🚀 go-pugleaf

merle@netcom.com (Patrick Mrowcyznksi) writes:
|> No-fault insurance does not reduce rates.  Wouldn't that be a logical 
|> assumption?

No-fault could drop rates only on those drivers
already insured, and already charged more due to
whatever factors raise their rates such as accidents,
tickets, whatever.

Since those people are, hopefully, a minority, then
no-fault will likely cause most rates to go up.

|>  Since if no-fault insurance passes, won't everyone be 
|> insured and therefore paying a premium for that insurance?

Only in *real* no-fault, such as "pay-at-the-pump"
or some other absolute insurance. The error is in
applying the term "no-fault" to what turns out is
"MY-fault", where my insurance company pays me for
the damages someone else does to me. This is what
the proposition seems to be implying.

|>  Ie.  Calif 
|> has a population of 25million [I have no idea] and say 10million are 
|> uninsured.  You would have a rate increase for 10million drivers.
|>
|> Does anyone know the percentage of uninsured drivers?

This assumes first that someone already driving
against the law, without insurance, against all the
checks and verifications that exist now, will 
somehow be persuaded to buy insurance in the future.

I think the error has been to assume that a new law
will somehow make people who already ignore the law,
pay attention this time.

|> Wouldn't someone without/suspended/revoked license be considered a higher 
|> risk than an uninsured driver?

Irrelevant, actually, since there is no way to guage
a persons driving skill simply on wether or not they
have a license.

How did they loose it? Why are they still driving?
What about this new law will make this person any less
likely to hit you?

|>  Most of these people won't have insurance 
|> because they don't have licenses in the first place.

If you want to see what the half-assed "no-fault" that
is being imposed could very well have, imagine everyone
being required to pay the "un-insured" premium in
addition to whatever they have now.

And again, those that ignore the law are uneffected by
the law.

|> Aren't the typical uninsured drivers poor people? [and aren't most Califians 
|> are poor?]  Wouldn't this be another social program?

Only if everyone is covered under the program, rather
than just beeing an additional provision of someones
existing insurance.

|> Is this the pay at the pump insurance initiative?  Whatever happened to 
|> that?  Was there a fairer way to judge those more likely to get into an 
|> accident without looking at umpteen millions of records?

What better way than to allow a person to be responsible
for their own actions? This allows each case to be measured
on it's own merits, or through it's own insurance agent,
thus removing the danger of creating yet another huge
government beurocracy to administer yet another program
"for our own good".

I don't like insurance corruption and racketeering, just
like I don't like government corruption and racketeering.
At lease, with private insurance companies, I can go 
elsewhere if I decide the company I am using is not
worthy of my business. The State is in a somewhat more
absolute position as "sole source".

|> 						merle@netcom.com

Curt-

---
Curt Howland                     howland@Priss.com
"Laws do not persuade just because they threaten."
                 -Seneca, 65 AD
        California State Citizenship? Yes!
         http://www.Priss.com/Ron_Johnson/