Michigan Legislature may eliminate required unlimited medical coverage in auto insurance policies
The Michigan Legislature is considering a bill that would give drivers the option of giving up unlimited lifetime medical coverage as part of their auto insurance, according to an MLive.com report.
Consumers would be allowed to buy insurance policies with personal injury protection limits ranging from $50,000 to $400,000 under a bill proposed by Sen. Joe Hune, R-Hamburg, according to the report.
Currently, insurers' personal injury protection provision covers $500,000 in accident-related medical bills, and a pooled catastrophic claims fund picks up the rest. That additional coverage costs consumers about $145, according to MLive.
Under Hune's bill — which is reportedly supported by some urban Democrats in the state Legislature — drivers would still have the option of purchasing unlimited medical coverage, although they would not be required to do so.
Read the full MLive.com story here.
Contact AnnArbor.com's Nathan Bomey at (734) 623-2587 or nathanbomey@annarbor.com. You can also follow him on Twitter or subscribe to AnnArbor.com's newsletters.
Comments
Darwinia
Wed, Aug 31, 2011 : 7:30 p.m.
"Consumers would be allowed to buy insurance policies with personal injury protection limits ranging from $50,000 to $400,000" There is nothing being said about how much more we will be paying for the "pleasure" of less coverage. The $145 cost for extra coverage currently is a bargain compared to the hundreds of thousands of dollars of cost a person would face on their own under this legislation. Some might feel its their "right" to assume the risk. What if that gamble results in a son or daughter facing the catastrophic injury? Would that right still be a persons first concern? Or would they be focused on the best care possible for their family member and finding its horribly out of reach?
Gordon
Wed, Aug 31, 2011 : 2:08 p.m.
I guess the underlying question is how many people on the road have liability insurance? i beleive the number is who do not higher then many would guess. If the legislature is attempting a method to lower the cost of insurance; so more will afford it, I would guess the habit will out weigh the ability to change. Driving is legaly a privilage. There is a cost to a privilage beyond the vehicle it's self. If we change the 'priviage' to a 'right' that cost would be even higher based on mandatory insurance. It's a social issue. Right down A2's alley. If you are Conservative do you vote for my choice? If you are a Liberal do you vote for not the individual choice? Or if you are a moderate do you vote for the 'privilage' and required insurance because it protects both? By the way either way it will affect the cost to society therefore coming back to the fact we pay for it one way or other. Insure compliance is more important - I think.
seasons
Wed, Aug 31, 2011 : 1:48 p.m.
I'm a retired health care worker who worked with many patients injured in vehicle accidents. This proposed legislation is short sighted and reflective of a lack of knowledge about the true costs of catastrophic injuries or perhaps is just reflecting a callous disregard. Michigan can certainly pass a bill ensuring inadequate coverage of catastrophic injuries to help the insurance companies. But to tout that this will save money otherwise is being misleading as so many of these injuries result in life long disabilities everyone has to pay for anyway down the road. Of course if Michigan also passes more bills eliminating support for the disabled and the poor, costs become a mute point. Another consideration is the medical ethics involved in saving the lives of those who don't have enormous financial resources to pay for the services that will be required. If we spend thousands of dollars saving lives through medical interventions, and then don't pay for the therapies and ongoing medical care needed to hopefully regain some level of a normal, productive life, one then has to question the purpose of spending money for the medical interventions in the first place. Being "saved" and then being literally dumped at the side of the road with nothing, no resources, no hope, no future, is beyond inhumane, it is down right cruel. Having the choice to sign up for catastrophic injury coverage or not sounds good on the surface. But insurance coverage works because of the large pools of participants, otherwise no insurer could afford to be in business. Blue Cross/Blue Shield for instance has a huge pool of participants allowing this company to be in the business. To diminish the pool of insured participants for catastrophic injury coverage is to render the program less able to provide the coverage. The whole issue with catastrophic injuries is that one is never prepared or expecting such an event to occur. Checking facts if so necessary!
arnie
Wed, Aug 31, 2011 : 10:59 a.m.
The MCCA fund is unfair it gives unlimited medical to a select few only, at everyones exspense. Did you know that if you are in an accident not involving another vehicle you are not covered by it? Example its the middle of the night a deer runs out in front of your car you swerve to miss it and someone in the vehicle gets seriously injured for life, they would be forced into possibly losing everything. But they paid there MCCA fees. How about the person at home that falls and strikes there head and gets a serious brain injury they are not covered they could lose everything. So no I personaly do not believe that everyone should be forced to pay this ridiculous fee.
Halter
Wed, Aug 31, 2011 : 11:47 p.m.
You need a better education. What is needed is better, more comprehensive Medical Insurance than covers TBI in addition to No Fault for Auto Vehicle Accidents. To imply otherwise is uneducated.
snapshot
Wed, Aug 31, 2011 : 3:31 a.m.
If someone is texting and/or talking on their phone when they run over me, I want to sue the hell out of them. If they are tailgaiting me and then rear end me, I want to be able to sue the hell out of them. If they hit me while passing another car and adjusting their radio, I want them to spend the rest of their life in prison being "Bubbas" playmate. No Fault is BS. People are at fault and deserve to pay for their negligence.
DonBee
Wed, Aug 31, 2011 : 1:41 a.m.
The real question, no one is answering is how many Michigan drivers are driving without any insurance? No fault insurance is just that, if you have insurance, you are covered. If you want to be covered, you can be, all you have to do is pay. If the other driver has no insurance, that is their problem...but is it fair that some drivers drive with no insurance (and in some cases no driver's license)? I would like to see a better way to make sure that drivers have licenses that are valid and insurance. That is what I would like to see Lansing tangle with.
Carole
Wed, Aug 31, 2011 : 12:25 p.m.
I agree with DonBee re: those irresponsible drivers who drive without insurance and/or even licenses, while drunk, and even some of those who are more interested in chatting on the phone instead of paying attention to their driving.
Mr Blue
Wed, Aug 31, 2011 : 2:58 a.m.
I love to drive and we have a great road system. I say every driver for themselves. Enter at your own risk. Like Mad Max.
dlb
Wed, Aug 31, 2011 : 1:07 a.m.
..."which is reportedly supported by some urban Democrats". I can't believe these dems would let themselves get tricked this way. Just say "no"!! This is a foolish law that has superficial appeal to some urban voters because their rates are outrageously high. This is NOT the way to address the problem of skyrocketing rates for Detroiters!
Mr Blue
Wed, Aug 31, 2011 : 12:22 a.m.
All the more reason to make Medicare available for everyone instead of Snyder and the Michigan legislature giving the insurance companies a big check and a wet kiss where the sun don't shine.
Basic Bob
Tue, Aug 30, 2011 : 11:39 p.m.
Just another special-interest battle in the legislature. The only ones who stand to lose are traumatic brain injury victims, who will end up homeless and helpless when their benefits run out.
BenWoodruff
Tue, Aug 30, 2011 : 11:23 p.m.
And when that injured driver runs out of insurance, Medicaid (you and me) pick up the bill.
stinger
Tue, Aug 30, 2011 : 10:08 p.m.
What happened to less government involvement?
Mr Blue
Wed, Aug 31, 2011 : 12:26 a.m.
That's what Snyder and his cronies want you to think while they make the bureaucracy bigger and take care of their corporate cronies. It's not so much that public government is getting bigger, but the shadow government of the corporate bureaucracy is growing by leaps and bounds.
Halter
Tue, Aug 30, 2011 : 10:04 p.m.
This is an awful proposal. People have NO idea what a true car accident injury will cost -- that 400,000 coverage will be used up in just a FEW DAYS in a hospital emergency room with a coma-related accident...let alone the years and years of rehabilitation after an accident for physical, emotional, and cognitive damage. Paying 12.00 more per month for No-Fault insurance is one of the single most important aspects of your coverage. See more information at NPR, at the Brain Injury Association of Michigan website, and any other medical website. I expect that the survey here will skew toward "it's my right to pick whatever I want"...because Ann Arbor folks that read this site are like that....In this case, it really ISNT your right to pick whatever you want, and the proposed legislation is ludicrous.
Urban Sombrero
Tue, Aug 30, 2011 : 8:45 p.m.
I totally agree with Mr. Blue. This legislation will set a scary precedent. Yes, the $145 extra in our pockets would be nice. But, all it takes is a split second for an awful, devastating accident to happen. What happens if someone has to be hospitalized and goes over the capped amount? Bankruptcy, losing a home, etc. This is a no-win piece of legislation. Well, unless you're an insurance company, that is.
Mr Blue
Tue, Aug 30, 2011 : 8:02 p.m.
This legislation will lead to a lot more lawsuits, more money for attorneys, more profit for insurance companies, and the good chance that more people will have to claim bankruptcy to get out from under their medical costs caused by a careless or drunk driver. Didn't we already pass a law limiting the chances for people to claim bankruptcy? Thus giving more money to insurance companies? The little guy gets screwed again... twice.