h a l f b a k e r yThis would work fine, except in terms of success.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Currently I renew my license periodically. I also pay for insurance which is required by law. Yet insurance required by law forces me to contract with a private enterprise vendor - Constitutionally questionable at least!
My idea. My license would be renewed more often, like yearly. I would pay a fee
that would reflect my past driving record and dui etc. if any.
A good record might cost $50 renewal but I get my insurance WITH THE LICENSE! A bad driver (dui, etc.) might pay $500 for his renewal.
Drivers would in fact insure one another - private company gouging with the Legislatures' blessing would be stopped. This would apply ONLY to insurance minimums required by law, PD&L.
The State could no longer require citizens to contract with private for profit vendors, all drivers with licenses would have PD&L insurance, legally required insurance would be available at cost, good drivers would be rewarded, bad drivers penalized.
[link]
|
| |
PS. I love this site! I am hoping ideas will find help with funding instead of, well, you know. |
|
| |
//...insurance required by law forces me to contract with a private enterprise vendor - Constitutionally questionable at least! // |
|
| |
I don't understand this statement. Why is it constitutionally questionable? And forcing people to effectively purchase insurance coverage from the government is less constitutionally questionable? |
|
| |
[Cynic hat on] This idea would result in a significant increase in the number of unlicensed drivers on the road. [Cynic hat off] |
|
| |
// I am hoping ideas will find help with funding instead of, well, you know. // |
|
| |
Well, no, I don't know. Don't hold your breath for magic money to start flowing at you. This place is more about fun than funding. |
|
| |
Would this mean your life, renters and/or home owners inursance would also be regulated through the government? If not then you would still have to deal with the private vendors. |
|
| |
Yeah, I don't get it either. I have to have insurance in order to drive. Every other driver is supposed to, too. If they don't, they're penalized by the court when caught. By being able to buy insurance from a private company, I'm afforded the benefit of competition between insurance companies. If I feel my rates are too high, I can shop around. There are plenty of insurance companies that only issue policies to good drivers - thereby keeping costs to their customers down. |
|
| |
Quite apart from which, you still need a license to drive a borrowed, rented or company car, even though you don't need specific personal insurance so to do. If you have more than one car, each must be insured, possibly at different rates. |
|
| |
As someone who lives with Government Run Insurance, RUN WHILE YOU STILL CAN! Don't let them near it, it's a fiasco, and a monopoly. |
|
| |
I'm in a no fault state which requires riduculous pip insurance that is expensive and provides no benefits other than the assurance you won't get sued. Unfortunately, if one is in accident, you won't get any compensation either. The state sets up the ins requirements, and commercial vendors offer it. But with the states requirements, its pretty much state run. At least if it were truly private enterprise, you might find some benefit to paying the premium other than complying with the law. |
|
| |
Its a great idea. Until the politicians start running on the platform of lowering insurance costs. Then your income tax dollars will be paying for other's bad driving. |
|
| |