"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 16:40:15 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Decrease on car insurance? Where did you pull that factoid from?



From a simple google search. It's projected to RISE to about 17% in
2010.

--
Probably because medical payments will go up that much and that is
the
lions share of car insurance liability.

Rise "to 17%" of what?



Uninsured motorists.... next time, read the thread.

--
Nom=de=Plume


And if an uninsured motorist will only get his medical payed, and can
not sue for damages and pain and suffering, the rates woul drop a lot
more than 17%.

So, when someone is injured through no fault of his/her own, it's ok for
the person who did it to walk away without consequences. Yeah, the rates
would drop, perhaps a bit. But, as usual, you're an idiot citing idiotic
"facts" that don't have any basis in reality.
--
Nom=de=Plume


Yup, perfectly fair. I did require the responsible party to pay medical
bills. But the 40% of the drivers without insurance are not going to pay
anything anyway. And the other 20% with minimum insurance of about $40k
liability is not going to cover much anyway. Why should they get a big
payday for doing the samething a successful person did? Crash.

Fortunately, your draconian solution is never going to happen.

--
Nom=de=Plume