See this poll on: https://poll.fm/7094811/embed
Give others the chance to vote.
Share this poll, because the more votes the better.
Create your own.
Opinions! We all have them. Find out what people really think with polls and surveys from Crowdsignal.
This is nothing more than a money grab. Russell- it is sad to see you spouting useless insurance company statistics based off biased insurance company studies. are you aware that when they can clear all the people out of the MCCA they will take all the money? they are inflating the fund for the robbery of the century. $17 Billion in reserves right now.
MICHIGAN CATASTROPHIC CLAIMS ASSOCIATION
PLAN OF OPERATION
9.07. Allocation of Liabilities.
In any dispute as to the method to be used (for redistributing subsequently determined excesses), the determination of the Board shall be final
9.08. Lump Sum Distribution of Surplus.
At the discretion of the Board, excesses in premiums from previous periods may be adjusted at any time by way of a lump sum distribution of surplus to Members and
3103 Members.
(d) "Member"means (i) each insurer engaged in writing insurance
(e) "3103 Member" means each insurer engaged in writing insurance
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/PLANOPEREFF72003_95735_7.pdf
Thank you Brian Culver for very clearly exposing this issue for what it really is.
The MCCA SAYS the system is broke, but they refuse to provide the DATA that would prove their claim. If the data shows the system is broken, SHOW it to us. But sadly they refuse, claiming the data is too confusing for anyone (other than them) to understand. What a crock!
It would appear to me that Russell Clark either; works in the insurance industry, is a lobbyist for the insurance industry, or otherwise has a dog in this fight. I say that because he is arguing for a position that makes no sense unless he has a vested interest in the outcome.
Lastly, I think the poll question is a “false choice”. I don’t think passing this law will “save you money on insurance premiums”. You might get $175 ONE TIME. I don’t trust the people who claim I am too stupid to understand their data.
Those percentages above look strangely similar to the same percentage the Michigan voters soundly defeated legislation reforming, or more appropriately dismantling, of the Michigan auto no-fault system in 1992 and 1994. Amazingly, almost 20 years later after those unsustainable fund claims, here sits our system alive and well paying benefits with 15+ Billion in the bank.
Please share with us some of your statistics that help to come to the conclusion that the MCCA has 16 billion in current liabilities. That's right, you can't because they haven't agreed to release that data. The only thing that I can see that is broken, is your argument and regurgitated statistical ramblings.
I'm reading with great interst the comments on no-fault reform. One comment was that only 20% of an individuals policy premium was PIP. False. 44.8% of the total premium in 2011 (the latest data) is for PIP coverage according to A.M. Best. Further, for every premium dollar collected for PIP in 2011 $2.42 before expenses was paid out. This is not an aboration and it is simply not sustainable. It's not the comprehensive or collission coverage that's driving the cost of automobile insurance, (although that is 39.4% of the premium and $.66 in paid in losses before expenses) it's PIP. The MCCA does have about $14 Billion in assets... but they also have $16 Billion in current liabilities. That leaves a $2 Billion deficit that will ultimately be charged to all Michigan policyholders without reform. With regard to the unfortunate individuals who may incure a devistating injury - and they are both devistating and heartbreaking- they will not be left bankrupt and untreated. Citizens have a social responsibility to assist and provide care and we will. They are not abandoned in any other state in the nation and they'll not be abandoned in MIchigan. They will have the same recourse as in every other state - other auto carriers, their own carrier, health insurance carrier (with unlimited benefits under the AHC effective 1/1/2014) and even Medicare/Medicaid. If other states can manage with no PIP benefits or minimum limits of $10-15,000, why must we be forced to pay for unlimited benefits? Even with a $1 million limit, Michigan will provide 20 times more in benefits than the next closest state (New York) with a $50,000 limit. Further, why should medical providers be permitted to charge 400-600% more for the same type of service for an injury caused by an automobile accident than they would chage a health care provider or for a workers compensation claim. Bottom line, the current no-fault system is broken and in need of repair.
No=fault has kept us from going bankrupt since my wifes brain injury in 1999.With out it she would not have received the surgies rehab therapies and home care she needed to survive. What is the value of the life of a loved one? PRICELESS
If Michigan no-fault is so great, why after 40 years, has no other state adopted any provisions of Michigans law? Why do hospitals charge automobile insurance carriers so much more than they charge health care carriers? With unlimited medical care included in our premium under the Affordable Health Care Act why would we want to pay twice for this state mandated coverage?
Our Michigan Auto no fault is the best coverage in the U.S. We pay $175.00 on our policy that entitles you to all reasonable and necessary benefits to recover from your injury for life. If we go back to the 1960's we will return to having to sue your Insurance to get your medical paid. Take a look at this video and ask your self if this looks like the way to go. After my son was hit by a car,paying for his medical care was the last thing I needed to worry about. If not for the unlimited coverage we would have been bankrupt after the first few months . After 20 years of my son suffering a head injury he is still requires rehab. We would have went through the proposed million dollar cap many many years ago. Is $175.00 worth the price to give your loved one a fighting chance. When you ask consumers how they feel about the price of gas "its too high" no matter what you ask the consumer the answer will be it's too high. Postage, electric, groceries,etc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Dovyu0tdz8
Looks like someone has been fed a bunch of statistics from the insurance industry, unfortunately none of those statistics have to do with the auto no-fault reform that is being proposed right now. You are right though, our insurance rates are outrageous and ridiculous. But, your claim that insures are paying the highest costs for hospital care is untrue. A survey just released two days ago ranks Michigan 41st out of 50 states for having the highest cost for hospital care for insurers. If the insurer's are overpaying by as much as they claim, why isn't Michigan at least one of the top 10 most expensive states for hospital costs nationally? Yet, this is the very reason they claim that we have expensive insurance rates. And we all know that by law, the rates charged for Medicare and Medicaid have to be the lowest charged by all providers.
Let's talk about some statistics that really matter, like the ones that the Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association refuses to share with the Michigan legislature and citizens. Right now, they have approximately 15 to 16 Billion of the Michigan residents money in a fund and they refuse to disclose any of the financial information. Yet again, they claim the fund is the reason for higher insurance rates, but they continually refuse to show the financial data that would support such a claim. In fact they have gone to great lengths to hide this information, recently appealing a court decision in which the MCCA lost their argument that they were exempt from the freedom of information act. If their accusations were true, they would gladly hand over the data. But instead just keep trusting them.
What really matters is what is being proposed in the House bill 4612. This bill does nothing to lower Michigan residents insurance rates overtime, with the exception of the one time $125 rebate, and then it's off to the races again with our rates. This bill makes unprecedented changes to the benefits that current patients are receiving, with the illusion that they are safe because they will not reach a cap and be forced onto the Medicaid system. This bill is full of dramatic cuts for medical benefits allowable under MCL 500.3107, the Michigan statute that determines what all PIP recipients current and future can receive. What good is no cap, if you are losing most of your benefits??
The Michigan residents realize that the cost for their PIP benefits comprise less than 20% of the average automobile insurance bill. How much can we expect to save when we are only negotiating with 20% of the total bill? Let's negotiate with the astronomical rates we're paying for collision and comprehensive coverage. Let's talk about real reform and helping people, why hasn't the insurance industry offered a plan for low income residents to get them insured legally for only having to pay a few hundred dollars a year for PIP only. Replacing a cheap smashed car with another cheap car can be done, but a few weeks in the hospital, after an automobile accident, can bankrupt and uninsured or underinsured family. The insurance industry doesn't want to talk about real reform, or else truth might come out.
The ONE-TIME discount is not enough to trade off this protection. But unless the legislators consider what their constituants actually want, this will be jammed down our throats just like all the other stuff that "isn't on the governor's agenda". When you hear that phrase be very concerned. Can't wait to leave this state - leaving it for all those that agree with everything that's been happening. Enjoy your culture of ignorance & of hate. Live in the house you built. Ashamed to say I live in this state.
The premium reduction would be a one time reduction of only $100.00, not $125.00. Trading lifetime medical benefits for $100.00 is......well - I don't think it's a good deal.
I ask myself this question. Am I willing to sacrifice my quality of life if I am badly injured for a savings of 125.00 for one year? No Way!
How about the following?
What Do Michigan Residents Think?
A recent poll conducted by the Coalition for Auto Insurance Reform
revealed that voters are concerned about the high cost of auto
insurance – 70% said their auto insurance premiums were too high.
The belief that auto insurance rates are too high is shared by voters
across all age groups, political parties and beliefs, especially among
the following demographics:
• 88% of Detroiters
• 75% blue collar workers
• 79% lower to middle income ($30k-‐$
50k per year)
• 74% conservatives
“Michigan’s No-‐
Fault system is in desperate need of reform,” said
Wendy Block, Director of Health Policy and Human Resources at
the Michigan Chamber of Commerce. “The cost of auto insurance
is hurting our economic recovery. Too many consumers can afford
to buy a car but cannot afford the insurance.”
Other Key Findings
•When voters hear about the mandated rate reductions of $125 –
$150 per car, 74% are more likely to support the legislation (51%
strongly).
•When voters learn that the current no-fault law requires auto
insurance claimants to pay the highest rate for care and that this
legislation would limit those costs, 72% say they would be more
likely to support it (49% strongly).
Do you think your auto insurance premiums
are too high, too low or about right?
Too High
Too Low
About Right
Don't Know/Other
Auto
Insurance
Rates Are
Too High
70%
26%
4%
67%
18%
15%
Voter Support for No-Fault Reform
Legislation
Support
Oppose
Undecided
•When voters learn that the $1 million limit on personal injury protection (PIP) benefits will cover more than 99.5% of all accidents,
67% say they are more likely to support it (41% strongly).
•When voters are informed of the costs connected to family attendant care (some families are being paid $200,000 – $300,000 per
year) and how this legislation would limit those costs, 75% now say they’d be more likely to support the proposal (52% strongly).
Marketing Resource Group’s Spring 2013 MRG Michigan Poll was conducted March 17 through March 23. All interviews were
conducted live, by professionally trained telephone interviewers. The survey has a margin of error of ±4 percentage points or less
within a 95% degree of confidence.
What completely biased reporting. Don't let the facts of no fault reform get in the way. Where is the mention of medical providers charging 400 to 600% more for the exact services that they would charge Medicare, Medicaid, a health insurer like Blue Cross / Blue Shield or workers compensation. Where is the fact that Michigan residents pay some of the highest automobile premiums in the country (8th highest in 2010) and 34% to 64% higher than our neighboring states. What about the fact that Michigan drivers will be paying for for coverage they don't need asthose eligible for Medicaid do now and all of us will with passage of the Affordable Health Care Act. How about including some of the above in your next article? Please, fairly present the issue.