🚀 go-pugleaf

Sarah Malain (jersar@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
:     "Uninsured drivers will no longer be a problem.
:     You won't have to pay extra because of them.
:     If they don't have insurance, they won't get 
:     paid.  Most importantly, uninsured drivers 
:     won't be able to sue you, which they can today.
: I see a couple of improper assumptions in this paragraph.  First,
: there is the assumption that injury claims are primarily made
: by the uninsured.  Can this be true?  

You are assuming the assumption exists. I see no such assumption
in the above statement. You have completely misinterpreted
the statement. If you check the details of your insurance policy, you will
find "uninsured motorist" is an line item option by your insurance
company. It is required under the current system. What it buys you is
immediate payment by your insurance company in an accident with
an uninsured motorist. It frees you from having to sue the uninsured
motorist to get back damages and medical costs. Under the current
system, you must sue an uninsured motorist if he is at fault.
Prop 200 eliminates the need to sue the uninsured motorist and
the need for a separate "uninsured motorist" option in insurance
policies.

: Second, there is the 
: assumption that a lawsuit brought by an uninsured person is
: automatically invalid.  

Again you seem to be the one making the assumption. The statement
is simply acknowledging a fact of the current system, which is
a suit is the only way to recover money under the current
system. The consequence of this system is you must sue the
uninsured motorist to get back any money if he is at fault.
So you have made an assumption that the suit will always be
filed by the uninsured motorist when in fact it is you who
must file the suit unless you have bought the "uninsured
motorist" option for your insurance.

: It is also interesting to me that in the "analysis" section of
: the pamphlet, it is argued that "no fault" will lower county and
: state health care costs.  I do not see how this is possible since
: that portion of the population too poor to have car and health
: insurance will now not be able to sue for medical costs even 
: when they have a legitimate claim.  They will have to turn to the
: government or charity.  On the other hand, those who do not have
: legitimate claims will be less likely to waste their time getting
: treatment they do not need in order to inflate their rewards.

You have clearly made an assumption here, namely the uninsured are
"too poor" to use your words. Many uninsured are uninsured
because they are such bad drivers that even under the special bad drivers
insurance plans, the premiums are very high. They could be quite
financially well to do people who chose to be uninsured because they do not
want to pay for consequences of their bad driving habits.

There are some obvious flaws in these arguments. The most obvious
is when you are injured in an accident, you get the treatment
immediately and worry about the cost later. Uninsured poor people have
to use public and charity care now because they cannot afford
the care and will not be able to afford the care until or if they
win the suit. That can take years. As a result, the state and
charities who treat the poor already write off the cost as unrecoverable.
So you are talking a "no change" situation.

People who want to inflate their claims can do that just as well against
their own insurance companies as against the other guy's companies.
All they need is a cooperative doctor and an insurance company that
is lax is verifying claims. Again this is a "no change" situation.

One way the state will lower their medical cost is faster recovery
of the money spent on care after an accident for insured
motorists. They will get paid immediately by the insurance company 
instead waiting for a suit to be won or filing a suit of their own 
to get back the money.

			   Danny Low
    "Question Authority and the Authorities will question You"
	   Valley of Hearts Delight, Silicon Valley
	     HP NSD   dlow@ppg01.sc.hp.com