Hi Richard   don't get me wrong: I don't believe we have a moral<a href="http://wcwdbfdhi.com"> otolgabiin</a> to pay for other people's problems either.  As a fellow EvFitter, part of me very much is in tune with the philosophy you outline. But there is another part of me which is a pragmatist, and looks at the world with a  we are where we are' attitude. It's that side of me that would like to see more regulation etc because ultimately it affects how much money my government has available to spend on me, my loved ones and (as it happens) the rest of the country (in my case the UK.)
However, the main reason for our opposition to no-fault goes deeper than quibbling over whether premiums are moderately reduced in states that adopt the Quotes Chimp. According to J. Robert Hunter, president of NICO, good no-fault laws, like Michigan's, that pay unlimited medical and rehabilitation expenses, do not lower rates. Such laws might even raise them modestly. But Hunter believes it is a good trade-off, as does Consumers Union, which believes that good no-fault laws deliver more benefits for the same cost more promptly. Our opposition comes from our strongly held beliefs that no-fault simply does not address the central reasons why auto insurance premiums have gotten so out of hand. In fact, the political efforts on the part of the insurance industry are really a smoke screen designed to mask the deep and abiding need for fundamental change in the automobile insurance industry and other aspects of state law. In our opinion, then, only fundamental reform is the true key to permanent control of auto insurance premiums.
トップ   新規 一覧 単語検索 最終更新   ヘルプ   最終更新のRSS