The Truth About “No-Fault” Insurance
When you talk about the pros and cons of “Fault” and “No-Fault” insurance, you need to look at the reason it was enacted, the monetary cost or savings you receive, and how it effect the accident rate in “No-Fault” area. You keep seeing people get on media saying they would lose all their medical benefits, this is false, the coverage allowed is separate from the issue of “Fault” and “No-Fault” insurance depending on how the bill is written but what is the truth. In Michigan just as my state which is “Fault” insurance, the state takes over responsibility for long term care at a set amount, the unlimited benefits are not directly tied to “Fault” and “No-Fault” insurance, but the way the bill is written governing auto insurance in each state. “No-Fault” insurance was started to try and lower the insurance rate people were paying. The other side of the coin was it was done to lessen the amount of time a Police Officer would have to spend on the scene of an accident, if it was a non-fatal accident the logic being if no one is at fault the Police Officer do not have to investigate. Now step back and look at the Police Officer’s time spent at an accident, monetary cost or savings you receive, and how it effect the accident rate.
Is there a problem with “No-Fault” insurance and if so, what is it? There are only 12 states with “No-Fault” insurance and of all the “No-Fault” states, Michigan has the highest premiums. Michigan is charged 24% more than the next highest state, 45% higher than the average, and an amazingly over 300% more than the lowest state of Maine. All “No-Fault” states pay on average close to 10% more then “Fault States” which in Michigan would be $248 dollars more that could be in your pocket at the minimum. If you look at the history of “No-Fault” insurance and the states who switched from it, they lowered insurance rated by close to 30%; in Michigan that would means your insurance on average would go from $2476 to $1733; this would equal $743, how does that sound. In a “Fault” state, they are held accountable, their insurance has to pay so your insurance doesn’t go up, and you do not have to pay that $500 or $1000 deductible. As I said earlier, my state has “Fault” insurance and the same type coverage as Michigan yet our state insurance is less than half of Michigan’s. Why should you have to pay for “Bad Drivers” who have no incentive to change their bad habits? If “Bad Drivers” get into a wreck, it won’t count against them on their insurance, and they can’t be held liable or accountable for an accident; the only recourse for a victim of a bad driver is to sue.
Drivers in “No-Fault” states drive more reckless which caused more accidents which is shown by statistics which are at the United States Department of Transportation. Michigan who is the highest insurance paying of any state and is a “No-Fault” state had 873 people killed in car wrecks per 100,000 people compared to Maine who has “Fault” insurance and pays the lowest in insurance having only 161 people killed per 100,000 people; that is 542% more fatalities then Maine with many of them being our children. Is our children and other loved one’s lives not worth the change? We see “No-Fault” is costing us more monetarily and in loved ones lives but how about saving the Police Officer’s time?
Police Officers have to respond to every wreck they are notified of to check out the people and make sure it wasn’t caused by a DUI. “No-Fault” has Police Officers spending more time at wrecks because there were more wrecks. With this rise in wrecks and fatalities, the Police Officers are out even longer than they were before which puts them at more risk. This also takes away from Police Officer’s time to track down real criminal and help clean up some of the problem areas in Michigan.
We can see the monetary cost, cost in lives, and the cost of Police Officer’s time is not on the side of “No-Fault” insurance. “No-Fault” insurance was started to try and lower the insurance rate for people, but as usual, any time we try to social engineer something it backfires in our face, “No-Fault” is no different. Like all social engineering, distributing, or redistribution type programs, even though they may have been conceived with the best intentions, they always have the opposite effect. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out “No-Fault” looses here. Isn’t the extra loss in loved ones enough to get away from “No-Fault”; the only ones who make out on “No-Fault” insurance is the insurance companies.