No-fault auto insurance debate rekindled in Michigan

Jan 26, 2013 Full story: Daily Press & Argus

Gov. Rick Snyder's call last week for reforming Michigan's no-fault law has rekindled debate about how much Michiganders should pay to protect their lives and those of other drivers on the road.

Full Story
John Spark

Lansing, MI

#1 Jan 28, 2013
This is a complete ruse. Politicians make the argument that they are concerned about how much you have to pay because anyone would like to pay less. Snyder's faux concern is to veil his true objective - making certain insurance companies (which are already highly profitable) PAY LESS IN BENEFITS.

The unlimited medical allowance was a just trade-off by our legislature. What they traded was not allowing for punitive damages for insurance companies that act in bad faith. This assured two things. 1) People would not sue in hopes of getting a big payoff in punitive award even if they weren't seriously injured and 2) Expensive medical bills for those seriously injured would be taken care of.

I speak from experience. I was in an auto accident from which I suffered serious injuries. As soon as the insurance company discovered I was seriously injured, they denied benefits, paying a doctor $10,000 to say I was not injured despite objective findings and the opinion of several other (unconnected) physicians. In doing so, the insurance company was effectively saying - "We don't care how many doctors say you are injured, the one we paid to say you're not disagrees. Sue us."

As a result, I have permanent injuries from which I will not recover. This could have been avoided if I would have had surgery at the proper time.

If you are concerned about spending $500 a year on car insurance, think of the cost when you're faced with a million in long-term care.

This is yet another example of conservative's incessant beholding of monied interests at the expense of the general public disguised as concern for the average joe.

If any no-fault reforms need to be enacted, it should be reform that disallows insurance companies from withholding benefits unless the matter goes directly before a magistrate with both parties bringing their evidence to the table.

You would see cost savings in the situation not developing to a lengthy settlement process, reduced medical costs from non-exasperation of injuries that require medical attention and reduced costs in insurance companies being wary of paying out ten grand to get a doctor to lie for them each time an accident victim is seriously injured.

Bradenton, FL

#2 Jan 31, 2013
Everyone with a logical mind knows the GOP hates people and worships MONEY! Look at DeVos, Engler, Snyder,... All are wh@res for their corporate puppet-masters. They will reap what they have sown. It won't be pretty.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Michigan Government Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Irish unlikely to reach top (Nov '06) 7 hr Sneaky Pete 19
Michigan tightens rules for childhood vaccinations Tue scs2011 2
Unequal by law: being gay in Michigan Dec 7 Benny 14
Lawmaker's orientation is over Dec 4 Ace McMillan 5
What Michigan gas tax hike could cost at pump Nov 28 Steve 1
Jonathan Gruber Nov 19 D Patterson 1
Man proves he's not dead in Michigan, gets to vote Nov '14 Christaliban 2
More from around the web