let's break this down into more detail then.
>
>My understanding of the current "no-fault" proposal is that it changes
>only the bodily injury part of the accident. You can't sue each other
>for medical bills and pain & suffering. However things stay the same
>for physical damage to each others vehicles.  You still go after each
>other to determine who is "at-fault" so the insurance company of the
at
>fault party has to pay to fix the others vehicle (but not pay their
>medical bills).  Do I have this right?
>
>If so, it makes sense for the insurance companies to have an interest
>in still determining who is at-fault because 1. they will try to avoid
>paying to fix the other parties vehicle, and 2. if a person is in
>repeated auto accidents and racking up medical bills for themselves,
>the insurance company will want to charge that person more premium,
>because that person has a higher probability of getting into another
>accident and the company pays out more. (hey, I'm just trying to
figure
>this out too). 
>
>Anyway, back to your original comment about "open season on uninsured
>motorist". It may not work out that way, because of the disincentives
>(higher insurance rates, DMV may suspend that persons licence, etc..).

My only source is my primary pamphlet and my main beef with the 
initiative is that the insurance companies want it real bad--
nothing an insurance company really, really wants can be good
for the rest of us.  That's just paranoia, but you know what they
say about that.

The "argument against" in the pamphlet says that in other states 
which had no fault, liability rates went up 40 percent in 4 years 
compared to 1 percent in 4 years here and that several states
that had no fault have repealed it.

Another thing that bothers me is that it really isn't "no fault."
That is an Orwellian use of the language because fault will be
determined like before and it will affect your rates like before.
It should be called "no sue."

I think that the vote will come down to this: Which do you hate 
more?  Insurance companies or uninsured drivers?  The uninsured
drivers I have known were making under $10,000 a year and could
not afford to spend 20 percent of their income protecting
assets they do not have.  When I was making $5 an hour, my dad
paid my insurance.  Insurance companies I hate.

P.S.  I hit and was sued by an uninsured driver who was 
eventually found to be a fraud.  I am familiar with all of 
the reasons to hate the uninsured.