Letter: No insurance? Car crushed

I’m having difficulty understanding why something that could be handled quite easily, and will save the average Louisianan around $1,000 yearly, is just ignored by the politicians. I’m talking about the additional cost that insured motorist have to pay for uninsured drivers. I see billboards all along the interstates proclaiming this cost. So what are our politicians doing about it? Nothing!

Actually, I do understand why nothing is being done. It means more profit to the insurance companies and increase funds for them to donate to their favorite politicians. “You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours?”

The answer is quite simple. Any vehicle required by law to carry insurance, caught driving without that insurance, will be seized and crushed regardlesls of whether it is junk or an exotic sports car; regardless if paid for or 100 percent financed; it does not matter if the check is in the mail or you are going to pay it tomorrow; no excuses accepted, the vehicle will be crushed. (You could have a 30-day delay after seizure so if there was a mix up, you would have a period of time to prove you had insurance on the day you were caught and accused of not having insurance — it will not matter if you have purchased it now).

This will be an incentive to those who own and/or finance vehicles to insure those vehicles carry insurance all the time. Not for just the time it takes to legally get off the lot.

For the “poor” who cannot afford to buy insurance, they cannot afford a car. They should not be driving! They are lucky the taxpayers who just voted themselves additional taxes to keep CATS running. They should use it.

I just moved here from Florida. They also have a problem with uninsured motorists. My Florida portion of the insurance premium cost for uninsured motorist was larger than the rest of the insurance together. That is ridiculous, unnecessary and plainly stupid.

As I am new here I do not know the approximate number of uninsured vehicles on the road, but in Florida it was around 33 percent. So two-thirds of all drivers paid double their insurance to cover one-third who did not carry insurance. So the insurance companies made money “covering” the uninsured. I’m sure it is the same here also.

Insure them or crush them! The average taxpayer wins either way!

Tom Winn

retired

Baton Rouge

Comments

1) Comment by InPVille - 22/06/2012

@8.3: You obviously didn't comprehend the import of my links. The statistic on support for the AHCA showed the MAJORITY of Americans didn't and don't support the AHCA as developed and implemented. That is what "Support for the AHCA was never there" means. You alone do not constitue "the American People" any more than I do, single voices among many. Also you blow off the fact that medical bankruptcy numbers didn't decline with the Mass. Health Care Law which the AHCA was modeled on or the point about the doubling of the cost of providing care under the Mass. Law by 2020. Add to that the point about the increased waiting time to see a medical care provider because the number of doctors who aren't willing to take on new patients under the system. My own primary care physician already opted for the USA Network's "Royal Pains" patient care model. So I have to select a new one. Sure our health care system can be improved. But the fact that the MAJORITY of the people in the country don't buy the AHCA as an improvement puts you and those who support it in the minority as to whether it is better than what we have now. Cheer up! SCOTUS may still stick us all with it.

2) Comment by 8.3 - 22/06/2012

Regardless of geography, an individual mandate is still an individual mandate whether its Massachusets or LA, car or health. Thanks for the referral PNHP.org. That is much better than "I am willing to die for my right to die nonsense." "Support for the AHCA was never there by the American people" that isn't quite true and you know it. I am an American "people" and until something better is proposed and ENACTED the AHCA is better than what existed before. Again, I do not believe you have been severely impacted by the situation before AHCA or you would not be so eager to defend the insurance company propaganda. The frightening thing about politics in America now is that due to the sheer inattention of the American public their tendency to be swayed by well placed yet cynical marketing, one can buy any political agenda one wants.You think that 31% of wase (profiteering) has anything to do with the marketing about redistribution and liberty and all the other ***** its redistribution alright, from your pocket to theirs, 31% having nothing to do with health care. According to pnhp (thanks again) The U.S. spends twice as much as other industrialized nations on health care, $8,160 per capita. Yet our system performs poorly in comparison and still leaves 50 million without health coverage and millions more inadequately covered. This is because private insurance bureaucracy and paperwork consume one-third (31 percent) of every health care dollar. Streamlining payment through a single nonprofit payer would save more than $400 billion per year, enough to provide comprehensive, high-quality coverage for all Americans. Btw, 1st congress in 1790 passed legislation to require ship owners to buy health insurance for sailors and was signed by President George Washington. SO much for the founding father limited government *****

3) Comment by InPVille - 22/06/2012

http://pnhp.org/blog/2011/03/08/reform-in-massachusetts-fails-to-reduce-medical-bankruptcies/ - - - "Despite a marked declined in the uninsurance rate in Massachusetts since the implementation of health reform, the proportion of bankruptcies that occurred in the wake of medical problems has not decreased significantly, and the absolute number of medical bankruptcies has actually increased by one third." . . . "The Massachusetts experience shows that merely providing insurance coverage to the majority of the population is not enough. The quality of the insurance coverage is crucial. In 2009, 89% of Massachusetts debtors and all their dependents had health insurance at the time of filing, yet the insurance was not effective in reducing the rate of medical bankruptcy below levels that already existed before the full implementation of the Massachusetts health reform program." -[**]- It isn't as simple as just providing coverage. The approach has to be well thought out -[**]- "Indeed, medical bankruptcy rates appear lower in Canada, where national health insurance provides universal, first dollar coverage. Instead, these data suggest that reducing medical bankruptcy rates in the United States will require substantially improved — not just expanded — insurance, as well as better disability insurance programs to provide income support to ill individuals and family caregivers."

4) Comment by InPVille - 22/06/2012

@Massachussetts: Increasing access to medical benefits without increasing the number of providers creates other problems -[**]- http://bluecrossmafoundation.org/~/media/Files/Health%20Reform/Health%20Reform%20Assessing%20the%20Results.pdf - - - "The cost of health care and the annual rate of increase in health care spending remains a challenge. With no intervention, per capita health care spending in Massachusetts is projected to nearly double by 2020." -[**]- http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/09/us-massachusetts-long-waits-idUSTRE7484NI20110509 - - - "Almost everyone in Massachusetts has health insurance under a state mandate, but many doctors do not accept the subsidized insurance programs available to low-income residents, a new study shows. [] Residents in some areas also face long waits in getting doctors' appointments, or find that overstretched primary care practices are not taking on new patients. [] "Insurance coverage doesn't equal access to care," said Dr. Alice Coombs, president of the Massachusetts Medical Society (MMS) and an emergency room physician," -[**]- http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2008/09/22/across_mass_wait_to_see_doctors_grows/ - - - "The wait to see primary care doctors in Massachusetts has grown to as long as 100 days, while the number of practices accepting new patients has dipped in the past four years, with care the scarcest in some rural areas."

5) Comment by InPVille - 21/06/2012

Support for the AHCA was never there by the American people and their lack of support continues. Here is why. . . the way the bill was passed: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/the-political-fight-on-health-care-is-over-republicans-won/2012/06/20/gJQAz6CdqV_blog.html -[**]- The way it was covered - politics and strategy and not covering the substance of the plan. Of course it was all a big secret and a moving target until a few hours before the vote which made covering the substance rather impossible. People instinctively realize when something is not being sought with due and proper diligence.

6) Comment by InPVille - 21/06/2012

@8.3 Obviously you have a problem with words. I only stated what I would do which was aimed toward preventing bankrupting my family. It is up to each person to decide what to do in such a situation. I've had more than one family members, now deceased, for whom the medical care did not exist to cover their medical issues. You also are kidding yourself about medical care under the AHCA if it remains in place. There are limits to the maximum coverage of medical insurance. If things drag on too long. when they are exhausted, they are exhausted. The AHCA isn't going to change that. -[**]- Ever hear of refusing medical care. It happens. I've known people who went so far as to have the letters DNR as a tattoo on their chest. -[**]- Believe as you will that the government is going to provide all your health care wants and those of everyone else. Why you would choose to believe that is beyond me. Look at the way government has managed the Social Security Program. Over decades they have allowed the program's solvency become more and more precarious and done nothing but kick the can down the road. The AHCA isn't going to be any different. It is all about keeping their power and putting off the inevitable hoping they will be able to get out before the hatchet falls. In the meantime the future of following generations becomes less and less attractive. Government is just as dangerous to the public well being as any corporation. Both need serious monitoring. -[**]- Ever notice what happens in a Congressional Hearing on any subject. The first order of business is to see that the blame is placed on something or someone else and any eyes being pointed toward Congresses part of the problem is swept under the rug.

7) Comment by 8.3 - 21/06/2012

"Sooner or later we all die from something". Really?So the uninsuredz should just go ahead and die, and many uninsureds are in that condition because of lack of access due to preexisting conditions and/or financial constraints, that is not going to happen. They will go to the emergency room and the public will pay for their care anyway, as it has historically happens. Now if you would like to sacrifice your family and self on the altar of liberty (to die),go ahead. I will also wager no one in your family has a life threatening condition an insurance company refuses to cover. The flaw in your bravado to face death is that not all death is swift and merciful, you might suffer for years, bringing about that financial ruin anyway. Who in your family will perform the mercy killing? Or it may be someon dear to you that you will wathc suffer. How is living a life of physical suffering a life of liberty? Again, it is obvious you are covered under Medicare, group health etc. and can afford to blather about your right to cancer and to die. Careful what you wish for, though. But again we digress into useless platitudes and redundant eventualities, an individual mandate by any other name is still an individual mandate. The good news is that if repeal of AHCA happens, you can stay alive and still bankrupt your family before you die. Congratulations.

8) Comment by InPVille - 21/06/2012

@8.3 Sooner or later we all die from something. Many years ago I was asked by an insurance salesman what I would do if I didn't purchase the additional cancer insurance he was trying to sell me and I came down with cancer and the cost was going to bankrupt my family. I'll tell you what I told him. If faced with the decision of whether to bankrupt my family or accept the fact that my time was up, I'd face the fact that my time was up. -[**]- You'd lose your wager.

9) Comment by 8.3 - 21/06/2012

"We already provide Medicaid for those whom society has deemed unable to provide for themselves" except for those millions we don't such as small business and those with preexisting conditions which AHCA provides. How many small businesses have you started? Yes, insuring everyone will be expensive but obviously you are well covered so what it "boils down to is what you think of yourself." You might not be such a fervent proponent of "liberty" if you had cancer and your insurance company dropped you. It is dubious that dying without medical care in defense of a perceived liberty is quite a rational defense. But, agreed, the freedom to die is an inalienable right. The unsubstantiated statement about the correlations of government, medical professionals, and unsustainability ignore the real history which is decades of insurance company bureaucracies for profit with minimal government interference. I will wager InPVille has worked for large corporations or government his entire life and never had to worry about how he was going to procure and keep medical insurance for himself and his family. It must be nice. Fact is, the deck has been stacked against sole proprietorship and small business fro decades so the freedom arguments ring hollow.

10) Comment by InPVille - 21/06/2012

@8.3: "Although losing a car is inconvenient, there are clear ethical issues when denying medical care" -[**]- Aren't there also ethical issues with choosing to spend the money you could use to provide for your own medical insurance on something else and playing society for a bunch of chumps instead in the full knowledge that you will still be provided medical care on the backs of your fellow citizens. We already provide Medicaid for those whom society has deemed unable to provide for themselves for disability or age and don't have sufficient income to be eligible for Social Security and also provide Medicare for those who are on Social Security. So in the end what your ethical concern boils down to is what you think of yourself. -[**]- "It seems that right to life includes being born into misery,. . . " -[**]- You also have a right to give birth to those you haven't the means or ability to provide for. We haven't found the balance because we haven't found the proper balance between a right and a responsibility. -[**]- "The pooling of costs are intended to reduce the exponential rise in medical care and medical insurance vs doing nothing, medical care inflation will continue with or without the AHCA." -[**]- Intent is trumped by implementation. The CBO has already determined the AHCA will add over 500 billion dollars to the national debt. Every time CBO comes up with a new calculation of the cost of implementing the bill the amount of that deficit increases. Don't kid yourself. People are still going to die for a lack of access to medical care or because they had to wait in line for their turn for medical because of increased demand for a limited resource or because medical professionals have chosen to leave(which also increases waiting time) as many are considering doing because they see government as a big part of the reason for the existence of the problems with the provision of medical care in America or because it is determined that there is little chance of recovery and the dime can be spent somewhere else.

11) Comment by 8.3 - 19/06/2012

Unfortunately, one can regulate modes of transportation, legislating sickness might be a stretch. The pooling of costs are intended to reduce the exponential rise in medical care and medical insurance vs doing nothing, medical care inflation will continue with or without the AHCA. Since it is fashionable in some circles to do nothing about a huge looming problem under the guise of "liberty" and "freedom" and whatever other useless platitudes one wishes to throw at the problem, little has been mentioned about the consequences of doing nothing, since consequences will occur outside of a short political cycle. Although losing a car is inconvenient, there are clear ethical issues when denying medical care, especially in an American society and even more especially considering a right to life. It seems that right to life includes being born into misery, especially when there are no financial means to obtains medical care, then enjoying a substandard educational milieu where policy is determined by political whim, and then being shot to death as a testament for the right to bear arms or dying for lack of access to medical care. . But I digress, an individual mandate by any other name is still an individual mandate

12) Comment by InPVille - 19/06/2012

@8.3: "Congratualtions, Mr. tradewinns, you just made an excellent argument for the AHCA, aka "Obama"care." One significant difference between the two is that under tradewinns' thinking, those who don't have automobile insurance would not have a motor vehicle if they didn't pay for the insurance to cover it. If we applied AHCA thinking to auto insurance, the government would mandate that both an automobile and automobile insurance benefits be provided to all.

13) Comment by 8.3 - 18/06/2012

Congratualtions, Mr. tradewinns, you just made an excellent argument for the AHCA, aka "Obama"care.

14) Comment by tradewinns - 17/06/2012

8.3: "These answers about haves and have nots, the "poor" etc. have nothing to do with the glaring contradictions of the statements supporting a mandate for insurance coverage". that's exactly what began this conversation. if you can not afford to purchase the state law mandated automobile insurance, you can not drive in La. currentley that law is NOT being enforced and the "have's" are having to pay far more than necessary to cover the law breakers (the have not's) than they should. the primary benefactors (excluding any benefit to the lawbreakers) are the insurance companies and their cornies. this is all being done to the detriment of law obiding La. citizens who follow this as well as other laws.

15) Comment by 8.3 - 17/06/2012

These answers about haves and have nots, the "poor" etc. have nothing to do with the glaring contradictions of the statements supporting a mandate for insurance coverage. Let me make it simpler: The AHCA also mandates insurance coverage. Attacking the "poor" obfuscates the contradictions. Some of these posts illustrate very well the dismal state of Louisiana education and the propensity of the less astute to have their thinking dictated to them like pablum, baby food, rather than seeking the true liberty that is bequeathed by independent thought and consideration. Unfortunately, income in Louisiana is going to keep on declining, in direct relation to the decline of its educational systems. While the more talented and educated will leave the state for better opportunities elsewhere, opportunities will decline for the less able that are left. Since Louisiana has not and is not making investments in a viable future, once the oil runs out it will be a miserable place.

16) Comment by mcarter - 16/06/2012

Way over some people's head tradewinns. They would rather complain about the have (what is perceived as haves) and have nots rather than work hard like the "haves". When we all have decided we are going stay home and get paid for doing nothing, I wonder where the "free" stuff will come from.

17) Comment by tradewinns - 16/06/2012

wow, 8.3, we've, no just you, have resorted to name calling instead of fact finding. the "rules of law", of which you hear politicians and lawyers talking, are the laws passed by society's representatives to govern our society to protect our society from those who would abuse our society for their own self interest to society's detriment. (social science 101) you have stated i'm a conservative. perhaps i am, or perhaps i'm just a taxpayer who has gotten their financial situation (income down through no fault of mine by 15% since 2006) kicked in the groin enough, we've had it. i have taken a direct wallet hit. the "poor" have not lost a penny. even the bastion of liberalism msnbc stated the poor and the rich have done well over the last 7 years. then you hear about such as the "free" cell phones. in fact they get anywhere from one to fifteen phones! may not be kosher, but it is happening. my cell isn't free (i only have one and it is a basic one not an i phone etc)., and their phone isn't free either, i, and others like me, pay for it . so stick and stones and all that other stuff, when you start paying me to do nothing, i'll listen to you-or like our current crop- not!

18) Comment by 8.3 - 16/06/2012

Breakwinds blathers: "there's a reason there is a law mandating insurance coverage. it is to protect society." Really? Is that a general statement or maybe you should qualify it better to validate your conservative bona fides and demonstrate party obeisance?

19) Comment by mcarter - 16/06/2012

"infested with republicans" wow, Twinkie. Sorry but we are not the "killer bees" we are the "worker bees" who are tired of the"give me, give me bees". Let me tell you I grew up poor. My parents never excepted or EXPECTED hand outs. There were no " safety nets". They worked hard as I do. If you are poor then get off your butt and find a job maybe even two.

20) Comment by nimby? - 16/06/2012

not all of the poor are are needy , nor are they helpless . some appear to be poor by choice . why else would someone choose to quit school ?

21) Comment by tradewinns - 16/06/2012

twinkie1cat: "......poor state that some people, a lot of people, cannot afford insurance....." then they should not be driving! why should i have to pay for their insurance? it sounds as if youare one of those who believe the government should provide anything for nothing the "poor" want. well i'm one of the ones that have to pay for it. if insurance isn't needed to drive, then change the law, there's a reason there is a law mandating insurance coverage. it is to protect society. there is a mcdonalds near where they live, work there and walk to work! mcarter: as i stated, your husband is one in a billion. i'm sorry you got one of the few cops who decided to be an a** that day.

22) Comment by twinkie1cat - 15/06/2012

The Host you may be living in the wrong era. Back in the early days of America only white males who owned land could vote. It was not until the 20th Century that women could. Many people fought and died for the Voting Rights Act in the 1960s. Yet the rich Republicans would disenfranchise, once again, pretty much everyone but white males. (But they would try not to make it seem that way by letting conservative black males and their own submissive wives have the vote.)

23) Comment by twinkie1cat - 15/06/2012

Go back to Florida Mr. Winn from the state that fixes presidential elections and lets vigilantes get away with shooting unarmed teenagers, the once great state that is now infested with not only Republicans, but Teapartiers, the killer bees of the political world. Go back please. Do you not realize that Louisiana is such a poor state that some people, a lot of people, cannot afford insurance, that they will get some on their first full, minimum wage paycheck from their job at McDonalds??? But you would crush their car!!! The bus service is going to suck for a few more months and it does not and will not go to a lot of the places that people need to go to because the Republicans fought against the tax and caused CATS to be a lot more limited than it should be. Have a little compassion, ok. People are already have to pay exhorbitant fines if they let their insurance lapse for more than 7 days even if they don't get a ticket or have a wreck. This state is out to HARM anyone who does not have plenty of money. Oh, and they don't like old people either, so you might want to try Georgia instead of Louisiana for your retirement.

24) Comment by mcarter - 15/06/2012

Tradewinds there is no more to the story! It was in the middle of the day on a Saturday afternoon as my husband was coming home from playing golf. He had nor has any warrants or driving history. It was an insurance check and inspection sticker check. He was in my car and as we are non smokers (non drinkers, business owners, fairly respectable couple if I may say so) and it was in the ashtray and as I said he had forgotten where I kept it and I had the only cell phone between us at the time and he couldn't call. Sorry to tell you but the officer pulled the tag and wrote the ticket even though my husband produced the proof of insurance on the spot. We have never NOT had insurance. I never said cops are bad or bullies and I will be the first to say that are underpaid hard workers, but on this day this particular cop was an a**.

25) Comment by tradewinns - 15/06/2012

mcarter, your poor husband is one in a billion. unless of course there's more to the story than you have mentioned. most officers are not going to go to the trouble of physically taking the tag off the vehicle. they normally (without proof of insurance with you) run the individual for wants/warrants check driving history and ownership of vehicle. if nothing else pops up, they either give you a ticket for not having it or tell you to get it in the car and let you go with a warning. cops are not out to be mean or bully folks, they are just trying to do their job-get the bad guys.

26) Comment by mcarter - 15/06/2012

The tag does get pulled. My poor husband got pulled over several years ago before he had a cell phone. He could not remember where the insurance card was (in the ashtray). As the officer pulled the plate and began writing the ticket he remembered. The "kind" (Sarcasm) officer continued writing the ticket and basically told him "too bad". Had to pay ticket and pay to get plate back.

27) Comment by tradewinns - 15/06/2012

i forgot to add that in private sales, the seller doesn't care, but to get a tag the state does (supposely). if the insurance expires in 30 days, which happens, the offender still continues driving. if caught by the state (any law officer) their tag can be pulled (usually doesn't happen) TILL THEY PURCHASE ANOTHER POLICY (ANOTHER 30 DAYS AND REPEAT) if their unit is crushed, the offender is out of the money for the unit. again they lose money. insurance will begin to look cheaper.

28) Comment by The_Host - 15/06/2012

But that is the American way. Force 1/2 of society to foot the bill for the other half but let them all vote since we don't want to disenfranchise any leeches lord forbid.

29) Comment by tradewinns - 15/06/2012

no, the cars need to be crushed. otherwise it's business as usual. especially those "buy here, pay here" lots. they sell the same inexpensive unit several times. the purchaser has to secure insurance to legally drive off the lot. they buy these individual monthly ins. policies. one month ins. and they're back on the road. there's no need for the lot to insure the unit stays insured. because they charge about the same money for a down payment as they have in the unit, the worse they can do is break even. otherwise, if anything happens, they get the unit back and resell it to either someone else or the one they sold it to before. the vast majority of new car sales financers insist you carry insurance. if you don't provide it they will insure it for you and charge you the premium (or reposses the unit). that premium is the most expensive you can buy. perhaps there is a bunch of m-b, audi, bmw. lexus, etc on the road uninsured. driven by drivers will no personal asstes that can be attached, but i doubt it. and cats is currently running buses somewhere or the other and spending taxpayer's money faster than they are allocated it. next year will just give them more of it.

30) Comment by Attila - 15/06/2012

@DMJ: I take it that since it will be a couple of years before CATS is a viable alternative to driving an uninsured car that you believe that until that time you think it is ok to continue driving without insurance?

31) Comment by DMJ - 15/06/2012

I don't think Mr. Winn is being totally serious when he suggests the crushing of the cars. I think that suggestion is just an outlet for his anger at uninsured motorists. As someone who does have insurance on my vehicle, I definitely agree that insured people shouldn't have the shoulder the burden of increased premiums and costs because of those who don't have insurance- kind of like health care. Also, Mr. Winn should realize that although the CATS tax did pass, no new revenue has been collected and won't until at least the beginning of next year. It will take a couple of years, by CATS' own admission, to roll out the reforms and make public transportation a viable alternative to driving an uninsured beater car to work.

32) Comment by InPVille - 15/06/2012

When you obtain a car by financing the purchase, you do not receive the legal title until all payments are made to the financing institution. So if you do as Tom Winn suggests you will be destroying property owned by one party because of the inaction of another party.

33) Comment by CountryBoysCanSurvive - 15/06/2012

I agree with one extra provision, the driver should be in the car while it is being crushed.

34) Comment by InPVille - 14/06/2012

Even if you accept the idea of seizing the car, where is the sense in destroying a valuable car? If the car is being financed and destroyed, the costs for these losses will in the end be passed on to other citizens who try to finance a car. Seems better to me that ownership be returned to the financing institution than destroy it. I believe property seized related to drug activity is not destroyed out of hand.